Part 5 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Umm ok I asked WHY Catholics dont let women vote for pope. You said "because its a rule". So technically yes you gave an answer. It's a completely moronic answer like a child would give. If thats your answer then you shouldnt be on this forum soliciting tough questions at all.
And stop saying Im angry. I am not angry. I am amused at how defenseless you are to such simple questions.
As far as the quoting goes. Its because you keep quoting inside of quotes, removing the end quotes and then quoting again. If you three stopped editing the person you are quoting you wont have the problem. All you have to do is click the reply with quote button then type underneath it. Until you get that down, dont even attempt a multi quote.

 

If they do call FEMA....it will be a disaster!

 

It's because the authors of the OT and St. Paul hated women and refused to give them any power whatsoever and the Catholic Church abides by an ancient book that views women as inferior humans at best and sub-human chattel at worst.

 

And you're posting a link to a website with the FSM, a link to infidels.org and lots of exclamation points. No personal bias here!

The idea that Matthew never knew Jesus is based of the belief that Mark's Gospel was written prior to Matthew and Mark was not even a disciple. While Mark was not a disciple, virtually every Church Father that spoke of Mark refers to him as the "interpreter of Peter." Mark's Gospel is actually Peter's.

While, I don't take anything your website says at face value, it does bring up an interesting point about eyewitnesses. Matthew could not of been an eyewitness to the birth of Jesus. That's a given. There are moments such as Jesus walking on water, the transfiguration, and the agony in the garden where Matthew was absent and Peter was present. Matthew had to get those missing parts of the story from Peter or Mark. Not only that, but Peter enjoyed a preeminence among the apostles. He was the one whom Christ gave him the keys to his kingdom, it was he whom Christ tasked him to "feed his sheep."

The webpage you cited makes the claim that the name Matthew was "assigned" to the Gospel in question. No. This is simply the earliest recorded mention of who wrote the Gospel. If Matthew didn't write it, then who did? There exists no rival tradition. The earliest mention of Matthew as it's author dates back to about 130 A.D from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.

"Matthew, indeed composed the sayings in the Hebrew language; and each one interpreted them to the best of his ability."

- Papias of Hierapolis- Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord

 

If you want to put it that way, yes. If the Christian hadn't stand up and successful stop Muslim aggression we will all be living in a condition like in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran etc. no computer, no telephone, no cell phone, no internet no any type of modern equipment you see now. Beside, who invented electricity, who invented the telephone, locomotive, air plane, colt 45, armalite, atomic bomb, space satellite, oh yes who invented computer, cell phone, internet and wireless communication??? Western countries that were save by Christians.

 

I answer you straight forward you hate it, I answer with elaboration you claim it is a strawman you hate it, moderators have said it is a website bug on the quote program you insist it is not.
Until you get it down you will never be satisfied with a straight or elaborate factual answers because I am a Christian who refuse to deny my God and for that you get really pissed and angry, still I will not ignore you so don't ever claim that I am not answering your so called tough questions.

 

So you know how to interpret the Bible I thought you don't believe in the Bible? wow, I believer, too bad your interpretations are wrong and I can understand that because you don't understand the Bible.

 

Those are not my theories those are the theories that you claim scholars dismiss about the Exodus so again go talk to the scholars not me you seem to have problems with scholars on the Exodus and scientist regarding evolution and you keep bringing it tome or blaming it on me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews
Since the discovery of the 2nd millennium inscriptions mentioning the Habiru, there have been many theories linking these to the Hebrews. Some scholars argue that the name "Hebrew" is related to the name of the seminomadic Habiru people, who are recorded in Egyptian inscriptions of the 13th and 12th centuries BCE as having settled in Egypt.[9][11] This is rebutted by others who propose that the Hebrews are mentioned in older texts of the 3rd Intermediate Period of Egypt (15th century BCE) as Shasu of Yhw.[16] Modern scholars conclude that the attempts to relate apiru (Habiru) to the Hebrew word ibri (Hebrews) are not fruitful.[17]

The Jewish historian Josephus maintains that the Hyksos were in fact the children of Jacob who joined his son Joseph in Egypt to escape a famine in the land of Canaan. The Hyksos first appeared in Egypt during the eleventh dynasty. They came out of the second intermediate period in control of Avaris and the Nile delta and ruled Lower Egypt as Semite kings (fifteenth dynasty). Kamose, the last king of the Theban 17th Dynasty, refers to the Hyksos King Apophis as a Chieftain of Retjenu (Canaan). At the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, they were expelled by an ethnic Egyptian pharaoh. The term "Hyksos" derives from the Egyptian expression heka khasewet ("rulers of foreign lands"). Josephus records the false etymology that the Greek phrase Hyksos stood for the Egyptian phrase Hekw Shasu meaning the Shepherd Kings, which scholars have only recently shown means "rulers of foreign lands."[18]

Israelites are defined as the descendants of Jacob, son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham. Eber, an ancestor of Jacob (six generations removed), is a distant ancestor of many people, including the Israelites, Ishmaelites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, Midianites and Qahtanites. Among historical scholars,[who?] there is some disagreement about the relationship between the Hebrews and Israelites.
The terms "Hebrews" and "Israelites" usually describe the same people, called Hebrews before the conquest of the Land of Canaan and Israelites afterwards.[11][19]

Scholars have not abandon anything they are still continuing their research that is why some believe the Exodus was actually referring to the Hyksos who scholars believe morph or evolved to become the Hebrews or Israel. Or they are tribes that inhabit Canaan. Scholars agree that the 12 Tribes of Israel existed and that it became the two kingdoms, Northern Kingdom and Judea sandwich between two powerful empire Egypt and Assyria and scholars will all agree that eventually both Judea and Northern Kingdom of Israel will be conquered by Assyria.

You keep insisting the Exodus is absolutely false and yet you contradict yourself as to the origin of the people of Israel, maybe you are trying to say that the Jews suddenly appeared from no where??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelites#Historical_Israelites
The prevailing opinion today is that the Israelites are an outgrowth of the indigenous Canaanites who had resided in the area since the 8th millennium BC.[7] The name Israel first appears c. 1209 BCE, at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the very beginning of the period archaeologists and historians call Iron Age I, in an inscription of the Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah. The inscription is very brief and says simply: "Israel is laid waste and his seed is not". The hieroglyph accompanying the name "Israel" indicates that it refers to a people, most probably located in the highlands of Samaria.[8] Over the next two hundred years (the period of Iron Age I) the number of highland villages increased from 25 to over 300[9] and the settled population doubled to 40,000.[10] There is general agreement that the majority of the population living in these villages was of Canaanite origin.[9] By the 10th century BCE a rudimentary state had emerged in the north-central highlands,[11] and in the 9th century this became a kingdom. The kingdom was sometimes called Israel by its neighbours, but more frequently it was known as the "House (or Land) of Omri."[12] Settlement in the southern highlands was minimal from the 12th through the 10th centuries BCE, but a state began to emerge there in the 9th century,[13] and from 850 BCE onwards a series of inscriptions are evidence of a kingdom which its neighbours refer to as the "House of David."[14]

The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים, Yehudim), also known as the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group who trace their origins to the ancient Israelites of the Levant. The Samaritans consider themselves to be the remaining population of the Northern Kingdom of Israel who were not expelled during the ten tribes exile, and who joined with the incoming Assyrian populations to form the Samaritan community. Some biblical scholars also consider that parts of the Judean population had stayed to live in their homes during the exilic period and later joined the returning Israelites from Babylon and formed the Jews of the classic and Hasmonean era.

Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Mizrachi Jews, Yemenite Jews, Karaite Jews,

 

The Church in general does not believe that all of the Bible is inspired. Some of it, but not all.

 

Origen thought that everyone, even the devil, could be saved.

Salvation has little to do with accepting or rejecting "his payment". Obviously there was no such think in the OT. As for the NT Jesus himself states a number of times that works are required for salvation.

James (brother of Jesus) concurs with the teachings of Jesus when he writes his letter (James 2) in refutation of the Pauline doctrine (salvation by faith alone) that some of the early Christians were adopting.

Believe in who ? What God do you refer to. Is believe in God in general ok or is there a specific God that folks need believe.

Is it El, the God of Abraham to which you refer ?

If go is omniscient and all knowing then God already knows what is going to happen. Thus, not only is this a puppet show but it is one where God already knows the ending.

Perhaps God also thinks the Bible is ludicrous, or at least parts of it. After all it is ludicrous how many contradictions there are. Obviously these have come from the hand of man as God would not make these mistakes, would he ?

Perhaps the point of this life is to figure out what is ludicrous, and what is not, and this is how one will be judged at the end of days.

 

That isn't what I claimed, that is what Wikipedia claimed. Hence why it was in quotes.

I don't care what some scholars think. What do you think. You say that the Bible is literally true? Almost any scholar you would find would dismiss the Biblical narrative of the Exodus as made up. So, how does that resonate with YOUR claim that the Bible is literally true?

No. I am saying that the Bible's story of 2,000,000 people escaping Egypt, Egypt's total population being only 3,500,000 at the time of the supposed exodus, is a flat out lie. If you want to call it an allegory for the Hyskos, fine, but then you are saying that the Bible is not to be taken literally in regards to the Exodus.

 

Contradictions are usually brought about by interpretation... perhaps your interpretation is faulty. "ludicrous" is a perception you hold and amounts to nothing more than your private and personal opinion... which don't really amount to much of anything.

 

It is timely that you brought this up. I just responded to a post in relation to "the will of God" in another thread.

I ask a number of questions in relation to various apparent contradictions. Perhaps you can help out by resolving the questions I ask as pertaining to the will of God.

The problem is figuring out what God's will is.

Should we have women as priests ( as some women were prophets in the OT) or should we go with Paul and not let women even speak in Church ?

Should we abort babies that are born out of wedlock as dictated by God, or should we not judge as Jesus recommends?

Is it Gods will that we are saved by faith alone as Paul suggests, or did Jesus get it right when he said that it was works that gain entrance into heaven or James (brother of Jesus) who, in response to early Christians who were adopting Paul's doctrine, stated that faith without works is dead and gave a detailed refutation of Pauline doctrine ?

Is it Gods will that we abstain from sex as Paul suggests or is it Gods will that we be fruitful and multiply ?

Should we believe in inerrancy of the Bible as Evangelical denominations suggest or should we go with the mainstream Protestant, as well as Catholic an Orthadox position that the Bible has been changed over time by the hand of man ?

Should we not drink alcohol as some Christian denominations suggest or do we maintain the integrity of the most sacred ritual of Christ and take wine with communion ?

I could go on and on for pages but I think the point here is clear. We do know with much certainty what the will of God is.

I completely disagree that the Church is not based on rational thought. I agree that some denominations tend to preach this mantra more than others in relation to some things such as the Trinity but not in general.

Speaking of the Trinity. Do we believe what the early Church fathers believed (that Jesus is subordinate (not equal) to the Father) which is bolstered by the numerous places that Jesus referred to God as someone other than himself ( including his last words on the cross "my god my god why have you forsaken me"), or do we believe that Jesus "is" God because Emperor Constantine declared it so at the council of Nicea and would broach no debate on the subject ?

Do we go with the advice of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and in many other places in the Bible to seek knowledge and gain wisdom or do we not bother with "rational thought'.

Do we go with the Jewish tradition and question everything, or should we maintain that " just have faith" is the answer to all tough religious questions ?

 

It's common for jesus freaks to deny the obvious I expect that.

 

Oh, ok. You can't come with anything better, so you resort to name calling? I thought maybe instead you would provide a different link. One that at least backs up it's claims with facts, but oh well.

 

No you responded to a question. You did not answer it. I will rephrase the question now to a remedial form. But this just shows why so many people are leaving the church. People like you refuse to answer simple questions then become angry with people if they press you for "real" answers adults require.
Now for the most remedial form of the question you avoided on purpose.
What reasons do catholics cite for creating the rule that women cant elect the pope? Refusal to answer this cogently means you are hiding the answer because you know the truth. You and I both know why you arent answering and also why your fellow believers are pretendind this question wasnt asked. If you cant answer this simple question why are you asking for tough questions? Its silly.
Here's an example of how you think you answer questions.
Q) Why does it rain?
Your answer...."because it does"
My response..."thats not an answer"
Your response...." I answered you its not my fault you are too stupid to understand the answer. You're an angry man!"

 

People here seem to be atacking things that they have heard a christian say, or things some churches might teach, and even talking about "god" as if they all hold the same definition and meaning for that term.

For me, it makes sense to say Money is your god if you want to get rich.

So if we are to determine what is the god of people who ant to get to "heaven," we need first identify whahey mean by "heaven," before we can see what behaviors they will have to "worship," and what "god" is the Ideal they msut bow down to.

Right?

For example, if we compared 32AD to this amazing 21st century, we might say this is the heaven those people hoped that they would be resurrected into.
Along those lines, heaven might be described a projecting this idea into our own future, say 3 or 4 centuries ahead, and assuming that we could be "born again" into the new Age yet to come.


This may seem to differ from what scripture is talking about because people have been raised in a paradigm of religious gibbeish that does not see what scripture does say from this perspective.
But, if we look back, the muslims illustrate the backwardness of what is really close to the life style of the first century, while Christianity has, indeed, prospered by eliminating all the previous mythological gods and goddesses of ancient Rome and Greece.

The ancient people of history did in fact disappear as Christianity and the acceptance of Christ becme Universal over all that western world.
The 1000 years of Unversal Christianity did, de facto, lead these people into this relative heaven of the 21st century.

The basic idea I present here is that the worship of Truth,... i.e.; "I am the truth, and the way,"... has already progressed toward that ends which scripture promises us all.

 

The numbers which are expressed in the Book of Numbers are prophecy.

The 601,000 men which were to Exodus Egypt and finally gain access into the Promised Land was fulfilled to that number, along with their families that enlarged the numbers to 2 million popuklation in 1948, when Israel again was established as a State.

 

1 Corinthians 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

 

Well thanks, for the actual rule. But Im running out of ways to ask. It says "let your women keep silence" I want to know WHY it says that. I already know they are not permitted. I want to know why they came to that conclusion and made a rule? Is there any religious person out there that is honest enough to answer this question?

 

Truth IS subordinate, but nevertheless the image of the ever unfolding almighty force behind Reality, to whom we must all bow down.


TRINITY:
Our Lord is (1) Truth, [John 14:6], in whose (2) Spirit of mind we must commit our lives, in order to face the (3) Father of all Nature, The Almighty, the evermore unfolding Reality, within which we all exist.

 

Oh...
Why?

Because the point of christianity is tell men the truth about how their running after the women ebds with her catching them.

The truth is that through Feminism and the promotion of sexual pormiscuity, a strong patriarchy decays into a weak feminized matriarchy, none of which has ever survived for very long.

Neighboring patriarchies like Islam today, or China and N. Korea will rise up and invade these matriarchies from outside, while the inner cities filled up with the fatherless children withinthe agtes are the sours=ce of 70% of all violant crime and other social problems.

Either the greed stricken patriarchies from without, or the criminal barbarian element within will sooner or later tear down these matriarchies, even while the women help them in everyway.
The resouces become stretched with feel good socialistic costly ventures, give aways to idle lazy people, and the enormous Welfare expense, like $1 Trillion dollars for 2012.

The ONLY place to cut is the very Military that could defend them all.

 

No offense but this is word salad. There is no coherent answer in this at all. I want a succinct answer to why catholics do not allow women to vote for pope. At then end of your answer you are talking about welfare and cutting military defense.
Here this is the answer I require before I let this go.
Catholics dont let women vote for pope because...(state the churches formal cited reasons here)

 

Nevermind, I will inform you all on your own faith since you are unaware. Jesus chose 12 apostles who were men. They in turn chose men. The theory is if Jesus wanted women to be priests he would have chosen some women. This means either Jesus was a mysogynist or having a penis gives you more wisdom.
Why women sit there in a pew and be taught they are inferior is beyond me. Stockholm syndrome for sure.

 

Interesting concept but it does not really answer the question.