Home | Community | Message Board

Magic-Mushrooms-Shop.com
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543374 - 10/21/07 03:54 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Or is your sense of masculinity bound up in being percieved as her protector?




This sense of masculinity is fear. The idea of being a protector implies a power hiearchy, to compensate for fear that their partner is free to make their own choices. It needs to fade away as humans become more evolved and aware. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543410 - 10/21/07 04:06 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Agreed. The man-as-protector paradigm is about nothing more than control. If women are kept in a state of fear, each seeking a strong man to protect her from the rest, they are kept in a state of subservience always having to be grateful for the menial security provided. It's like the role of 'bitch' in prison. Some weak men accept it to avoid fighting thier own fights. It's pitiful whether a man or a women submit to the role. It's also pitiful that some men are so desperate to feel a sense of power that they lack that they will assault women. Protector and assaulter are two sides of the same coin.

I'm much more interested in developing a true and equal partnership in which both parties recognize the other's freedom to sever ties at any time, and in which both parties remain only so long as they are satisfied and strengthened by the bond. I don't need a protector, I do just fine on my own thank-you.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543414 - 10/21/07 04:07 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Pure hearsay.:tongue: Now please, don't forget it.




Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.

mushroomtrip;

Quote:

You're not paying attention to what a debate serves for, cause otherwise you would sustain your point instead saying empty words like "I don't have time", I don't like you. :thumbdown:




I don't have to debate the way you want me to. I'm not obligated to fit myself into your little mold. I already said I was willing to back myself up.




fireworks:




   
Quote:

Quote:

    nonsense.



Proclaimation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:




Not true at all. It's worth it just to show that there are people who
disagree and they can back it up. When I say nonsense, it is referring to something I believe so obvious there's no need to explain. It's like trying to convince someone  white is white, when they've convinced themselves it's black. It's very difficult.

   
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

    You just state this without even explaining, as if it's common knowledge. If they could be proven to be forgeries, then Christianity would be over.






Faulty logic. Its not like dropping water on a wicked witch. :lol:




It's not faulty logic at all. It only seems faulty to a person who is has convinced themselves that Christians are unwilling to consider criticism or, logically defend their beliefs.  When you say this, you already presuppose that christians are closed minded. If forgeries can be proven, then forgeries can b proven. If they can't be proven they can't be proven. The 24,000+ manuscripts we have and the internal exegesis do not show any forgeries.


 
Quote:


   
Quote:

This has to do with value, not roles. And what evidence do you have to show that this is any more valid than the books you don't like? None. They are all valid, and you just pick and choose what you like and throw away the rest.






No, they aren't all valid. Unless you can actually cite some information for us to consider, for example, perhaps actually referencing some of these books and that which they propose, you are wasting everyone's times.




Unless you can site some information for us to consider that they're not all valid, then my arguement remains the same.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/masoud01.html



    Quote:
    There is proof for this.



How much do I need to show you?Honestly, I don't care if I convince you. I care for other readers, who might be looking for the other side, and they can search more on their own. But once again, as i have pointed out, I can go on as long as I need to.

I learned an important lesson, it's you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. The best you can do is state the Truth, and point them in the right direction. You're asking me to answer something that would require enormous amounts of information to show in it's entirety. Unless you want to get into an essay debate, where we all type massive essays to each other, then it's not going to work the way you're asking. I think this all started off on the wrong foot begin with.

here, educated youself:

http://www.ldolphin.org/semir.html
http://bupc.montana.com/whores/worsemi.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/Nimrod.html

Let me know if you need more.


Quote:

Proclamation with no substantiation is useless. :thumbdown:




Nope.



   
Quote:

Quote:
Quote:


    First of all, if you're so intent on getting the original pronunciation correct, it's Maria or Mariam, not miriam.






Substantiation?





You pretend like this is reasonable.

Quote:

G3137
Μαρία, Μαριάμ
Maria  Mariam
mar-ee'-ah, mar-ee-am'
Of Hebrew origin [H4813]; Maria or Mariam (that is, Mirjam), the name of six Christian females: - Mary.





   
Quote:

Quote:


    But the Holy Spirit being deemed Male because Jesus was manifested in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit is outrageous.






So outrageous that its contagious? :strokebeard:




Yes, like herpes.

   

   
Quote:

Unlike man, God doesn't need a female counterpart to create human life.


Quote:


:what:

You know this, how? :confused:




Because of scripture which is firmly supported by every natural science and all history, and by common sense.




    Quote:

   
Quote:

Quote:

And Jesus Christ has always existed as the word of God.






Quote:

Jesus Christ ate barbeque ribs with me down at the bar and grill last Friday... is that existing as the word of God? He was so drunk, I thought he wouldn't stop hitting on those poor waiters. :frown:








I find it so appalling when people go on like this. You can go on about the flying spaghetti monster and whatnot all you like, but it does not adress the evidence given for his divinity; his miracles, his fulfilled prophecy. It does not adress the authority of the world of God, or the evidence given by Christians for it's authority. You can apply whatever false circumstances you want to The God of the bible, but that does not make it true. It's an inaccurate distortion.

   
   
Quote:

Quote:

You are imposing pagan mystic symbology on Christianity, it is nonsense. once again you have no basis for your claims. You like to claim Christianity is forged, but take a look at gnosticism, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. It has no authority, it's just vain babblings that do not edify.






This isn't a judgement forum, it is a forum for the discussion of ideas. Proposing baseless judgement without the support of ideas serves no purpose. No one is considering your judgement to have any value, as a result. :shrug:




It isn't a baseless judgement. gnosticism seriously has no authority. It cannot be traced back to any of the apostles with any veracity. It has no way of validating itself.  There is no evidence for it. period. Not much room for arguement, there's very little to argue over. what do we find when we look back in the history of the church? We find the n.t. was recognised as the word of God by the general people long before it was ever canonized. The canonization was really just about affirming the veracity of scripture and conforming what's false.

some read for you:

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html

this is an article on davinci code, but it answers many of the same arguements:

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

and here's something on the veracity of the book of John for you gnostics..

http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/johndef.html

   

   
Quote:

Quote:

I'm not surprised you're interested in it. It's full of worthless ritual and is traced right back to the same Babylonian mystery religion.






Quote:

Personalisms are not welcome in this forum. :thumbdown:







i won't argue. It wouldn't do me any good. If you say this is a personalims, I'll  try not to do it again. It seems that in actually though, we are allowed personalisms, just not negative ones.

   
Quote:


   
Quote:

Man was created in God's image. But what about woman? How can you criticize what you do not understand? If you knew what nature she was created in, then you would not criticize so easily.






Quote:

In what nature was woman created in, and how have you determined this? :sherlock:







I suppose I have to  go in detail now, otherwise you'll never let me live it down.

Here we go.

Fortunately I had part of this discussion before so I'll just copy and paste, and edit a bit and save myself some time.

Quote:


First of all sex is an intimate part of a special relationship that's private and sacred and kept in faithfulness and love. Adultery is an attack against the holy and sacred bond of man and woman in marriage. Jesus says:

Quote:
Mathew 19

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.


Now man can have more than one wife and here is why. It has to do with the nature of the woman. Woman was created for man, and is the glory of man.. And man was created for God, and is the glory of God..Now man is the master of a woman, but not in the sense that you would think of like a slave being abused. But rather as the leader and authority. Jesus's disciples called him master too.


John 13:13
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am
Now you really need to understand more about the nature of the woman.


These verses can give us a better understanding:


Ephesians 5

20Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

21Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


You see he is using the relationship with a man and his wife as an allegory to Christ and his church! And what's more, she was created in that image. Now this righteousness and love towards the wife that Paul speaks of is the same love that God expected in the old Testament. And Paul would know, he was a pharisee amoung pharisees. He was a Jew, and he was well acquainted with what the bible taught . Now it's true that there were many evil men towards wifes and likewise evil women towards husbands in the old testament and the new for sure ( I mean the time periods). But there are also examples of love and dedication such as Jacob who worked 14 years to get the wife he desired and cherished. Or Abraham who loved his wife and bought a piece of land to bury her and honor her when she died. And surely others. And you forget that God told children to honor their mothers, do you think then that he would expect women to be treated as objects? No way.

Their were men with hard hearts towards their wifes, just as Jesus said:


Mathew 19

7They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.



If women were not special creations to God, then the idea of a private and sacred fellowship between man and woman would be meaningless. Didn't God also say, love your neighbor as your self? Women are surely our neighbors also.

Now Paul also speaks of how women should act and be treated. This will shed more light on things:

1 Peter 3

1Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

2While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

5For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

6Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.


7Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

You see? This is how the Bible teaches we should treat women. We should honor them with our strength as to a weaker vessel, this being also an allegory of Christs love for his bride, the church. Does God despise his bride? No! And he created women as something very dear and special to him.

In the book of Genesis, when God created Eve, Adam said of her:


Genesis 2

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.


24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Now remember what Christ said conscerning this last verse:

Quote:
5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
So you see, just as woman was born of man, the bride of Christ, that is his church and body of believers were born of him by his word which is spirit. It says of him:


1 Corinthians 15:45
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
It is by his Spirit that we are made into new creatures.



2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
Now, Christians are children of God, are are held together in the bond of fellowship. But Christ is also our master, and we are his servants. But it's as Jesus said:


Quote:
Mathew 6

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.


Now just as Christ is our master, and we are to be set apart (holy) and faithful to him, in the same way is the woman to have one husband and master also. This is the natural order, and it is an allegory of Christs love for his church. To remind you again:


28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinepalmersc
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/23/06
Posts: 425
Loc: Arkansas
Last seen: 6 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7543437 - 10/21/07 04:13 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

So this is perceived as fear? I am struggling with what you are saying. Two people come together as one in marriage out of love. There is such a thing as womanhood and manhood. They are not the same thing and not in conflict with each other.

I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end. Certainly a relatively new phenomena.

The kind of respect that a woman deserves is not shown anymore as a whole. The kind of woman that opposes chivalry is not one I want to be with.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543447 - 10/21/07 04:16 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:



Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.





Because to understand the meaning of scripture with any historical accuracy, one must consider translational issues from both the original scriptures as well as in the diffusion of biblical stories from other cultures (babylon, mesopotamia, etc.) One must also understand how scripture was changed several centuries after the fact by people like Augustine - church doctrine was developed long after the fact. It is also vital to understand social/cultural factors at the time including what sort of ideologies were floating around and which of them found home in christianity. Etc, etc.

To quote from whatever modern english bible you've got handy is not good enough in regards to the topic at hand, as this topic is completely about analysing source material and historical context. If you cannot engage on those grounds you are not engaging at all, simply talking like a broken record. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. What is being challenged is modern translations of scripture and church doctrine - you cannot refute arguments against it by quoting it. You have to go deeper. You have to make a case for why you believe your version is accurate. I'm handing this one to you - come on. Do the research - the better for you, the better for our debate. Don't you want some more effective tools in your arsenal of argument?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: Icelander]
    #7543678 - 10/21/07 05:22 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Icelander said:
And of course the woman defers to the man like the church unto christ, right?:monkeydance:

This is the line from men who fear women and seek to pacify their fears. Yep men are the stronger sex all right.:tongue:




It looks like someone got a personality transplant from 1950s TV sitcoms like 'Father Knows Best,' 'Leave It To Beaver,' and 'Ozzie and Harriet.' How easily Biblical patriarchal bias fits with a semi-modern version. I wonder if this kind of individual refuses to be operated on by a female surgeon, or flown around the globe by a female pilot.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVeritas
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543681 - 10/21/07 05:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I'm much more interested in developing a true and equal partnership in which both parties recognize the other's freedom to sever ties at any time, and in which both parties remain only so long as they are satisfied and strengthened by the bond. I don't need a protector, I do just fine on my own thank-you.





Amen, sister! Can I get a hallelujah?

BTW, the myth of females being the weaker sex is baseless.  If we measure weakness/strength by ability to survive, then men clearly do not have the advantage.  Women live longer in every industrialized country.  The difference in non-industrialized (aka third world) countries is largely due to child birth complications.  Male embryos are more likely to be miscarried than female embryos. Male infants are much more likely to die than female infants.  Male adolescents are much more likely to die than female adolescents.  Women outnumber men in retirement homes & assisted living facilities.

As the saying goes, Ginger did everything that Fred did, but she did it backwards while wearing heels.  :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543688 - 10/21/07 05:23 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end.





I will say that your assertion is totally flawed.
Tell me exactly how, step by step, dating has been detrimental for relationships?
It is where we gather our experience from, it's how we find out what we want and don't want. We get to explore our unlimited variation of feelings, likes, dislikes, sexuality and also develop a sense of knowing how to make a relationship (one that's worth it) really work.
The reason why there were no divorces in the dark past is because women were subject to abuse (pretty much like now), but only them they were "educated" to live with it. Submit to a series of crap coming from their early ages, from their parents which taught them to obey their husbands, accept their infidelities, abuses of power and so on.
I'll give you a link that you might wanna check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Kinsey
And also a small quote from it:
Quote:

Kinsey is generally regarded as the father of sexology, the systematic, scientific study of human sexuality. He initially became interested in the different forms of sexual practices around 1933, after discussing the topic extensively with a colleague, Robert Kroc. It is likely that Kinsey's study of the variations in mating practices among gall wasps led him to wonder how widely varied sexual practices among humans were. During this work, he developed a scale measuring sexual orientation, now known as the Kinsey Scale which ranges from 0 to 6, where 0 is exclusively heterosexual and 6 is exclusively homosexual; a rating of 7, for asexual, was added later by Kinsey's associates.

In 1935, Kinsey delivered a lecture to a faculty discussion group at Indiana University, his first public discussion of the topic, wherein he attacked the "widespread ignorance of sexual structure and physiology" and promoted his view that "delayed marriage" (that is, delayed sexual experience) was psychologically harmful. Kinsey obtained research funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, which enabled him to inquire into human sexual behavior.

His Kinsey Reports—starting with the publication of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male in 1948, followed in 1953 by Sexual Behavior in the Human Female—reached the top of bestseller lists and turned Kinsey into an instant celebrity, and are still the bestselling scientific books of all time. Articles about him appeared in magazines such as Time, Life, Look, and McCall's. Kinsey's reports, which led to a storm of controversy, are regarded by many as an enabler of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Indiana University's president Herman B Wells defended Kinsey's research in what became a well-known test of academic freedom.




For even more information on how much bull shit and repression both men and women had to endure, only that these problems were never made public until then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_Reports

I suggest that you read that because it's a clear prove that SERIOUS problems of communication and coexistence have existed between men and women, and this is because sexual discrimination.

Quote:

Certainly a relatively new phenomena.




Yeah... about MORE than a lot of centuries. :grin:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7543741 - 10/21/07 05:40 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

I don't have to debate the way you want me to. I'm not obligated to fit myself into your little mold. I already said I was willing to back myself up.




It's not the way "I want to", it's the way a debate takes place.
This forum is dedicated to critical analysis which obviously you can't handle. :shrug:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: palmersc]
    #7543756 - 10/21/07 05:44 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

palmersc said:
So this is perceived as fear? I am struggling with what you are saying. Two people come together as one in marriage out of love. There is such a thing as womanhood and manhood. They are not the same thing and not in conflict with each other.

I will say that the concept of dating has been detrimental to male female relationships. Probably one of the many reasons for so many divorces today since there is no responsibility taken on either end. Certainly a relatively new phenomena.

The kind of respect that a woman deserves is not shown anymore as a whole. The kind of woman that opposes chivalry is not one I want to be with.




Care to define 'womanhood' and 'manhood' for me? What qualities are inherent to the sexes? Let me guess - the feminine is receptive, passive, nurturing, and emotional while the masculine is active, aggressive, strong and rational? :rolleyes:

Have you ever considered that men and women may have these characteristics because they are told from the moment they enter the world that they have these characteristics? Have you ever explored the concept of socialization? Have you ever met anyone that didn't fit the mold? Are there not men who prefer to snuggle, knit and dance and women who prefer to build houses, shoot guns and be study martial arts?

Have you ever thought that instead of recieving the penis the vagina surrounds or consumes it? Different paradigms... Perhaps the woman has a more active role than we think. :smirk:

The great thing about life is that we get to pick our values. Why not pick those that offer the most space for developing onself as fully as possible? It's more fun that way.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543780 - 10/21/07 05:50 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

The great thing about life is that we get to pick our values. Why not pick those that offer the most space for developing onself as fully as possible? It's more fun that way.




Some have to ask permission from good old god :smirk:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7543884 - 10/21/07 06:17 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Because to understand the meaning of scripture with any historical accuracy, one must consider translational issues from both the original scriptures





The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.

Quote:

what is the direct evidence and data for textual corruption? 95% of the errors found in the NT text are recognized as unintentional [Patz.MNT, 138]. This includes confusion of similar letters, repetition of words or sentences, and just plain bad copying. The remaining 5% of errors includes revised spelling and grammar, harmonization of similar passages, elimination of textual difficulties, and, indeed, theological or doctrinal changes. However, let it not be said that there was some systematic or even informal conspiracy to change the NT text.

Also working against any idea that some important text was lost or added is evidence that textual criticism was already in process as early as the second and third century! Origen complains of negligence and audacity by scribes; Jerome takes note of various scribal errors, and so on. [Metz.TNT, 152-4] These fellows, at least, were on guard against any variations! (To this we may also add that scribal science used in Alexandria on the NT in the early decades also ensured careful treatment of the text.)

In summary, here is a general admonition regarding charges of NT textual corruption: Until solid textual evidence is found for such changes, all that we are being offered with such objections is a "spaghetti against the wall" supposition. Rather than citing some particular textual difficulty, all we have the typical critic is some vague idea that somewhere, somehow, we must be missing SOMETHING that will cause problems for the Christian faith! Even Ehrman [Ehr.OxC, 46n], though he has only found a few dozen corruptions - which he was able to identify because original readings were still preserved! - cannot resist speculating that there are actually "hundreds" of undiscovered corruptions. This is rather like the wandering soothsayer who carries a sign saying "THE WORLD WILL END TOMORROW" - having faith that someday, he will be right! The evidence is far better that we DO have the "original text" -- it is simply mixed up with "unoriginal variants," and it is speculative to believe we have lost any real parts.




http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html

also page on ot canon

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html

the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.




Quote:

as well as in the diffusion of biblical stories from other cultures (babylon, mesopotamia, etc.)




I'm well aware of this. Most people hear there's similar stories to the bible in ancient mesoptiamian religion, and they just accept these "refutations" to the bible as QFT when it is not. People have been aware of this for thousands of years!!

They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true. If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion. And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source. Take a look here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/introduction.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/flood/ch1.asp

And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it.

Quote:

One must also understand how scripture was changed several centuries after the fact by people like Augustine - church doctrine was developed long after the fact.





There is no proof for that. It's just divinici code
nonsense with no proof to back it up. The Roman catholic church has changed their doctrine many times throughout history, but this has no effect on the manuscripts. There is no way they could control ALL of the manuscripts.

Quote:

It is also vital to understand social/cultural factors at the time including what sort of ideologies were floating around and which of them found home in christianity. Etc, etc.





It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence.


Quote:

To quote from whatever modern english bible you've got handy is not good enough in regards to the topic at hand, as this topic is completely about analysing source material and historical context.




And as I have pointed out there is no disagreement in the manuscripts. And if you want to have an arguement about textual criticism, I first suggest you get a degree, and then don't forget to remind everyone who can't that they're too dumb to understand.

Quote:

If you cannot engage on those grounds you are not engaging at all, simply talking like a broken record.




I'm not a broken record by any means.

Quote:

I don't know how to explain this any more clearly. What is being challenged is modern translations of scripture and church doctrine - you cannot refute arguments against it by quoting it. You have to go deeper. You have to make a case for why you believe your version is accurate. I'm handing this one to you - come on. Do the research - the better for you, the better for our debate. Don't you want some more effective tools in your arsenal of argument?




many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

I have plenty of tools.


Edited by jonathan_206 (10/21/07 06:55 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7544411 - 10/21/07 08:10 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:


The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th  agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.




From the second to the 6/7th century? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2nd century quite awhile after the fact? This is the time period in which Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was precisely the time in which alot of the corruption of the original material happened. The displaced officials of a crumbling empire saw something in Christianity that was cooptable, something that would offer them new positions to maintain thier power and influence with the disintegration of the administration of Rome. This is the time of the Council of Nicaea, where the first doctrine of orthodoxy was established. This is precisely when a great deal of material was altered, filtered out and forgotten.


Quote:


the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it  so  it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.





There are pretty large scale translation errors between some of the myths of the old testament and thier original form. Like the 'breath of life' translated into  the 'rib.' This is a big deal.


Quote:


They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true.  If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history  humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion.  And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form  the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by  Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source.




Aspects of Babylonian religion were handed down and modified from the Sumerian which were handed down and modified from previous hunter gatherer societies. This is the way of myth. There is a great deal of interchange between communicating groups of people, and there was a traceable flow between the Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Hittites, Semites and others. People influence each other. This is no big revelation, it is simply a fact of life. People talk to each other, and when they enjoy each others stories, goods, ideas, etc. they adopt them but alter them to make them more suitable for themselves and thier needs. It's called diffusion.

Are you trying to argue that Adam and Noah are historical persons? :lol:

Quote:

And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it.




I'm not saying that anyone should 'believe me,' but if we both have an interest in getting to the bottom of things there are many avenues to follow. There are written records from this time period which is a great help. There is the archaeological record, there is a process by which things may be analysed that helps us get a little closer to understanding what was. We can't time travel, so we can never paint a perfect picture of times past, but we can piece it together as well as we may and make interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence. Rather than trusting one book and people who are bent on proving that book to be literally True, it makes more sense to look at as many sources of information as possible (including, but not limited to that book) and try and organize and make sense of it all. There will always be debate. That's half the fun. :shrug:


Quote:

There is no proof for that. It's just divinici  code
nonsense with no proof t




There's no proof that Augustine influenced church doctrine? Are you kidding me? Read 'The City of God.' This is a fine example of how Platonism (greek pagan philosophy :wink:) diffused into Christian thought. Augustine also came up with the notion of Original Sin. He was a biggie in the development of dogma. It's irrefutable.


Quote:

It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence.





By socio-cultural context I did not mean human nature. This is a misinterpretation of my words. I'm not saying anything about "human nature" at all. When I say we must understand socio-cultural context I mean that we must be aware of the way the culture(s) in question were organized, what thier worldviews were, how thier religious thought affected thier daily lives, etc. To understand what they were talking about we have to understand how it related to and justified thier social structure. This isn't radical stuff. Many faithful theologians would agree.


Quote:

And as I have pointed out there is no disagreement in the manuscripts. And if you want to have an arguement about textual criticism, I first suggest you get a degree, and then don't forget to remind everyone who can't that they're too dumb to understand.





I'm working on the degree. I'm also not the type to tell people they're too stupid to understand, I really don't think many people are stupid at all. Some just prefer to avoid questions that are uncomfortable. I think that's unfortunate and so I like to pose a challenge.

Quote:

many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

I have plenty of tools.




Lot's of people make 'textual' and other criticisms of the bible. Many of them have no interest whatsoever in gnosticism either. My anthropology teacher once had to count ribs with one of her classes because a student was dead set on the idea that men had one less rib than women, accounting for the rib Adam lost for Eve. Taking scripture literally is a dead end. Recognizing scripture as a metaphor, as our friend Markos has, and as have most of your opponents, may open many doors of self discovery and enlightenment. I'm more interested in exploration than certainty. It's not as scary as it seems.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7544939 - 10/21/07 10:24 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Quote:

The pieces of manuscript we have from the second century to the 6/7th agree with each other almost perfectly. There is very little change , almost all of it is in copying errors, spelling mistakes, that have no effect on doctrine.






From the second to the 6/7th century? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the 2nd century quite awhile after the fact? This is the time period in which Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. This was precisely the time in which alot of the corruption of the original material happened. The displaced officials of a crumbling empire saw something in Christianity that was cooptable, something that would offer them new positions to maintain thier power and influence with the disintegration of the administration of Rome. This is the time of the Council of Nicaea, where the first doctrine of orthodoxy was established. This is precisely when a great deal of material was altered, filtered out and forgotten.




I'll correct you. Yes, second century is a while after the fact. But the manuscripts themselves are not the only things we have. There is a reason why historians have the gumption to place the n.t. letters within the time frame the the apostles lived in. It's called secondary and tertiary evidence. When you say "this is a the time a lot of the corruption happened" as if that means the gospels were somehow mysteriously distorted by some secret mystery cult or something, that is an assumption. You have no proof to back it up, and this is what the numerous books easily refuting the davinci code have pointed out all along. The evidence shows quite to the contrary as the article I posted, and many books have pointed out. It's just a conspiracy theory that is convenient for gnostics, but has no historical evidence to back it up. the real historical evidence shows that no, alot of the corruption didn't just start out of the blue in Rome, it was building up for many many years prior to that. Gnosticism was part of this corruption, and that's why the n.t. refutes gnosticism.

http://www.nisbett.com/sabbath/history/hos12.htm

Even if the gospel as is given in the new testament is false, and we had none of the pauline letters or any of the letters we have now, gnosticism would not fit. It does not fit the o.t. It does not fit the doctrine, prophecy, context. The whole bible is written as historical narrative. If the original writers intended it to be taken generally symbolic in it's entirety, then that would be a massive deception. There's just no room for that interpretration. It's like taking the simple statement "the sun is shining very brightly. I closed the door so the rays would not blind my eyes. I went down on the couch to take a nap" And turn it into something totally symbolic . I'll sure you could turn it into something, but that is not how exegesis works, plain and simple. And the fact of the matter, is the Hebrews took it as literal history also. And gnosticsm does not address the o.t. prophecies, it does not address the core of the God's plan, which is salvation from sin and death. It does not fit. Christianity fits, because it adresses and fits the old testament.

If we look at something strictly from a historical perspective, it is worthless. There has to be more, the historical timeline is supportive, but you also look at the internal evidence. Because people could fit whatever they want into history and pass it off as truth, it's been done before. That's why we rely on other types of evidence, such as evidence concerning origins,secondary and tertiary evidence,archeology, and ultimately Spiritual evidence. When it comes to the past, we just wern't there. You can imagine whatever you want, but you have to go with the evidence you do have, not the evidence you don't.

But as far as the councel of nicea..I really wish you would read that article I posted on the davinci code. Here is a portion relevent:

Quote:

Did Constantine decide the canon? How did the process work?[17].  Constantine was not the decider of the canon, and played in fact no role at all in its assembly; the church at large was the party responsible. The process of canonizing the New Testament was based on a model that had existed for centuries whereby various religions chose a collection of normative sacred books. It is likely that Paul himself began the process by collecting his own letters, or that one of his friends like Luke or Timothy did so. Far from being an arbitrary process, or one decided upon by Constantine much later, the formation of the canon was the result of carefully-weighed choices over time by concerned church officials and members. Later votes on the canon were merely the most definitive steps taken at the end of a long and careful, sometimes difficult, process. Biblical scholar Robert Grant, in The Formation of the New Testament, writes that the New Testament canon was:

...not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church. [18]

To claim that Constantine was behind the canon, or was responsible for destroying Gospels he did not approve of, is a ludicrous distortion of history. In fact, Constantine convened the Council at Nicea, paid the travel expenses of those who attended, and provided his summer lake palace for the site, but he had no ecclesiastical authority at all. The information we have on the Council is fascinating and in no way supports the idea of a pagan Roman’s overthrow of “early Christianity” or any conspiracy. A good introduction to the facts about the Council is available in the Summer 1996 issue of Christian History magazine, “Heresy in the Early Church,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/ .

“At [the Council of Nicea]….many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon – the date of Easter, the role of the bishops, the administration of sacraments, and, of course, the divinity of Jesus….until that moment in history, Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet…a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless. A mortal.”[23]

This is a half-truth. The Council of Nicea did seriously consider alternating views of Jesus, not so much as “mortal” versus “God” but as “eternal” versus “created,” and they were debating because heretics had come out against the already-held view that Jesus was divine. The heretical view, held by the presbyter Arius, maintained that Jesus was not divine by nature, but was created in ages past by God. Jesus was thus not argued to be “mortal” or just a “great and powerful man” even by the heretical. (As an aside, Constantine, who Teabing blames so much on, was himself sympathetic to the Arians!)[24]

Beyond this, the New Testament itself gives clear evidence of Jesus being viewed as divine:[25]

·        Through the New Testament, Jesus describes himself, and other New Testament writers describe him, in terms of the Wisdom of God, a pre-New Testament Jewish figure that was regarded as divine, and as an attribute of God personified.

·        Jesus identified himself as the Son of Man, a phrase associated with a divine figure in Daniel 7.

·        Paul in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 offers a revised version of the Jewish Shema which includes Jesus in the identity of Yahweh, the God of the Jews.

·        A variety of New Testament passages affirm the absolute and full deity of Christ, such as John 1:1 (“the Word was God”), John 5:18 (“calling God His own Father, making himself equal with God”), John 20:28 (“[you are] my Lord and my God”), “Titus 2:13 (our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,”), Romans 9:5 (“God over all, blessed forever”), and Colossians 2:9 (“within Him dwells all the fullness of being God in bodily form”), and others.





Although I will quickly say I don't agree with mr. Holdings opinion on  the borrowing of pagan symbology and his opinion on the shifting of the sabbath from saturday to sunday (and probably other things too)in his article there. Can't always agree on everything..


Quote:

Quote:


    the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.








Quote:

Quote:

They're just ignorant, and they conclude from their presupposition that it must have come from mesopotamian religion, and not the other way around. Well, I'm here to tell you it's not true. If one looks at the evidence you'll see that biblical history humanity goes back farther than mesopotamian religion. And all the evidence when compared and analyzed shows that Babylonian religion is a corruption form the Truthful knowledge and propehcy handed down by Adam and Noah. For instance, look at people like to talk about the gilgamesh epic. But did you know that there are flood legends all over the world? But obviously they had to have come from a common source.




Aspects of Babylonian religion were handed down and modified from the Sumerian which were handed down and modified from previous hunter gatherer societies. This is the way of myth. There is a great deal of interchange between communicating groups of people, and there was a traceable flow between the Sumerians, Mesopotamians, Babylonians, Hittites, Semites and others. People influence each other. This is no big revelation, it is simply a fact of life. People talk to each other, and when they enjoy each others stories, goods, ideas, etc. they adopt them but alter them to make them more suitable for themselves and thier needs. It's called diffusion.




Yes, I'm well aware that stories and fables can change. I learned my lesson when I was a kid and we all played "telephone". This phenomena is remarkably evident in the way the flood myths spread out for instance. But we have a definite evidence also, that with proper care
historical records can be well kept with little variation. Whether you agree with the veracity of the manuscripts we have now compared to what the originals are, they have for the most part been faithfully preserved for over two thousand years. If that's not proof, I don't know what is.

Quote:

Are you trying to argue that Adam and Noah are historical persons? :lol:




Absolutely.

 
Quote:

Quote:


    "And perhaps you'll ask, "why should we believe them? " well how about I ask you the same question about yours, and it really comes down to using your common sense that God gave you. That's why I've given up trying to prove anything to people, except those who are willing. Because you can only prove it to yourself. If you are wise, you are wise for yuorself, and if you are a fool, you alone will pay for it."






I'm not saying that anyone should 'believe me,' but if we both have an interest in getting to the bottom of things there are many avenues to follow. There are written records from this time period which is a great help. There is the archaeological record, there is a process by which things may be analysed that helps us get a little closer to understanding what was. We can't time travel, so we can never paint a perfect picture of times past, but we can piece it together as well as we may and make interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence. Rather than trusting one book and people who are bent on proving that book to be literally True, it makes more sense to look at as many sources of information as possible (including, but not limited to that book) and try and organize and make sense of it all. There will always be debate. That's half the fun. :shrug:





but Christians have already "made interpretations that appear most likely due to the evidence". If you want to argue about interpretations of the scriptures that's one thing, but this has little to do with interpretation as it does with history. Gnostic gospels themselves  self defeat the very people trying to promote them and conflict with the n.t. scripture they havn't picked apart. It's irreconcilable.

   
   
Quote:

Quote:

There is no proof for that. It's just divinici code
    nonsense with no proof




There's no proof that Augustine influenced church doctrine? Are you kidding me? Read 'The City of God.' This is a fine example of how Platonism (greek pagan philosophy :wink:) diffused into Christian thought. Augustine also came up with the notion of Original Sin. He was a biggie in the development of dogma. It's irrefutable.




What you're referring to has nothing to do with the manuscripts. I have laready freely conceded that the roman catholic church has changed and added and removed doctrine, in their own "church" doctrine. But the manuscripts themselves are a completely different issue. No, Augustine did not come up with the idea of original sin, he came up with his own slant on original sin.


   
Quote:

"It's wise to recognize human nature, but it's also wise to recognize the possibility for the faithful preservation of scripure. Instead of coming up with all sorts of unsubstantiated "what if" stories, look at the real evidence points to. i have posted links to this evidence."

By socio-cultural context I did not mean human nature. This is a misinterpretation of my words. I'm not saying anything about "human nature" at all. When I say we must understand socio-cultural context I mean that we must be aware of the way the culture(s) in question were organized, what thier worldviews were, how thier religious thought affected thier daily lives, etc. To understand what they were talking about we have to understand how it related to and justified thier social structure. This isn't radical stuff. Many faithful theologians would agree.




socio-cultural context, human nature..that's basically what you're appealing to. It's absolutely irrelevent until you can prove that whatever cultural and religious phenomena were present in whatever time period actually directly changed or imposed doctrine, outside of revelation from God, then it's absolutely useless. It would merely be a naturalistic presupposition and superimposition on scripture.


    Quote:
    many people have pointed out to gnostics the results of textual criticism. They just don't get it. Argue till your blue in the face, the results are on the table. The only thing gnostics have against it are unsubstantiated conspiracy fables.

    I have plenty of tools.



Quote:

Lot's of people make 'textual' and other criticisms of the bible. Many of them have no interest whatsoever in gnosticism either. My anthropology teacher once had to count ribs with one of her classes because a student was dead set on the idea that men had one less rib than women, accounting for the rib Adam lost for Eve. Taking scripture literally is a dead end. Recognizing scripture as a metaphor, as our friend Markos has, and as have most of your opponents, may open many doors of self discovery and enlightenment. I'm more interested in exploration than certainty. It's not as scary as it seems.




How about exploration to find what is certain? Do you realize you are imposing your own bias? When Christians exegise scripture we are not meant to take all things literally, or all things symbolically, we are supposed to use discernment and allow scripture speak for itself and read it within the context. I find taking scripture literally is not a dead end at all. It's only a dead end for those who want to accept some portion of Christianity and judaism but are not comfortable with the full implecations of scripture.

When you read symbolic prophecy in the o.t. or n.t. , don't you find a
difference in the way it is written? This is where we apply discernment and determine it is symbolic. But when scripture directly says  God created the earth and everything in it in 6 days, and created Adam from the dust from the earth, that is not symbolic. That is a direct statement. If it were to be interpreted symbolically, the aforementioned statement would be a complete LIE.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Female User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7544993 - 10/21/07 10:36 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I can't believe I read all that post and I'm still alive from so much :lol: and :rofl2: :what: and also :nut: and again :rofl2:

I must reward myself :bongload:


--------------------
:bunny::bunnyhug:
All this time I've loved you
And never known your face
All this time I've missed you
And searched this human race
Here is true peace
Here my heart knows calm
Safe in your soul
Bathed in your sighs

:bunnyhug: :yinyang2:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNiamhNyx
I'm NOT a 'he'
Female User Gallery


Registered: 09/01/02
Posts: 3,198
Last seen: 14 years, 8 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7545020 - 10/21/07 10:43 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Because of your magical, groundless persistence in believing in a literal bible, we have absolutely nothing further to say to one another. You will believe any pseudo-intellectual babbling that seems to defend this position. There is such an incredible wealth of evidence to the contrary that it is utterly beguiling that anyone with any access to it still believes in a literal interpretation. A good many Christians these days are not so naive, as they are capable of grasping the concept of metaphor. I think we're done here.

I just find it rather funny how often you accuse me of "imposing [my] own bias," as if you weren't doing that yourself.:nut:

And now moving on... I'd like to get back on topic please! Sorry for contributing to the disintegration of your awesome thread, Markos.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male

Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7545063 - 10/21/07 10:55 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

I agree with everyone on some points, and maybe I disagree with everyone on some points. These are my views. Some of you guys will get a kick out of this, some of you may think I'm Satan. I "appreciate" all viewpoints.;) Feel free to disagree on even the smallest detail. I like to learn new things and this is a favorite subject of mine.

Men and women are different but equal. We're all just trying to survive and thrive. We need each other. We're in this together. We all have a chance to explore the meaning of existence, and we all have the right to be treated with respect and dignity. We all have souls. It's a difficult thing to explain because it's so simple. We are all people.

Sex makes us different. I used to hear that everyone has a masculine side and a feminine side. I had no idea what it meant, but I thought it was silly. Now I know it's true. Not only do we have masculine and feminine thought processes, We literally have physical masculine and feminine sides. The emotion that manifests in the front of the body is feminine. The emotion that manifests in the back of the body is masculine. In this way, we are still similar.

But here is where the similarities stop. Women generally have a feminine physical core. They want to be seen and noticed. They want to sparkle and shine. Makeup isn't forced onto the majority of womens faces today. They like it. Women want to look good, and there's nothing wrong with that. Men share these qualities. We want to be seen, noticed for the things we do. We make polite gestures to others out of nothing but joyfulness. We want to love. Jocks slap each other on the ass. We even take pleasure in dancing if we can move beyond self scrutiny. This is feminine stuff, but females are naturally MUCH BETTER at it than men.

It seems quite obvious to be that most men have a masculine physical core, even from a very young age. Masculinity is not so much about the enjoyment of life as it is about controlling and understanding life. It is about creating finality and conquering things. Larger muscles and a tendency to think for longer periods on single subjects are masculine traits. It was a man who has lifted the most weight. It was a man who finished the final level of Pac Man. Why the hell would men want to do these things? Because they are men.

Keeping in mind that we are "in this together", women have come to rely on men, but the reliance goes beyond physical. Women want strong, stable, masculine men. This allows them to relax into their feminine core. Women ARE more sensitive and ENJOY being that way. A woman may choose security over masculinity, but it isn't her first choice. Many women won't admit it, but they need to cry on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Many men won't admit it, but they need to yell a mighty roar and kill stuff on a regular basis. This is their way of removing stress from their bodies. Again, we share both traits. Men can cry and women may want to punch things, but our core nature when dealing with stress release will be one of the two, and it's generally determined by whether we have a penis or not.

Having said that, I like women that can be strong. Because I believe most women have feminine cores, I'm not worried that strong, for her, will mean going outside to chop wood when she's upset. Because i believe most men have masculine cores, I'm not worried about whether my friend is gay because he cried over Scruffy's death. Masculine and feminine are appropriate at different times, and I like women who know how to take care of themselves. It's the ability to create polarity during intimate encounters, where the man acts like a man, and the woman acts like a woman, that counts.

Which came first? The feminine nature has always been around IMO. It's like asking which pole of a magnet sprang into action first. The luxury of soft curvy bodies, and a tender heart may have well came second, but the intent was always there. Being feminine is the expressive joyful nature of existence, and what point would there be to life if the only goal was to reproduce, struggle and find death?

When a man becomes jealous of another man, if his core is masculine, he will want to kill the other man. When a woman becomes jealous of another woman, if her core is feminine, she will want to have sex with the man to reaffirm her relationship. We may experience both desires when jealousy arises, but our strongest desire will align with our core. Women get wet with jealousy. Men see red. Because of this, it is easy to see why a relationship between two masculine men and a feminine woman will not work.

However, women can be quite happy in a multi-partner relationship. The horny men of yesterday only had it half right. It is natural for both men and women to want multiple sex partners, but men were only satisfying their own desires. In a "normal" polygamous relationship, the women aren't allowed to make love with each other. It will not work in a marriage of ownership. Men owned women. Anyone think women appreciated this fact? Hell no. They were resentful. If the man let his wives make love to one another, they might conspire against him.

So we just tightened the rope and ignored their pain because we were so consumed with our own. Yin is compatible with yin. Feminine women are bisexual by nature. This is a fact men have been suppressing for thousands of years. Many women are afraid, to this very day, to admit, even to themselves, that they are bisexual. This is a product of how strongly the feminine nature has been suppressed.

Marriage as a statement of fact, is also a means of control. When two (or more) people decide to share exclusive intimacy, they are married (though I wouldn't normally use that term). The desire for exclusiveness is an emotional bond, and is dictated by want, not a social duty, or some twisted egoic desire to be bonded at the hip forever no matter what. When a person discovers they no longer have an emotional desire to be with the other person, and aren't willing to try and fix things, they are divorced. Two people can live for many years, divorced from each other, while holding a piece of paper that says otherwise. Again, any attempt to use marriage as a guarantee of lifelong fidelity is egoic fear. If we must rely on a piece of paper, and consequences, there is no love. There is no real marriage.

Marriage is to blend together as one. Trusting ones partner, and being honorable by sheltering and defending the others feelings, is fairly essential to a REAL marriage. Running around having sex with people outside a relationship is a very hurtful thing to do. The use of a license to prevent this is laughable. If you treat a woman like an animal, she will act like one. Then you must keep her in a cage. What can a piece of paper do? It's the same for men. People are either building trust, or confirming their fearful suspicion that trust is a lie. For better or worse, if two people are in a relationship together, they deserve whatever they get.

So let's not worry about who came first, or if one sex is more pure than the other. The truth is that on a soul level, women don't need men, and men don't need women. But perhaps we should honor our bodies and cherish our differences, and see if we can have some good orgasms during the process.

:shrug:


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinea_guy_named_ai
Stranger
Male
Registered: 09/24/07
Posts: 767
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7545087 - 10/21/07 11:02 PM (16 years, 3 months ago)

And to get to this.

Quote:


Quote:

the textual criticism does much more for the validity of scripture than it so it does work against it. There are no textual variants which change doctrine. This is the consensis.





There are pretty large scale translation errors between some of the myths of the old testament and thier original form. Like the 'breath of life' translated into the 'rib.' This is a big deal.




I really am trying to understand what you're referring to. The closest thing I could find was this blatantly feminist bible study page "for women", which says:


And so I go to the rib "word study page" and here is what is says:

Quote:

Rib - Strong # 6763 (Hebrew = tslea) Normally translated as side, corner, chamber or flank not rib




No, this is absolutely false. Here is the correct translation.

Quote:

H6763
צלעה צלע
tsêlâ‛ tsal‛âh
tsay-law', tsal-aw'
From H6760; a rib (as curved), literally (of the body) or figuratively (of a door, that is, leaf); hence a side, literally (of a person) or figuratively (of an object or the sky, that is, quarter); arcitecturally a timber (especially floor or ceiling) or plank (single or collectively, that is, a flooring): - beem, board, chamber, corner, leaf, plank, rib, side (chamber).





It means rib, side, or beam, . That's what it means. And if that's not what you're talking about I have no idea. If you go to blue letter bible, and look up H6763, the verses listed fit this definition.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: NiamhNyx]
    #7545796 - 10/22/07 05:40 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

NiamhNyx said:
Because of your magical, groundless persistence in believing in a literal bible, we have absolutely nothing further to say to one another. You will believe any pseudo-intellectual babbling that seems to defend this position. There is such an incredible wealth of evidence to the contrary that it is utterly beguiling that anyone with any access to it still believes in a literal interpretation. A good many Christians these days are not so naive, as they are capable of grasping the concept of metaphor. I think we're done here.

I just find it rather funny how often you accuse me of "imposing [my] own bias," as if you weren't doing that yourself.:nut:

And now moving on... I'd like to get back on topic please! Sorry for contributing to the disintegration of your awesome thread, Markos.




Thank you for your eloquent defense of 'the' position. The Fundamentalist view in Christianity or Islam is tantamount to insisting upon a pre-Copernican view of the solar system in its insistence upon a long obsolete position. To rigidly maintain obsolete positions is nothing less than obsessive-compulsive delusional thinking. Unfortunately, the suspension of common sense let alone higher level thinking is taken by Fundamentalists to be proof of their faith - the ability to suspend reality-testing in favor of delusional thought (e.g., believing that dinosaur fossils are demonic props planted to test the faith of believers in a 5700+ year world-age, and there were no dinosaurs on Noah's ark).
Recommendations to everyone: stay out of people's [collective] delusions. Do not engage in debate.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleIcelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Male


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
Re: The Deification of Masculinity [Re: a_guy_named_ai]
    #7546327 - 10/22/07 10:45 AM (16 years, 3 months ago)

Nomatter what I say, or how much biblical references I give, you will still say it's heresay. If I back it will scripture, people will say scripture doesn't matter, it's just a fairy tale. They won't consider the evidence for the validity of scripture, and they would rather believe in their own fairy tales with no authority or substantiation.


Finally you got something right. I'm pretty sure you missed it though. Everyones beliefs are subjective. It all comes down to what you base your subjective beliefs on and can you admit that your beliefs are subjective or are you too afraid.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Feminized Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Fundamental Masculine And Feminine Intelligences – And Stupidities viktor 978 8 05/27/17 07:24 AM
by sudly
* God and the masculine pronoun
( 1 2 all )
shroomydan 4,852 26 03/27/07 11:33 AM
by mr_kite
* Masculine / Feminine
( 1 2 all )
Veritas 4,217 33 11/03/05 03:26 PM
by Icelander
* Masculine or Feminine?
( 1 2 all )
Cracka_X 3,255 25 10/17/07 02:52 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* The Masculine/Feminine Energy of Uniqueness tekramrepus 519 1 01/09/04 01:12 PM
by TrueBrode
* is the world really too masculine/yang? Malachi 1,381 16 07/21/03 11:44 AM
by infidelGOD
* Robert Bly On Mythology and Masculinity, What It Means To Be Male lines 882 4 01/21/11 05:49 PM
by Icelander
* Getting in touch with your feminine/masculine side... Poid 191 0 12/19/08 06:29 AM
by

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
9,020 topic views. 1 members, 14 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 15 queries.