In going with your argument...didn't God make everything? So that must mean he made homosexuality too since a person doesn't choose to be gay/bi/straight, thats just how they are made. So that must mean that God made the person that way...and gave them free will.

There's no such thing as a 'man's husband'. The federal definition of marriage, as quoted in the Defense of Marriage Act, clearly states that a marriage is made up of a MAN and a member of the opposite sex ONLY. Only criteria setting age limits and disallowing unions between certain familial relationships is legislated at the state level.

Dee Bunk,

Thanks for the kudos.  I am always here, I come in a few times a day and read Newsbusters.org.  I don't have as much time to put up posts as I did before, but nothing angers me more than anti-Christian left wing propaganda and how left wingers like Chumly repeat like mindless parrots all the lies that have been spread against Christianity.

Honestly, if Chumly would have stop and thought about Christianity before he typed away and clicked the submit button, his post would not be filled with so much anti-Christian left wing propaganda. 

I found it incredibly amusing when he claimed that Christianity is anti-woman because just recently women were allowed to vote in Christian nations.  HA!  he forget all the centuries of Christian history where Christian woman have become queens!  Incredible.  Just one small example how the foaming at the mouth, anti-Christians don't bother to think beyond their misplaced hatred. 

Anyway, once again, thanks for the kudos Dee Bunk. 

Chumly - You have no idea what you are talking about.

Look at the way Christians live and work today if you want to see how they respect women. Liberals don't respect women. They encourage them to kill their babies

Chumly's quoting from the Revised Cherry-Picked Version of the Bible (RCPV), which totally downplays man's submissive role(s) in favor of the woman to make her look like a victim.

But if Chumly wants to make a case of it, let's look at them more closely.

Chumly: Have any of you magic-god believers out there read any of the
bible?....

*raising hand* And unlike yourself, I also read the surrounding passages without taking entire verses out of context. Just because they have a little number next to them doesn't mean they stand on their own as the whole of Biblical authority. Hope you don't assume that, because that's how you're playing it off to everyone else here.

Chumly: Come on people, be intellectually honest with me at least.

No problem. I'll take that bet and even raise you a few bucks more. Let's be 100% intellectually honest together and go even further than your surgically-framed quotes to see if that's what the whole really says.

Chumly: This stuff is all written down in your ancient scriptures. Just because
you say it here on this board, does not make it true!

Just because it's old doesn't make it false either. What standard are you comparing this to again. . .other than a purely subjective and inflammatory argument?

Chumly: What I have found
here is that the more forceful your reply (even if it doesn't offer a
single, legitimate argument, the more kudos you get from your cohorts).
See below...the list is long.

You call that a list?

Ch: Genesis 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib

Biology --> to biology. At first glance, I say it's more stylish than being created from dust.

And 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.”

Man's obligation was to love the woman that closely. Man has failed to live up to that standard. MORE ON THIS TO FOLLOW BELOW.

Ch: 3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage

This quote ignores man's curse. This quote ignores the 2 promises of hope made to the woman (children and a future redeemeer). Adam received no such pronouncement.

Further, the "desire" for husband in v.16 is not to be assumed as "sexual desire."

The only time anyone is expected to exercise "rulership" over another is when there is a desire to break harmony or to rebel. The curse upon Eve is the desire to not be a team player.

Ch: 19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels

If angels really did exist as guests in your house, and if someone was threatening a crime upon those guests, what kind of love for them is shown that you'd be willing to throw your own babies in their stead?

The favor shown towards Lot's guests speaks volumes. It echoes Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. Regardless of Lot's willingness to sacrifice his own (truly the lesser of two evils) God spared Lot and the daughters! Lot's intent wasn't fulfilled, but God's was. Why does Chumly show more sympathy for Lot's daughters than for Sodom?

Ch: Exodus 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property

Yet a woman taken in adultery was to be stoned. If she was mere property, should she not be held to a lesser standard? If the woman is property, why is commandment #5 accorded to grant her literal honor? The association is assumed on man's part. If the woman were property, she would not be held to the other commandments.

Ch: 21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves

"may be"? ? ? See President Bartlet's Fallacious Diatribe. Wanna be truly intellectually honest? Learn it. Live it. Love it.

Ch: 22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

The profession, or the person? Not too fine a point there. Can someone be born a witch? Is a person defined by their profession? I'd call it a problem if it were. Especially since Chumly forgets the Mosaic law is also civil law for an entire nation founded on a theocracy.

If both "magics" are valid (which Chumly is stating), then other religions were a credible threat to Judaism. But the Jesus of Christianity is a fulfillment of that same law. You don't have to be a Jew first to be a Christian.

Ch: 38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support

Quote: "He made the laver of bronze and its base of bronze, from the bronze
mirrors of the serving women who assembled at the door of the
tabernacle of meeting."

Forced association on a one-time occurrance. Superwoman fallacy rears its ugly head again. If Judeo-Christian God is assumed, then your "God made" biological limits determine your given function. This applies equally to men. Females cannot serve everyone and God. Males cannot serve God and everyone else. There's a balance-of-labor here that you're trying to obscure and target at the same time.

Ch: Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days

What does that really mean? Does it apply to the woman as an individual, or to the sanctity of the blood?

Conversely, women are not unclean every-single-day they have a seminal emission either (Lev 15:16-17). Riddle me this. Which is more common of the two? The emission, or the birth?

Ch: 12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days

Why? One week for the male versus two for the female. Symbols do not exist without pointing to something. "Clean" or "impure" does not mean "without sin." If, as God says in His Bible, He is not a discerner of persons, then taking clean or impure as statements to the whole person would indeed be evil and make God a liar. Wouldn't it? Bad theology on your part. There's more on this since it's repeated throughout the list.

Ch: 15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean

All blood was a big deal to Jews. Didn't matter where it came from. Even the Christian council of Jerusalem in Acts urged Christians to abstain from it (all of it in general). Women are not the sum of the products of their cycle. I hope you're aware of that.

Ch: 19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged

If the other commandments apply, is an engagement a solemn promise or not? If she is property, why then is she held responsible for this? How is this law not adultery?

Ch: Numbers 1:2 Poll of people only includes men

You missed verse 3. I thought you of all people would be in agreement with this at the very least. If men cannot hold the uterus or give nourishment, then what else are they good for?

Ch: 5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test

Where's the barbarism here? The woman makes a solemn promise and swears an oath of fidelity on her wedding day, and then gets to make a second one later on if the husband is overly-sensitive about it. What's the matter with that?

This is a case of a duplicitous husband. If there is no evidence to suggest adultery, he has no case and should shut up. This test in Ch. 5 is both a test under oath for the wedding day oath, and a contract of protection to empower the woman in the case of a husband who (a.) has misapplied jealously issues, and (b.) doesn't even pay attention to his own marriage relationship.

What happens when her thigh does not rot and her belly does not swell? Hmm? Then she is justified in the case of her husband! If the woman is just as superstitious, would she even agree to such a test in the first place?

Ch: 31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty

I already answered that here.

http://newsbusters.o...

My goal here is that someday, all of my answers will be made up of hotlinks on the same website. =)

Ch: Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Rape manual

Not rape. Marriage and divorce. This is marriage of necessity in the case of a war refugee for one not previously married to begin with. Very specific. I can't believe you overlooked the part about head-shaving (sign of mourning). Jesus also had something to say about this in Matt 19:1-8.

Furthermore, Jewish men weren't allowed to marry pagan women. They had to assimilate somehow. Thus marriage. I can't believe you missed the "set free" part either. The "setting free" means they were not to be sold back into the cycle of slavery. Or "treated brutally" either. Stop and really consider what is being said here for just a moment.

Ch: 22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa.

A question of role reversal: Do the clothes make the man? That wasn't sarcastic. As go the uniform, so goes the role. There was very little difference in men's/women's garments back then really. No, really. 1 Samuel 24 says King Saul had a skirt. Therefore, feminine and masculine accoutrements were very-very obvious. They also sent a very loud message back then.

What did it come down to? Feminization of hair, beard, makeup (?), armor, and elicitation to sodomy = literally abandoning children or abandoning your post in times of war.

Should the woman have gone to war then? Sure it's cool for Hollywood and all, but it's not realistic and doesn't take her own biology into account. Modern day provisions (contraception, tampons, modern technology) make us forget quite a bit. The uniform was a big deal back then; it mattered to the biology-based structure of the entire culture, and also you're not giving much real honest intellectual thought to this.

Ch: 22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test

Subjective accusation in regards to marriage. How is this barbaric? What else did they have then? The "charge of shameful conduct" here is similar to the Numbers 5 test above. So then you're saying the new husband could arbitrarily accuse the woman for just any reason whatsoever?

Sounds to me like this is a protective clause for a marriage not pledged on love and trust to begin with. The key problem here is not with the woman, but with the man's own fear and lack of trust. Hence the test. This protects the woman who joins with a man for lack of better judgement on the man's part.

Ch: 22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death

You omitted the details of the matter if brought into civil court. Was there a struggle? Don't laws of assault also apply here as well? If the woman is knocked unconscious, can she be held to trial? Such a thing usually led to serious injury and death (the movies lie). When does v.26 apply in the countryside where there is no one to run to for help?

"But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter."

So. . .no stoning here and you and your links completely fail. So lazy.

Ch: 22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist

You're contradicting yourself. If the man refuses, then what happens to him? Nothing? Restitution is in play for him as well. This law literally binds the man to the consequences of his actions, because why? Oh, yeah. You took the pill for granted again, LOL!

And what if our hypothetical rapist (who's running around here without anything better to do) doesn't happen to have fifty shekels of silver on him at the time? Hm? See verse 28. The crux of the discussion is in the "finding out." If woman says, "rape" first, then that's equiv to crying out. This is a form of paternity/child custody payment to get the guy that thinks he can get away with rape and/or being a deadbeat dad. Who's got a problem with that? Oh yeah. Chumly's got a problem with that.

Ch: 24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa

See above. Jesus covers that again in Matt 19. This gets easier and easier the closer we get to the NT.

Ch: 25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off

See "role reversal" above. This form of "quick fix" violent intervention also makes things confusing in a court of law if one man or the other dies in the aforementioned struggle.

The woman is also doing far more in the fight than is called for.

Furthermore, she literally has an unfair biological advantage with this tactic. She is literally depriving another man of his social security. That's totally unfair! You get to rob one man of his children (no state nursing homes for dad, remember?) over a mere one-on-one altercation?

Where does the "eye-for-an-eye" civil law of restitution come into account for someone who has no penis? A substitution has to be made. That is if the ancient "eye-for-an-eye" civil law of restitution is valid as a whole.

Yet the part does not make the whole invalid. There is no basis forChumly's accusation. It is merely a provision for those who have an advantage of not literally wearing their social security between their legs.

Ch: Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed

Debatable passage even among theologians. It's a riddle on the Mosaic law in the form of a story. Vows were in and of themselves considered sacred. The story is included here as a lesson not to make a foolish vow to begin with.

Verse 38-39 are head scratchers in particular. He failed to fulfill it for two months, and by law you were not to make your own children into ceremonial burnt offerings as the pagans do (doesn't matter who the sacrifice was to, it was a high-caliber sin).

Such was the nature of both Abraham's test, as well as Jephthah's self-imposed dilemma. Maybe there was another way to fulfill the vow. Maybe Jephthah fulfilled his vow by taking the promise upon himself and his future descendants (by not having children). All speclation aside, the moral of the story against presumptive vows is clear.

Ch: 19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man

What is the theme of Judges? At this time there any civil law higher than the household? How is this any different from the lawlessness of Sodom where you had to choose between your children and those you are sworn to protect within your own four walls? There was supposed to be safety in this area because it was Jewish territory, but they were not behaving like Jews.

This goes double for the bisexual Benjamite gang-rapists of the city that were allowed to roam about unchecked. Had they been good Jews, this incident would not have happened to begin with. But it's a cherry that's too tempting to pick, isn't it?

Both here in Jewish Gibeah and in the case of non-Jewish Sodom, the man's home was literally reduced to both his castle and his only line of defense. Note that as in Sodom, so too is the virgin daughter spared. . .but what about the concubine? Obviously another law is in play.

The theme of the time of the Judges was "every man did what was right in his own eyes." What is the Mosaic law of the concubine again? I don't see that as the law of God. Jesus' same words above apply here as well. This behavior is not God's intent! And the people of Gibeah paid a heavy price for their failure to enforce the laws on their books.

But then. . .you would have had to read Judges 20 to know that. That is, if you were truly wanting to remain intellectually honest.

I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines

He didn't get away with it either. But then you would have had to read 1 Kings 11:3-40 to know that. That is, if you were truly wanting to remain intellectually honest.

Ch: Job 14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."

Did you even read all 4 verses? This is nothng more than support for the Protestant doctrine of total depravity. As stated above, is this clean/unclean to the literal person, or symbolic of something else? Job lived before Moses and actually pre-dates the Mosaic ceremonial law. Job is talking about everyone here in a very literal sense.

This also echoes Romans 3:32 and Romans 5:12. This is the great equalizer of all humanity. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no one more righteous than another. Men are in no less trouble than women are.

Ch: Proverbs 7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell

Does that passage presume all women then are evil? What is this "house" composed of that sends the son to Hell? What is the entire house of the harlot built upon/furnished with? She's not just an individual or a mere one night stand here. This particular woman is a way of life. Hence the warning.

Ch: 11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns

Hello? Nowadays they're referred to as "attention whores." Are you calling Coyote Ugly behavior a virtue? Is this how you see all women. . .???

Ch: Isaiah 3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women

The rape accusation is presumptive on your part. Exactly how was God to go about this act of judgement, and why? Does He do it with a magic wand or something? What is the scab on the crown of the head? Where did all their jewlery go (since you're implying magical "disappearance" in this prophesy)? Nakedness doesn't always mean sexual, or even sexual assault for that matter. The answer here is obvious and you missed it because you're not intellectually honest enough to read the whole judgement.

Ch: Ezekiel 16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations

Quote: "You are your mother’s daughter, loathing husband and children; and you are the sister of your sisters, who loathed their husbands and children; your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite."

Assuming God as you are dong here, what is not obscene about loathing the nuclear family again? What is not obscene about behaving like a Godless nation that came before? Who is the woman in this passage? Just as it is done here with the city of Jerusalem, why did you also fail to note how the virtue of wisdom is also personified as a woman in the book of Proverbs?

Ch: Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"

You really think this verse applies to all women in all cases? That's not intellectually honest at all.

In case you never bothered to read the entire passage, Jesus is saying that it will be a horrible time being pregnant during the day of Antichrist. This is a time of disaster. Is this female hatred? Far from it. More like sympathy. . .at the very least.

Ch: Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus.

She's a good Jew. See above. Either this is a symbolic sign under the law of Moses, or else you're saying that Mary sinned in giving birth to Jesus. Which is completely in-sane to suggest! I'm a flaming Protestant and even I don't even accept that!

I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image

See above. The message here is simple. No one escapes submission. Submission for everyone in the church. Who's got the advantage where when you're directly accountable to Christ? See Lydia of Thyatira. Where was her husband to lead her in her practice of worship? Males are not held to a double-standard, but to a higher standard. See below.

Ch: 14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands

See above. The Superwoman myth rears its ugly head again. Ya know, it's really tempting for me as a male to take zero responsibility for anything and heap all of the work, religion, responsibility, child rearing, and defending the household all on the woman. But isn't that what Chumly is advocating here?

Ch: Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."

HELLO!!! You skipped verse 25!!! How ignorant of you! Wives are not called to sacrifice, only to submit. Husbands must submit both to God and sacrifice themselves for their wives. Women are not obligated to "love" anyone as their husbands are. Women have another human being that they can negotiate with, appeal to, and reason with directly. What does the man have? Only God. And may God have mercy on his soul.

Ch: Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit"

YOU DID IT AGAIN!!! See verse 19! Is love despotic??? Is there a difference between a leader and a boss?

http://209.85.141.10...

I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness

Or what? Or else they'll be stoned? This appeal to modesty reflects the Proverbs quote above, as well as the explanation behind it. Who should the focus be toward in church? God, or rather how distractingly attractive one's wife is?

There's a time and a place for everything, and assuming there is a time to worship God (as you cite here), then some place should be given to pay attention to Him alone; above all other distractions.

Ch: 2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless

Totally wrong. That's not a Biblical interpretation. See above. Adam was not held blameless and Paul doesn't state that.

As a matter of fact Paul goes off on Adam's own sin elsewhere in the Bible and far more often than Eve.

Why? Eve was decieved, but Adam willfully abdicated his role as redeemer of Eve and knowingly sinned. Eve sinned by deception, but the buck stopped with Adam.

Adam was the last line of defense. Anyone who teaches otherwise has a poor theology and a poor understanding of the Fall of man. The Fall itself is the very first step in knowing the gospel. It is key to understanding Christianity!

Ch: Please keep your religion and your ancient superstitions out of our
government and our laws. Please!

No problem. Because you mischaracterized my religion into something that it isn't. You have no clue what Christianity is.

Ch: You are dragging down the human
potential with your ancient superstitions (hey!, just like the
taliban!).

I don't recall any faihful Christians setting any bombs lately.

- PJ

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Game, set and match to Trake.