tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post532665557675167002..comments2023-07-28T07:44:40.802-04:00Comments on Women as Mothers: 101 Ways to Interfere with a Nursing Mother and InfantNYMOMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-67578872380882518532008-09-24T16:57:00.000-04:002008-09-24T16:57:00.000-04:00Wow Richard, you've really invested a LOT of time ...Wow Richard, you've really invested a LOT of time debating this very silly point...<BR/><BR/>JOSEPH was NOT the father of Jesus. HE was a STEP-FATHER.<BR/><BR/>GET IT!!!NYMOMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05762350054432716749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-62203891736683969242008-09-19T14:30:00.000-04:002008-09-19T14:30:00.000-04:00Richard, I just have to say one more thing and tha...Richard, I just have to say one more thing and than we can wrap this up.<BR/><BR/>"My wife, not so much, which is why she knows something about the other side of the coin."<BR/><BR/>Despite my background with my father, I use to believe like your wife that fathers got a bum deal in child custody. <BR/><BR/>"I have as little sympathy for anyone who would deprive their kids of a mother as for anyone who would deprive them of a father."<BR/><BR/>Again, I agree with you in THEORY. I know that there are mothers out there who will deliberately keep the fathers of their children away out of spite just like I know there are men out there who will do the same thing. <BR/><BR/>"It's unfortunate that there are always some jerks on any side of an issue that will make their own side look bad. I'm well aware that the FRA's are no exception."<BR/><BR/>This is where I really disagree. Like I said, I use to believe that fathers got a bum deal in custody, and I thought the FRA movement was just a bunch of fathers who wanted to be part of their children's lives. After all, I thought I got a bum deal from my own father so I thought it was nice to see a group of men taking fatherhood seriously. However, the POLITICAL RHETORIC of the FRA movement is quite different than what I believed. I was married to an FRA, I've been to their meetings, I've read their FRA literature and websites. The majority of the men in this movement as well as it's leaders are not men who were treated unfairly in custody disputes. They are men who's primary agenda is to give father's sole physical and legal custody no matter what. It doesn't matter to them if the father is fit for custody or not. They support parental kidnapping (by the father), they actually want to take away a woman's right to get a divorce for ANY REASON (it doesn't matter to them if the wife is divorcing to get away from an abusive spouse), or even to vote. Many of these men ususally have backgrounds of domestic violence, stalking, child physical and sexual abuse. If the mother is unfit, or the father was the primary caretaker, than I haven't any problem with father custody. However, these men don't care about what kind of fathers are getting custody. All that matters to them is that all fathers get custody no if, ands, or buts. Now, I know you disagree with me on issues of joint physical and legal custody, but I'm not interested in rearguing those issues because we both know where we stand on them. However, the FRA movement is only interested in joint legal and physical custody as a means to eventually give full legal and physical custody to the fathers. They aren't interested in two parent homes, or making sure every kid has two parents. Father custody, fit or unfit, is all that matters to them. And they get naive women (like I was) to help them out in the movement by giving these women sob stories about how they were "unfairly" deprived of custody. I bought this shit hook, line, and sinker because I was in love with an FRA. I finally woke up when I realized that most of the men I encountered (including my ex-husband) were exactly like my father. I've actually heard many of these men brag about using false allegations of PAS to get custody from wives that they abused. They were actually proud of this fact. Other men claimed that their wives falsely accused them of domestic violence, or child abuse. I actually checked out the stories of some of these men, and the domestic violence and child abuse claims were legitimate, i.e., there was witnesses to the events described, or medical evidence (like the father's sperm was actually found inside the son's anus). And this guy is still allowed some supervised visitations with his kid. I'm sorry child molesters don't deserve any kind of visitation. I told these men about my own father, and all they said was that my father had to "love" me very much to do what he did. I couldn't believe they were serious. If my father was still alive at this point, I'm sure he would have been a member. In a lot of these cases where these men have claimed PAS, the mothers actually had legitimate reasons not to allow visitation or custody. Are there mothers who unfairly deprive good fathers from seeing their children? Sure there are, but I don't buy PAS as a SYNDROME. In other words, I don't think this behavior is so widespread that there are hordes of mothers out there depiving fathers of custody/visitation. This is political rhetoric put out by the FRA movement in order to give fathers leverage in a custody battle. You know those statistics that you say is all feminist propaganda like only abusive fathers fight for custody, or claim PAS, or kidnap their children, or whatever. I can tell you that they're true. When I lived with my ex-husband, I only had a vague notion of feminism, or "feminist propaganda" as you put it. When I left my husband, I started getting interested in feminism, and when I read the so-called "propaganda", I was stunned by how true it all was. I've seen it, I've heard it, and I lived within the FRA movement for six years, and I can tell you that many FRAs fit those statistics exactly, and the leaders of the FRA movement condone all those behaviors that make up those statistics as well. Sorry, Richard, but the FRA movement isn't the exception, it's the rule.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and btw, the reason I brought up Matthew 23:9 was because a lot of FRA rhetoric revolves around this idea that a biological father's place in the home is the same as God's relationship to his followers. Of course, I'm not suggesting that you call your father Al. However, the FRA want to make fatherhood exaltation into the level of being God's mini-me in the home. God the Father language is very common in FRA circles. The FRA's are just as guilty as the scribes and pharisees of Jesus's day. They're both hypocrites.<BR/><BR/>Again, I'n not interested in debating this, or changing your opinion. I'm just giving further explanation about why I feel like I do. I won't be coming back to this thread because frankly I'm sick of it. Good-bye, Richard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-30711841619258602032008-09-19T10:22:00.000-04:002008-09-19T10:22:00.000-04:00No problem, Anon.You're right that I've been prett...No problem, Anon.<BR/><BR/>You're right that I've been pretty lucky personally in my family background. My wife, not so much, which is why she knows something about the other side of the coin.<BR/><BR/>From what you've said your dad was a true asshole. I have as little sympathy for anyone who would deprive their kids of a mother as for anyone who would deprive them of a father.<BR/><BR/>It's unfortunate that there are always some jerks on any side of an issue that will make their own side look bad. I'm well aware that the FRA's are no exception.<BR/><BR/>But I've enjoyed this nevertheless.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-7158170734186116052008-09-18T21:40:00.000-04:002008-09-18T21:40:00.000-04:00"Now do you have anything NEW to add, or can we wr..."Now do you have anything NEW to add, or can we wrap this up?"<BR/><BR/>The only thing I have to say which I'm sure you already know. I disagree with most if not everything you've said through this entire thread. We can agree to disagree. End of story.<BR/><BR/>"If some prick has given you a bad time, then I can understand the anger you've been spewing."<BR/><BR/>That prick was my own father. He was physically and abusive to my mother, didn't work, didn't do any kind of housework or childcare. My mother finally threw his ass out of the house, and he retaliated by kidnapping us and telling us our mother was dead. For two months, we lived like fugitives while we believed she was dead. I was only six, but I remember the whole thing like it was yesterday. He finally brought us back because he ran out of money. After the divorce, he saw us only a handful of times (he lived in the same town). And no our mother didn't stop us from seeing him. Everytime he showed up out of the blue, she let us go with him (despite her fears of us getting kidnapped again). Other times, he told us he was coming, but didn't show up later claiming that he never said he was coming (calling us liars). Our mother was a single mom, and she did a wonderful job despite a father who didn't pay child support half the time, and she worked over 50 hours a week to pay the bills. Men like my dad are the poster boys for the FRA movement. All he did was grumble about how our mother was a bitch, and how he got screwed. When I heard the rhetoric of the FRA movement, I know my father would've been right at home in the movement. My ex-husband wasn't much better than my father, he was actually in the FRA movement at one point so I know what kind of things are really being said, and concern for children is not one of them. Richard, you say you have this wonderful marriage, and these great kids. You say your own parents have a wonderful marriage. That tells me that you haven't any real experience with the kinds of situations that I grew up in, and you really haven't a clue what your talking about. I'm not saying this to be nasty or sarcastic. I'm looking at the FRA movement from the inside based on experience. Your looking at the FRA movement from the outside. Your ideal about two parents is great. I wish everyone had two parents, but like I said, it's an ideal, it's not reality for many people especially women and children. As for my own father, by rights I should have ended up hating him. I actually loved the man, and I had a relationship of sorts with him until the day he died. However, we were much better off without him, and if he took off never to be heard from again, it wouldn't have been traumatic. However, thinking our mother was dead for two months was horrible. I NEVER forgave my father for that.<BR/><BR/>"Which is the main reason why I've chosen not to stoop to the level of foot-stamping and name-calling that you've displayed in the course of this discussion and which I hope many have read (though I doubt it)."<BR/><BR/>I guess your right. I apologize because it was pretty nasty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-39561391328498020802008-09-18T16:59:00.000-04:002008-09-18T16:59:00.000-04:00Aphids?You're a lot more invested in your ideas th...Aphids?<BR/><BR/>You're a lot more invested in your ideas than I thought.<BR/><BR/>Look, Anon, if you're that desperate to believe that Jesus' only biological parent was Mary, then OK, I'll say that sure, it's possible, OK?<BR/><BR/>Possible, but not very likely.<BR/><BR/>Since the good Lord didn't have to answer to any woman-firsters, it's a lot more sensible to believe that instead of fooling with all this biological hocus-pocus that God simply went with what was there and miraculously supplied the physical material necessary to fertilize an ovum and produce a perfect male child. It's also a lot more consistent with the other New Testament passages that speak of the nature of his conception.<BR/><BR/>You're hung up on the "seed of the woman" business but that was merely a prophecy of His divine parentage. It no more means that He was ONLY the seed of woman than Isaac's being called the seed of Abraham's body precludes him from also being the seed of Sarah.<BR/><BR/>"MOTHERS ARE USUALLY THE ONES WHO SACRIFICE A LOT FOR THEIR CHILDREN. It makes sense to compare a true believer to mothers in a spiritual sense."<BR/><BR/>Well, don't just stop there, Anon. What do brothers and sisters sacrifice for each other that they should be compared to true believers?<BR/><BR/>I've got two sisters and none of us have sacrificed anything much for each other as we've haven't even lived in the same state for most of our adult lives. If this were the meaning of the analogy, I think it would fall flat for most people.<BR/><BR/>You're so into this verse, let's look at the scenario in which it was spoken.<BR/><BR/>It appears that Jesus was in someone's house and a crowd gathered around Him. He was in the middle of teaching (you know, one of the things he came to do) when someone barged in and told him that His mother and brothers were outside and wanted Him to stop what He was doing and come out to talk to them (probably so they could tell Him to shut up and stop making the VIP's mad).<BR/><BR/>Then He looked around at the crowd that He was teaching and said "Who are my mother and brothers?" And so on and so forth with what you've already quoted umpteen times.<BR/><BR/>Obviously what He was essentially saying to the interloper was "SO WHAT? I've got bigger fish to fry here, like teaching these people I came to save about the will of God."<BR/><BR/>So there you are, sis. Believe whatever tickles your fancy, even if it's absurd in the context of the event. But we've discussed this enough.<BR/><BR/>"Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."<BR/><BR/>Ok, sis, I'll start calling my dad Al. And I'll call my mom "Woman" like Jesus did (she'll love that!) And you'll have to find another name for your rabbi that you're so proud of. And I just don't know what I'll do when my kids talk about their "teachers..."<BR/><BR/>Come on, how silly can we be? He was talking about comparisons of course. No earthly relationship can approach the importance of that between the individual and God.<BR/><BR/>"Actually, the Bible says that divorce is fine in the case of a believer who is married to an unbeliever or in adultery."<BR/><BR/>Hold on there, sis. Jesus said divorce is allowed (not "fine") for adultery, and we can all go along with that. And Paul allowed divorce from an unbeliever but only if the UNBELIEVER wanted it, not the believer. The believer is NOT to divorce.<BR/><BR/>As a believer you don't get to sit back and evaluate your spouse's performance (with no corresponding examination of your own performance, no doubt) and decide that they're not sufficiently christian-like to continue as your spouse.<BR/><BR/>And if you really can't stand the person you've chosen, you can go but you can't take up with someone else because that's adultery.<BR/><BR/>And you wasted a lot of time and energy on submission because no, I wasn't going to bring up submission. I'm not sure I buy your watered-down definition of it but I don't really care about the whole submission thing at all.<BR/><BR/>It's not important to me for my wife to submit to me. What's more important is that she fulfills her responsibilities to our family just like I do.<BR/><BR/>"In light of your views on women..."<BR/><BR/>What views? Do I think we're exactly the same? No. Due to different wiring, I think women are probably more prone to certain kinds of shortcomings, just like we are to ours. But are women as good as we are? Sure. Are they as smart as we are? Sure. Are they as corrupt as we are? Sure.<BR/><BR/>The peculiar problem we have today is not women themselves but a flawed legal and social system that purports to give women all the rights of adults but with the responsibilities and accountability of children. <BR/><BR/>You'd think feminists would be offended by this but they love it. They just don't want anyone to point it out too plainly.<BR/><BR/>But it will all even out in time, after we finally outgrow the "morally superior angel in the house" mythology that's left over from Victorian times.<BR/><BR/>"Maybe marriage isn't for you."<BR/><BR/>Well, like my grandpa always said, be sure to take your cues and advice from people who've made a success of things, not from people who've fouled up.<BR/><BR/>"Unfortunately, PATRIARCHY is what has really ruined the relationship between a husband and wife."<BR/><BR/>Oh nonsense. Patriarchy has done nothing of the sort. What ruins the relationship between husband and wife in EVERY system is the same thing that ruins all earthy relationships. Which is SELF.<BR/><BR/>And spare us the spew about FRA's being "selfish." We're ALL poisoned with the love of self, and women no less than us. Rarely has any philosophy glorified the self as much as gender feminism and gynocentrism.<BR/><BR/>"The most common family arrangement in patriarchal societies throughout millenium has been polygamous. There wasn't any "two-parents"."<BR/><BR/>I think you're overestimating the prevalence of polygamy. While the majority of human cultures have ACCEPTED polygamy, life until modern times has usually been a hard, sparse existence and very few men could ever maintain more than one wife and family.<BR/><BR/>But if you find "two-parent" confusing, substitute "both parents." Even in imperfect families the presence of both parents has always been important for children.<BR/><BR/>It's just like the Ishmael story you brought up. We can all agree Hagar was in a shitty situation. When she ran away from Sarah she was probably headed back to Egypt where she came from and maybe still had family. Ishmael wasn't even born yet and could have simply been assimilated into her family and would never have missed his father, right? If ever there was an opportunity for God to put his stamp of approval on your "pre-fall matriarchy," this was it.<BR/><BR/>He didn't. He told her to go back. Her son's place during his childhood was in his father's home.<BR/><BR/>And as you rightly pointed out, Mary was in no danger of being stoned for being an unwed mother so God could easily have made her one to show how great single-mother families are and make her a big heroine for gender feminism, of course.<BR/><BR/>He didn't do that either. The family He created and placed in that cave in Bethlehem was the same kind of family that's stood the test of time and that it's still His will for every child to have.<BR/><BR/>Man, woman, child. Then, now, and always.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, Anon. The validation you seek just isn't there.<BR/><BR/>If some prick has given you a bad time, then I can understand the anger you've been spewing. Which is the main reason why I've chosen not to stoop to the level of foot-stamping and name-calling that you've displayed in the course of this discussion and which I hope many have read (though I doubt it).<BR/><BR/>And that's a lot more quarter than woman-firsters give to men who've been put thru agony by corrupt women. Their pain and that of their children is met with denial, contempt, or outright hatred.<BR/><BR/>Now do you have anything NEW to add, or can we wrap this up?<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-13437323570127670682008-09-18T03:15:00.000-04:002008-09-18T03:15:00.000-04:00"Number 1: Biology. If Jesus were some kind of phy..."Number 1: Biology. If Jesus were some kind of physical clone of Mary, having no other biological parent, He would have been female. Females do not possess any Y chromosomes to give their offspring. So if His sex chromosome, at the very least, did not come from a human father, then it had to come miraculously from God."<BR/><BR/>Actually I have to correct myself from my earlier post. I said Jesus would've been created by a combination of parthogenesis and heterogamy. Actually, there is a natural process called haploid parthogenesis which is a form of reproduction where an unfertilized egg from a female develops into a new individual that is MALE. In other words, females have male offspring without the use of a biological father. Bees, ants, and aphids reproduce like this, and scientists have already used parthogenesis successfully to create human embryos and an actual rabbit. So it's possible in humans. Jesus used the natural process of haploid parthogenesis (a process that was created millions of years before) to make himself a male child from a human woman's unfertilized egg. If this process could be done in lower life forms, it could be done in a human female by God manipulating the natural processes that he already created millions of years before. With God all things are possible. NO BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS NEEDED. And Dick, don't tell me this would still make God the biological father because than that would be like saying that God was the biological father of bees, ants, and aphids. I think not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-23087364741528792362008-09-18T01:19:00.000-04:002008-09-18T01:19:00.000-04:00Oh, btw, before you start spouting off more nonsen...Oh, btw, before you start spouting off more nonsense that the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife and wives are to submit to their husbands, I decided to clear that one up for you also. Head in the modern English language can mean authority, but in French, it doesn't have this meaning. In the ancient Greek of the New Testament, the word for head is Kephale. It means source or origin. However, our modern english translators want to give kephale the meaning of authority when it comes to interpretations. 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a good example of this.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 11:3<BR/>But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. <BR/><BR/>A lot of people try to translate this passage as some kind of hierarchy with Kephale meaning authority. However, if kephale (head) meant authority in the ancient Greek, this passage would read something like this: <BR/>the head of Christ is God; the head of man is Christ; the head of man is woman. You translate kephale as source or orgin, and the passage makes a lot more sense,.i.e., the source of every man is Christ, the source of woman is man, the source of Christ is God. The fact that this passage is talking about source or origin is clarified further on.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 11:12<BR/>For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. <BR/><BR/>In Epheisans 5 the husband is again said to be the "head" of his wife, and wife is said to "submit" to her husband. Again, head should be translated as source or orgin because the husband is specifically told to agape love his wife as his own body. In other words, he is the source of deep love and concern for his wife. The wife is said to "submit". The Greek word for submit is Hupotasso, and it didn't mean submit as in obey. In Epheisans 5:21, christians are told to "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." I really doubt the verse is telling all the Christians to obey each other. It's basically telling them support and respect each other. The so-called "submission" of the wife to her husband isn't any different than her submission to any other christian in the church. And the husband,as a christian, is also bound to submit to other christians in the church, but his submission to his wife is described as "loving her as his own body". In other words, it's the husband's responsibility to go out of his way to show love and concern for his wife, and it's the wife's responsiblity to "submit" to that love NOT HIS AUTHORITY. The Bible uses the imagery of Christ and his church to represent the marriage between the husband and wife. It says the husband should be like "Christ", but judeo- christian tradition likes to mistranslate words like head and submit to make this mean that the husband should have authority over his wife. Actually, this passage describes Christ's real relationship to the church:<BR/><BR/>Ephesians 2:11<BR/>For Christ himself has brought peace to us. He united Jews and Gentiles into one people when, in his own body on the cross, he broke down the wall of hostility that separated us. 15 He did this by ending the system of law with its commandments and regulations. He made peace between Jews and Gentiles by creating in himself one new people from the two groups. 16 Together as one body, Christ reconciled both groups to God by means of his death on the cross, and our hostility toward each other was put to death."<BR/><BR/>Get it Dick! In order for the husband to be like Christ to his church, he has to love his wife as his own body. The husband has the responsiblity to bring peace and unity to his marriage by reconciling himself to his wife in one new body through love and self-sacrifice. The reasons for this are clear. In that patriarchal culture, the husband is the one in the marriage who had all the power, and he was the one most likely to abuse it. He's the one who has the responsiblity to end any hostility in his marriage brought on by the patriarchal influences of his culture, and it's contempt for women. The husband's responsiblity is to emulate Christ's love and self-sacrifice to the church. This doesn't have anything to do with authority.<BR/><BR/>Now the wife is suppose to "submit" to her husband like the church submits to Christ. Well, her "submission" is simply to reconcile herself to her husband's love and concern through mutual respect, peace, and unity. <BR/><BR/>In sum, both husband and wife are suppose to submit to each other through mutual love, concern, and respect, BUT it's the HUSBAND who has the added RESPONSIBILTY to make sure that he keeps the hostile, patriarchal influences of his culture out of his marriage because he is the one who is in a position of power to do so. In other words, he has to "love his wife like his own body" by treating her as an equal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-28938617657440489572008-09-17T22:34:00.000-04:002008-09-17T22:34:00.000-04:00Matthew 12:50 For whoever does the will of my heav...Matthew 12:50 <BR/>For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER. <BR/><BR/>I said:<BR/><BR/>"Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS."<BR/><BR/>Dick said:<BR/><BR/>"Careful. NY might pop a hemorrhoid over that one!"<BR/><BR/>"And brothers, and sisters, and lions and tigers and bears oh my..."<BR/><BR/>Your awful flippant there Dick! But I noticed that you tend to ignore the other verse that I quoted.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."<BR/><BR/>Can't stomaach what Jesus is saying about fathers can you Dick? Get it! Call NO ONE on EARTH your father. Basically, it's saying that human beings are not suppose to be elevated in a spiritual sense the same as God the Father. Like this idea of calling priests "Father". The quote says NO ONE, and that includes biological fathers. The judeo-christian TRADITION that tries to elevate fathers as the final authority in the household just because God took on the identity of God the Father. The same is said for the fatherhood exaltation behind the FRA rhetoric. They don't want to be "equal parents" or what other bullshit they try to spout. They want to be the one in charge, or basically to "act as God". This whole patriarchal, fatherhood exaltation is just another form of idolatry. And that's exactly what your doing when you claim God is Jesus's "biological father". Your just trying to come up with flimsy excuses for the fact that Jesus's only biological,i.e., flesh and blood parent is his mother. Sorry,Dick, there isn't any biological father, but I'll give you credit for trying to invent one. You have some imagination. However, trying to say that a biological father's status is equal to that of God the Father is pretty blasphemous even for you.<BR/><BR/>Now back to the quote about MOTHERS:<BR/><BR/>Matthew 12:50 <BR/>For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER." <BR/><BR/>Again, here Jesus is comparing christians who do the will of the HEAVENLY FATHER is just like his brothers, sisters, or MOTHER. You laugh and try to mock what I said, but it's true. The quote says WHOEVER. This means women and men, biological mothers and BIOLOGICAL FATHERS. After all, a lot of the christian message is about self-sacrifice. MOTHERS ARE USUALLY THE ONES WHO SACRIFICE A LOT FOR THEIR CHILDREN. It makes sense to compare a true believer to mothers in a spiritual sense. If fathers acted more like mothers, the FRAs wouldn't have all the problems that they have. It's as simple as that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-15550523702960058382008-09-17T19:27:00.000-04:002008-09-17T19:27:00.000-04:00"Obviously, if God is trying to make a point throu..."Obviously, if God is trying to make a point through a loving father-child relationship, most men christian and non-christian alike have failed to see that."<BR/><BR/>"Take it up with Jesus, then. His choice of analogy, not mine."<BR/><BR/>I don't have to take anything up with Jesus. It's the BIOLOGICAL FATHERS in the FRA movement who are going to have to answer to them about they treated their children AND their mothers so horribly.<BR/><BR/>"Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS."<BR/><BR/>"And brothers, and sisters, and lions and tigers and bears oh my..."<BR/><BR/>This comment was based on a direct quote from Jesus's own mouth. Your the one who should take it up with Jesus. It's his analogy, not mine.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 12:50 <BR/>For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"The obvious point, if you take it all in context, is that the individual's relationship with God is to be so important and all-consuming that all normally earthly relationships are reduced to the to the level of hatred in comparison to it."<BR/><BR/>If your talking about Luke 14:26, than what you say is true. HOWEVER, different people have been hurt in relationships because of sin. This is particularly true in a patriarchal culture where women are treated as inferior. In Jesus's day, women, slaves, and children were especially mistreated. While a relationship with God is number one, the Bible makes it clear in that in order to show your love for God, you have to love your neighbor as yourself. The Greek word for love is Agape. It's the strongest word for love in the Greel language. Christians, in general, are told to show Agape love for other christians, but husbands are especially singled out to show Agape love to their wives. This was done because men are the ones who are in a position of power to abuse their wives, and they were expected to go out of their way to show this to their wives. Unfortuantely, a lot of men than and NOW just don't get this. <BR/><BR/>"It's primarily concerned with how husbands and wives treat each other, true, but it's pretty clear about divorce, too. And like Jesus told his disciples, if you can't accept what he taught about marriage and divorce, perhaps you aren't called to marriage."<BR/><BR/>Actually, the Bible says that divorce is fine in the case of a believer who is married to an unbeliever or in adultery. 1 Timothy 5:8 says that a person who doesn't take care of his family is worse than an infidel. A so-called "christian" man who verbally and physically abuses his wife, treats her like a domestic servant, and basically mistreats her, isn't a real christian. In these cases, divorce is valid. You say you treat your wife well, but I have only your word to go by. In light of your views on women, I find this doubtful. Maybe marriage isn't for you.<BR/><BR/>"Patriarchy is not "all" about women leaving their families or what-all. It's mostly a simple matter of two-parent families in which a father's relationship to his children is respected and protected by law and custom."<BR/><BR/>Oh, bullshit Richard! The most common family arrangement in patriarchal societies throughout millenium has been polygamous. There wasn't any "two-parents". It was dad with however many wives he happened to be able to afford. Of course, a father's relationship with his children is repected and protected by custom and law. The MOTHERS didn't have any rights! This "two-parent" nuclear family bullshit is a modern anomaly. Even in patriarchal cultures where polygamy was "officially" outlawed(however dad was allowed to have how many mistresses on the side, and this was protected by law while adultery by mom usually ended in divorce). Most "two-parents" lived in EXTENDED FAMILIES with several generations living together. Both parents relied on other family members for help in childcare and to make a living. It was called cooperation. However, even an extended family in a patriarchal society, women didn't have any rights! Your two-parent family theory being the be-all and end-all of patriarchal society is bullshit! Two-parent families only function well when the parents love each other and treat each other with respect. Unfortunately, PATRIARCHY is what has really ruined the relationship between a husband and wife.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-77309919277403151652008-09-17T18:05:00.000-04:002008-09-17T18:05:00.000-04:00"No, I don't think the Jesus of the Bible was with..."No, I don't think the Jesus of the Bible was without a Y-chromosome because the Bible tells us that in all ways He was fully God and FULLY MAN. And according to the Bible He is alive today and still fully God and fully man, with glorified flesh and blood."<BR/><BR/>Again, YOU don't get it Richard! God is the creator of the natural world, in other words, the biological world. He can do what he likes in it. He's not biologically flesh and blood, and he didn't pass on his Y chromosome through sexual intercourse like a BIOLOGICAL FATHER would. Actually what God did was manipulate the natural biological processes that he CREATED to form a male child in Mary's womb. From a biological prospective, that's not impossible. What He did was a form of:<BR/><BR/>parthogenesis<BR/>A form of reproduction in which an unfertilized egg develops into a new individual.<BR/><BR/>The "physical substance" that produced Jesus was from a female unfertilized egg. Parthogenesis is usually found among lower life forms of insects and arthropods. This is a biological process created by GOD. And if it's possible for God to do this among lower life forms, than he could do this among humans, and NO BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS NEEDED BECAUSE THE PROCESS INVOLVES THE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE OF THE FEMALE. <BR/><BR/> "If Jesus were some kind of physical clone of Mary, having no other biological parent, He would have been female. Females do not possess any Y chromosomes to give their offspring." <BR/><BR/>Not so fast Richard! This isn't biologically impossible either. In some lower life forms like West African Frog, FEMALES CAN TURN TO MALES WITHIN A SINGLE SEX ENVIRONMENT without getting a Y chromosome from a male biological parent. This is called heterogamy. Again, the "physical substance" that is used is FEMALE. Again, this is biologically possible among lower life forms, and God, who created these lower life forms, can certainly manipulate these natural processes in higher life forms,i.e., HUMANS or more specifically with Mary. In fact, right in Genesis, you can see these processes at work along with another biological process called fragmentation. Fragmentation is a form of asexual reproduction where a new organism grows from a fragment of a fully developed individual. Each fragment develops into a mature, fully grown individual. This happened when God took Eve from Adam's side (forget rib, that is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew). Again, Eve would probably have been identical to Adam, but God probably did the process of heterogamy. That is the process of changing from sex to another in a single sex environment so that sexual reproduction could take place between Adam and Eve. In this case, Eve became FULLY FEMALE FROM A FULLY MALE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE. In the normal course of things, females have two X chromosomes-one from their biological mother, and one from their BIOLOGICAL FATHER. Eve didn't have a biological mother to get her second X chromosome from (her first one could come from Adam) Are you going to say that Eve wasn't FULLY FEMALE because she came from a FULLY MALE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE? After all, Jesus was FULLY MALE after coming from a FULLY FEMALE PHYSICAL SUBSTANCE. The point I'm trying to make is that BIOLOGICALLY it isn't impossible for reproduction to take place with ONLY ONE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, AND THAT ONE BIOLOGICAL PARENT IS USUALLY FEMALE. Again, these BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES ususally take place in lower life forms, but THE VIRGIN BIRTH AND GENESIS BOTH PROOVE THAT GOD COULD AND DID USE THESE SAME PROCESSES IN HIGHER LIFE FORMS,I.E, HUMAN BEINGS. And as far as the VIRGIN BIRTH, THE ONLY BIOLOGICAL PARENT WAS JESUS'S MOTHER. Eve was created with the processes of fragmentation and heterogamy. Jesus was created with the processes of parthogenesis and heterogamy. Adam was created from the dust of the earth. <BR/><BR/>"No, I don't think the Jesus of the bible was sent into the world as an infant to make any particular statement about mothers"<BR/><BR/>Ha! Again, Jesus could have been created just like Adam. WITHOUT ANY BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OR SOURCE WHATSOEVER. The fact that he was born from ONLY ONE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, a process that is not biologically impossible, has a lot to say about the value of BIOLOGICAL MOTHERS. Again, this was done to fulfill the prophecy in Genesis 3:15:<BR/><BR/> And I will put enmity<BR/>Between you and the woman, <BR/>And between your seed and her Seed; <BR/>He shall bruise your head, <BR/>And you shall bruise His heel.<BR/><BR/>Get it the SEED OF THE WOMAN! JESUS'S ONLY BIOLOGICAL PARENT WAS HIS MOTHER! A BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS NOT NEEDED BIOLOGICALLY OR THEOLOGICALLY!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-89073670578103257542008-09-17T13:12:00.000-04:002008-09-17T13:12:00.000-04:00Now six posts to convey that you still don't get i...Now six posts to convey that you still don't get it.<BR/><BR/>No, I don't think the Jesus of the Bible was without a Y-chromosome because the Bible tells us that in all ways He was fully God and FULLY MAN. And according to the Bible He is alive today and still fully God and fully man, with glorified flesh and blood.<BR/><BR/>No, I don't think the Jesus of the bible was sent into the world as an infant to make any particular statement about mothers (which He had very little to say about in His ministry). It was so that He could fully share in all of man's joys, hurts and other experiences and be tempted in all things just as we are. He could not be a perfect substitute for us if He did not walk in our shoes all the way.<BR/><BR/>"Obviously, if God is trying to make a point through a loving father-child relationship, most men christian and non-christian alike have failed to see that."<BR/><BR/>Take it up with Jesus, then. His choice of analogy, not mine.<BR/><BR/>"After all, it's the HUSBAND WHO IS SUPPOSE TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS WIFE. And don't tell me most of you do!"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps not in your immediate experience. My father, on the other hand, has lived a life completely centered around the needs of my mother for the past ten years, as she is an invalid who requires round-the-clock care. I won't even go into the sacrifices my father-in-law made for peace in his family. And I myself would certainly lay down my life in a heartbeat to save my wife or my children. Your little niche ain't the whole world, sis. <BR/><BR/>"Do you really think that she would be able to put a 17 year old kid under the shrubs easily?"<BR/><BR/>Don't know, but I guess she managed it. Since the Bible clearly states that Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born, 100 when Isaac was born, and given that ancient women usually nursed children for at least two years, more often three, and this rift did not occur until after Isaac was weaned, Ishmael was definitely almost grown. By then his father had likely done all he could for him and it would have been as good a time as any for him to go find his destiny elsewhere as Joseph, Daniel, and so many young guys had to do as well.<BR/><BR/>"Your trying to turn what was a POLYGAMOUS marriage based on SLAVERY INTO YOUR WARPED IDEA OF A TWO PARENT FAMILY. And you think this was good for Ishmael?"<BR/><BR/>It wasn't ideal but I guess it was good enough since God told the pregnant Hagar to go back and submit herself to her mistress. That was the evidently the right place for her to be at that time, i.e. during Ishmael's childhood.<BR/><BR/>That's the point that people keep missing nowadays: except in the very worst of circumstances, it's not as important to kids for their parents to be happy as it is for them to BE THERE, tending to their responsibilities. Whoever values happiness over all else has no business taking on kids.<BR/><BR/>"Ancient near eastern culture (of which ancient Israel was a part of) had customs and traditions that were pretty much universal over the entire fertile crescent. Whatever situation the law of Moses didn't cover was generally understood to be decided by custom and tradition."<BR/><BR/>Anon, I'm not really interested in what the pagan cultures of the time allowed or didn't allow, as it was disobedience for Israelites to mix with those people or adopt their customs in the first place. Jesus had quite a bit to say about people perverting the Law and adding a little of this and a little of that until the spirit and clear intent of it was forgotten and it ended up serving human interests instead.<BR/><BR/>"Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS."<BR/><BR/>And brothers, and sisters, and lions and tigers and bears oh my...<BR/><BR/>Look, Anon, I can see you've found a way to look at these verses that appeals to your vanity but the fact is that it's as absurd as claiming that you have to actually hate your father and mother, wives and children and so on in order to be a follower of Christ.<BR/><BR/>The obvious point, if you take it all in context, is that the individual's relationship with God is to be so important and all-consuming that all normally earthly relationships are reduced to the to the level of hatred in comparison to it.<BR/><BR/>"The New Testament is more concerned with how the husband treats his wife than it is about divorce."<BR/><BR/>It's primarily concerned with how husbands and wives treat each other, true, but it's pretty clear about divorce, too. And like Jesus told his disciples, if you can't accept what he taught about marriage and divorce, perhaps you aren't called to marriage.<BR/><BR/>"Get it! A man leaves his father and mother. He cleaves to his wife. He becomes a member of HER FAMILY, and the children TAKE ON THE IDENTITY OF THEIR MOTHERS THROUGH FEMALE KINSHIP."<BR/><BR/>Again, that's a stretching of the Scriptures to the breaking point to suit female vanity, consistent with nothing else in the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Patriarchy is not "all" about women leaving their families or what-all. It's mostly a simple matter of two-parent families in which a father's relationship to his children is respected and protected by law and custom. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps early homo sapiens lived in something approaching matriarchy, but of course we had to have patriarchy (i.e. two-parent families) in order to achieve a state of civilization sufficiently advanced to even give us written records. The few examples of it we still have are not anything that normal people would find remotely desirable to live in.<BR/><BR/>Tell you what, Anon, why don't you get busy re-writing the bible and let us know what God REALLY meant. You know, The Gospel According to Woman-Firsters. I'd immensely enjoy a copy.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-67950198411141081562008-09-16T23:57:00.000-04:002008-09-16T23:57:00.000-04:00"But the interesting thing about both your example..."But the interesting thing about both your examples is that they were male-initiated divorces. Although God of the bible "hates divorce," He reluctantly allowed it only to men."<BR/><BR/>Not true! A slave wife was allowed to divorce her husband if he didn't provide her with food, clothing, and sex (Exodus 21 7:11). If a slave wife got these benefits, so could a free woman. Also the law of Moses was not cut in dry in everything. <BR/>Ancient near eastern culture (of which ancient Israel was a part of) had customs and traditions that were pretty much universal over the entire fertile crescent. Whatever situation the law of Moses didn't cover was generally understood to be decided by custom and tradition. For example, women had the right to divorce her husband if it was written into her marriage contract that she could. The law that said a man couldn't remarry after his divorce was actually written for the benefit of the WIFE in the cases where there wasn't a marriage contract that specified wife's right to divorce. A woman who was divorced and had to forfeit her dowry could usually get another dowry if she remarried. If her second husband died, her first husband could reclaim her and her new dowry for his own because she did not have proof that the first husband actually divorced her (because of lack of a marriage contract). The law in Deuteronomy forced a husband who divorced his wife to give her a certificate of divorce so that she had a written account of her first marriage. Than her first husband couldn't force her to marry him again because she had written proof. In other words, the first husband couldn't divorce his wife, steal her dowry, claim her as his wife again after she loses her second husband, and claim her dowry from her second husband as his own. After all, King David was allowed to remarry his first wife Mischael after so remarrying in general wasn't a problem.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"In this story God comes off as pretty compassionate to delay the birth of Isaac long enough for Ishmael to at least grow up in peace with both parents without having his childhood disrupted by the inevitable family rift. I wish parents were half that kind to their kids today."<BR/><BR/>Are you for real? Ishmael grew up in a POLYGAMOUS HOUSEHOLD. There was constant strife between Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar. Do you really think that this was a wonderful environment for Ishmael? You are an idiot. First of all, Hagar was a SLAVE WIFE. Do you really think that Hagar lived in peace with Abraham? First of all, Hagar didn't have any choice in bearing a son for Abraham. She was forced into it, and Sarah ended up giving Abraham a slave wife to bear a child because in the middle east at that time, a barren wife could be divorced if she didn't give her husband a child. Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to bear a child on her behalf because of her fear of being divorced, and Hagar didn't have a choice because, you know, she was a SLAVE. What part of that don't you understand? What a fucking idiot. Your trying to turn what was a POLYGAMOUS marriage based on SLAVERY INTO YOUR WARPED IDEA OF A TWO PARENT FAMILY. And you think this was good for Ishmael? Boy, you are an idiot! Ishmael lived in peace with his two parents. HA! HA!HA!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-28130891579409875812008-09-16T23:17:00.000-04:002008-09-16T23:17:00.000-04:00"Ishmael was fourteen when Isaac was born, and pro..."Ishmael was fourteen when Isaac was born, and probably about 17 by the time Isaac was weaned. He was just about grown, and by that time his mother needed him more than he needed her,"<BR/><BR/>Yeah, it shows that Ishmael was just about grown! Really it refers to him as a CHILD, and a child who GOD WATCHED OVER WHILE HE GREW UP IN THE WILDERNESS. One who almost died because Abraham gave Hagar only some bread and a bottle of water, and put them out in the desert for crying out loud. And Abraham was the one who wanted to keep the child when GOD told him to send Hagar and Ishmael away. It clearly says that Hagar cast the CHILD UNDER THE SHRUBS. Do you really think that she would be able to put a 17 year old kid under the shrubs easily? Can't you read Dick? Can't handle that God gave custody of a BOY CHILD TO HIS MOTHER. ONE THAT IS REFERRED TO TIME AND AGAIN AS A CHILD WHO GREW UP IN THE WILDERNESS WHILE IN HAGAR'S CUSTODY. A CHILD THAT HAGAR FOUND A WIFE FOR WHEN HE BECAME AN ADULT! <BR/><BR/>Genesis<BR/>14And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. <BR/><BR/> 15And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. <BR/><BR/> 16And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow shot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. <BR/><BR/> 17And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. <BR/><BR/> 18Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. <BR/><BR/> 19And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. <BR/><BR/> 20And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. <BR/><BR/> 21And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-15328568307777212008-09-16T19:08:00.000-04:002008-09-16T19:08:00.000-04:00"But I think the point is obvious. That the import..."But I think the point is obvious. That the importance of all human relationships pale in comparison to the importance of the relationship between the individual and God. Which Jesus always described in terms that the people could understand: a loving father-child relationship"<BR/><BR/>Biological fathers are not God, and the track record of biological fathers toward their children AND their children's mothers has been horrible throughout most of history right up until today! Obviously, if God is trying to make a point through a loving father-child relationship, most men christian and non-christian alike have failed to see that. After all, it's the HUSBAND WHO IS SUPPOSE TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR HIS WIFE. And don't tell me most of you do! The fact that there is even an MRA/FRA movement says otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-39061037120836465382008-09-16T18:59:00.000-04:002008-09-16T18:59:00.000-04:00""Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLO...""Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS."<BR/><BR/>Careful. NY might pop a hemorrhoid over that one!"<BR/><BR/>I repeat:<BR/><BR/>Ha! Your the one who is trying to equate biological fatherhood with God. What did Jesus tell his followers?<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."<BR/><BR/>What does he tell his followers about mothers?<BR/><BR/>Matthew 12:50 <BR/>For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER." <BR/><BR/>Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-43679524575468829002008-09-16T18:56:00.000-04:002008-09-16T18:56:00.000-04:00The reasons why Hagar or those "pagan women" recei...The reasons why Hagar or those "pagan women" received custody really doesn't matter. By ancient middle eastern patriarchal tradition, fathers always got custody of children in a divorce. The fact that Hagar and those other women were allowed to keep their children was pretty much unheard of. By patriarchal tradition, children took on the religious identities of their fathers, and the religious identities of their mothers didn't matter according to man-made patriarchal traditions and customs. The fact that the children were sent away with their mothers was unheard of. Most of these children were probably young enough to be indoctrinated into the jewish religion after their mothers were sent away. That's why it makes absolutely no sense for the children to be sent with the mothers. More likely, the divorce was traumatic enough, and seperating the children from their MOTHERS would have been worse for them.<BR/><BR/>"No? Then, let's go with the New Testament model."<BR/><BR/>The Old and New Testament are in complete agreement when it comes to the way marriage really should be between a man and a woman. An agreement that reflects pre-fall conditions:<BR/><BR/> Ephesians 5:10:<BR/>31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."<BR/><BR/>Genesis 2:24<BR/> Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.<BR/><BR/>Get it! A man leaves his father and mother. He cleaves to his wife. He becomes a member of HER FAMILY, and the children TAKE ON THE IDENTITY OF THEIR MOTHERS THROUGH FEMALE KINSHIP. Divorce wouldn't be necessary because husbands will LOVE THEIR WIVES AS THEMSELVES. Patriarchys is all about the woman leaving her family, cleaving to her husband, and giving her children his identity. The New Testament is more concerned with how the husband treats his wife than it is about divorce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-85304898386830451052008-09-16T18:18:00.000-04:002008-09-16T18:18:00.000-04:00"It is absurd to claim that a spiritual God can no..."It is absurd to claim that a spiritual God can not produce the physical substance necessary to father a perfect child when the entire physical universe emanates from a spiritual God to begin with."<BR/><BR/>That's precisely my point you moron. God CREATED the physical world. He is not a part of it. A BIOLOGICAL PARENT IS PART OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD HIM OR HERSELF, I.E., FLESH AND BLOOD. A BIOLOGICAL PARENT PASSES THEIR CHROMOSOMES THROUGH THE NATURAL PROCESSES OF MATING WITH ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. GOD IS SPIRIT. HE IS NOT FLESH AND BLOOD.<BR/><BR/>"If Jesus were some kind of physical clone of Mary, having no other biological parent, He would have been female. Females do not possess any Y chromosomes to give their offspring. So if His sex chromosome, at the very least, did not come from a human father, then it had to come miraculously from God. Which is why Matthew clearly states that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit."<BR/><BR/>With God all things are possible. He created the world, he could do anything he likes in it. First of all, Jesus pre-existed as a member of the trinity before the incarnation. He put HIMSELF into Mary's womb, and for SPIRITUAL REASONS, the other two members of the trinity took on the identity of the Father and Holy Spirit while Jesus became the Son. No biological father could do that. WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT JESUS EVEN HAD A Y CHROMOSOME? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT GOD COULDN'T MAKE A HUMAN MALE WITHOUT A Y CHROMOSOME? HE CREATED THE WORLD, AND he could manipulate the natural processes anyway he wanted to. God could have put himself here without any kind of human parents whatsoever. However, he made himself BORN OF A WOMAN to fulfill a prophecy in Genesis 3:15:<BR/><BR/>And I will put enmity<BR/> Between you and the woman, <BR/> And between your seed and her Seed; <BR/> He shall bruise your head, <BR/> And you shall bruise His heel.<BR/><BR/>Biologically speaking, the only "physical substance" necessary was the SEED OF THE WOMAN. A BIOLOGICAL FATHER WAS NOT NEEDED. Btw, your definition of a biological father can only be found in Richard's Dictionary. You prooved absolutely nothing biologically or theologically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-51711787063468808242008-09-15T16:36:00.000-04:002008-09-15T16:36:00.000-04:00Oh, and while we're talking about this, I enjoyed ...Oh, and while we're talking about this, I enjoyed your little talk about divorce in the bible. But they say nothing about anything I've been talking about.<BR/><BR/>Ishmael was not sent away in the "custody" of his mother. He was sent away, period, to protect the primary inheritance rights of Isaac. With his mother thrown in for good measure, since she wasn't particularly wanted in that family in the first place. Abraham sent away each of his children by Keturah in the same way when they reached adulthood. Nothing to do with "mother custody."<BR/><BR/>Ishmael was fourteen when Isaac was born, and probably about 17 by the time Isaac was weaned. He was just about grown, and by that time his mother needed him more than he needed her, as adult sons were responsible for their mothers when they no longer had husbands to take care of them. That's the main reason women wanted sons so much back then.<BR/><BR/>In this story God comes off as pretty compassionate to delay the birth of Isaac long enough for Ishmael to at least grow up in peace with both parents without having his childhood disrupted by the inevitable family rift. I wish parents were half that kind to their kids today.<BR/><BR/>As for the intermarried exiles, you'll note that God did not command those separations. This was the response of people who had seen firsthand the misery that resulted from intermarrying with pagan women and were eager to completely purge all traces of it.<BR/><BR/>As per the Levites, the priests required by the law to marry only virgins of their own people, their mixed marriages were unlawful and void, and their children illegitimate and probably already corrupted by idolatry and unqualified to follow them as priests. It would make sense to send them away and start over with lawful marriages and legitimate children.<BR/><BR/>For the others, I'm not sure the God of the bible would have required such drastic measures but then those people had been thru a lot and probably felt they were better safe than sorry.<BR/><BR/>But the interesting thing about both your examples is that they were male-initiated divorces. Although God of the bible "hates divorce," He reluctantly allowed it only to men.<BR/><BR/>But these aren't the only examples of divorce in the bible. Let's look at one that was female-initiated.<BR/><BR/>During the time of Christ Herodias (doubtless a feminist visionary) purported to "divorce" her husband Herod Philip and take up with his brother Herod Antipas, which constituted not only adultery but incest as well. <BR/><BR/>Along comes John the Baptist and points out that her second marriage is unlawful. And like any good liberal feminist woman-firster, she decided he had to be silenced ASAP.<BR/><BR/>She can't get hubby to do the honors for her, so she calls her cute young daughter, dresses her up in her sexiest duds and has her put on a private burlesque show for step-daddy.<BR/><BR/>Step-daddy likes what he sees and promises cutie-pie anything she wants. And like any good little child abuse victim she parrots her lines: she wants the head of John for Mommy.<BR/><BR/>Which was grim, to be sure, but the important thing is that Mommy got what she wanted. And if the bad old man wouldn't give it to her, she had every perogative to use her kid to get it, right?<BR/><BR/>Not much has changed in 2000 years, has it? That story, in one form or another, is so common today (at least in broken families) that no one even blinks at it.<BR/><BR/>But if you like the old biblical ways, I'll meet you halfway. Like I told NY over at Gonz's when she was telling us how great Sharia law was, let's pass some new laws that will give women the automatic sole custody of minor children in the event of divorce AND give men the sole right to decide if a divorce should happen. OK?<BR/><BR/>No? Then, let's go with the New Testament model. No legal divorce at all and no remarriage. Either separated celibacy or reconciliation. Should cut down on move-aways quite a bit, at least.<BR/><BR/>"Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS."<BR/><BR/>Careful. NY might pop a hemorrhoid over that one!<BR/><BR/>But I think the point is obvious. That the importance of all human relationships pale in comparison to the importance of the relationship between the individual and God. Which Jesus always described in terms that the people could understand: a loving father-child relationship.<BR/><BR/>Now, is there anything else?<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-47271993310479630402008-09-15T15:28:00.000-04:002008-09-15T15:28:00.000-04:00So it takes three posts to convey that no, you don...So it takes three posts to convey that no, you don't get it.<BR/><BR/>Oh well, I didn't think so.<BR/><BR/>Number 1: Biology. If Jesus were some kind of physical clone of Mary, having no other biological parent, He would have been female. Females do not possess any Y chromosomes to give their offspring. So if His sex chromosome, at the very least, did not come from a human father, then it had to come miraculously from God. Which is why Matthew clearly states that Mary was with child by the Holy Spirit.<BR/><BR/>Number 2: Doctrine. It is absurd to claim that a spiritual God can not produce the physical substance necessary to father a perfect child when the entire physical universe emanates from a spiritual God to begin with. Not to mention the first man, whose "father" is identified by the Scriptures as God.<BR/><BR/>So laugh if you want, but this is about what most Christians who accept the doctrine of the virgin birth believe about it.<BR/><BR/>You want laughter in church, go in there and start babbling about "pre-fall matriarchies" and such foolishness. And don't forget to tell them that men don't understand the male psyche. And be sure to scream a lot and throw in some fuck-you's. It makes you so much more credible.<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-47590020430032009852008-09-15T11:25:00.000-04:002008-09-15T11:25:00.000-04:00And the fact the Jesus, as God Himself, put Himsel...And the fact the Jesus, as God Himself, put Himself into a HUMAN WOMAN'S WOMB tells how important the mother/child bond really is both biologically and theologically. After all, Jesus could've put himself here as a full grown man without any kind of biological parents whatsoever. After all, the mother/child bond was degraded as inferior to the father/child bond by this point in history (and still is). By being born of a human woman without the help of a human male is a powerful statement by God how important mothers really are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-26404252052267581632008-09-15T11:14:00.000-04:002008-09-15T11:14:00.000-04:00"Anon, your argument is patently absurd both 1. do..."Anon, your argument is patently absurd both 1. doctrinally and 2. biologically."<BR/><BR/>HA! HA! HA! You telling me that you know anything about doctrines or biology. That is just the funniest thing yet. Yeah, Dick, go ahead, write it out on the chalkboard so that I could laugh some more. This coming from a guy who thinks "dead sperm creates life", or that a spiritual deity is a "biological father". Btw, Jesus was not only the son of God. He is God. He existed as part of the trinity prior to the creation of the world. He put HIMSELF in human form, and he and the other two members of the trinity agreed to take on identities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for spititual reasons. They put Jesus in Mary's womb to fulfill the prophecy that the SEED OF THE WOMAN DESTROYS THE SERPENT. This is the only place where biological parenthood comes in the picture. So what, are you going to say that Jesus was his own biological father. Did you know that the Bible says that Jesus was the son of the Father, and was the Son the Holy Spirit? Two different members of the trinity are referred to as Jesus's father. And btw, did you know that the Holy spirit is usually referred to in the feminine form in the ancient Greek of the new testament? That means that God is referred to alternately as both masculine and feminine. Gee, maybe the Holy Spirit should be referred to as Jesus's mother, but than that will negate the point of Jesus being the Seed of the Woman. The point is that BIOLOGICAL FATHERHOOD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JESUS BEING THE SON OF GOD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-47924537999999971992008-09-15T10:44:00.000-04:002008-09-15T10:44:00.000-04:00Also, there seems to be some cofusion about Mary a...Also, there seems to be some cofusion about Mary and Joseph's marriage. Mary and Joseph were actually legally betrothed. In other words, they were promised to each other in marriage. However, a betrothment was considered as legally binding as a marriage, and it would have taken an actual divorce to dissolve it. However, the betrothment period lasted one year, and during this time, the couple would not have consummated their relationship, and the woman would have remained with her own family during this time. Jesus was conceived during the betrothment period, and a lot of people who knew this would have considered him a child of an immoral relationship, or in other words, illegitimate. In John 8:41, they heckled him as being illegitimate:<BR/><BR/>John 8:41<BR/>You are doing your father's works." They said to him, "We are not illegitimate children. We have one Father, God himself."<BR/><BR/>People in Jesus's hometown of Nazareth called him alternately Jesus Son of Mary, and Jesus Son of Joseph. In Jewish tradition, LEGITIMATE children are always called by the father's name. The fact that they referred to Jesus as Son of Mary means that they were not sure of his legitimacy.<BR/><BR/>Mark 6:3<BR/>"Is not this the carpenter, the SON OF MARY, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Luke 4:22<BR/>and all were bearing testimony to him, and were wondering at the gracious words that are coming forth out of his mouth, and they said, `Is not this the SON OF JOSEPH."<BR/><BR/>Also, when Joseph wanted to "put away" Mary because he found out she was with child, Mary would NOT have been stoned for adultery. By the time of Jesus, Israel was part of the Roman empire. Roman law, at one point, allowed husbands to kill their wives for adultery, but by the first century A.D., Roman men were only allowed to divorce their wives for adultery. In Jesus's time, Israel was part of the Roman empire, and Roman law preceded Jewish law. That's why they brought Jesus the woman caught in adultery. They knew if Jesus said to stone her according to the Law of Moses, Jesus would be in trouble with the Roman law. But Jesus turned it around, and told those who were sinless to cast the first stone. If Mary had been put away by Joseph for adultery, she would have had her head shaved according to the Jewish oral law, and she would have had to forfeit her dowry from her ketubah (Jewish marriage contract). However, Joseph was said to be a righteous man, and he probably would have "put her away" "without cause". In other words, he probably would have divorced her so that he wouldn't bring public shame to her.<BR/><BR/>Matthew 1:19<BR/>and Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away. <BR/><BR/>And being a LEGAL father doesn't matter to the father's rights crowd. If bio-dad showed up years later to demand his "rights" based on DNA, the FRA's believe that bio-dad's rights should trump the right of the so-called legal father, or the wishes of the child who is forced to visit a complete stranger because of a DNA CONNECTION. It's obvious that FRA's don't consider a LEGAL FATHER anymore than a STEPFATHER because they think a DNA connection trumps everything else. <BR/><BR/>"More importantly, one who evidently respected the primacy of the biological Father and followed His instructions to the letter regarding the care and protection of His child."<BR/><BR/>Ha, not only is Dick stupid enough to try to claim that Jesus had a biological father, but he tries to claim that legal/stepfathers are only there to follow the instructions of bio-dad. It's quite obvious, Dick, that you think legal/stepfathers aren't real fathers just like all the other FRA's. By your own words, fathers who are not bio-dad are not fathers. BY YOUR OWN WORDS, A SINGLE PARENT FAMILY IS WHERE THERE IS ONLY ONE BIOLOGICAL PARENT, AND IN JESUS'S CASE THAT ONE BIOLOGICAL PARENT WAS MARY. Now, in order to get around this, your claiming God is Jesus's biological father! I REPEAT, A BIOLOGICAL FATHER IS A HUMAN FATHER WHO HAS A DNA CONNECTION TO A CHILD. The fact that your trying to say otherwise is absolutely laughable. You are an idiot! By the way, you tried to say that I was worshipping women because I said God gave women the ability to create life in their wombs. Ha! Your the one who is trying to equate biological fatherhood with God. What did Jesus tell his followers?<BR/><BR/>Matthew 23:9 "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven."<BR/><BR/>What does he tell his followers about mothers?<BR/><BR/>Matthew 12:50 <BR/>For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother, and sister, and MOTHER." <BR/><BR/>Get it! If all christians, including HUMAN BIOLOGICAL FATHERS, did the WILL OF THE HEAVENLY FATHER,they are CONSIDERED MOTHERS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-16890728202197454172008-09-15T10:18:00.000-04:002008-09-15T10:18:00.000-04:00Anon, your argument is patently absurd both 1. doc...Anon, your argument is patently absurd both 1. doctrinally and 2. biologically. And all the name-calling and insults in the world can't bolster it, just in case you're not old enough to realize that, which I suspect.<BR/><BR/>Can you figure out why, or do I need to write it on the chalkboard for you?<BR/><BR/>RichardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-52190416629698073052008-09-15T08:46:00.000-04:002008-09-15T08:46:00.000-04:00"Mary was not single and Joseph was not just a ste..."Mary was not single and Joseph was not just a step-father but a legal father. More importantly, one who evidently respected the primacy of the biological Father and followed His instructions to the letter regarding the care and protection of His child."<BR/><BR/>Gee, Dick, go to any christian pastor or priest and repeat this statement. Atheists and non-christians have been trying to proove for years that Jesus had a biological father so that they could proove he WASN'T the son of God. So go on and tell christian clergyman that God was the biological father of Jesus. I guarantee that you'll be laughed out of the church at the very least, or denounced as a heretic at the worst. Sorry Dick, inventing new meanings for the term biological father isn't going to proove your incredibly stupid point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8740475.post-40170540522477985402008-09-14T20:04:00.000-04:002008-09-14T20:04:00.000-04:00"Your version of the nativity story is certainly t..."Your version of the nativity story is certainly the least of the misinformation I've been privileged to observe around here."<BR/><BR/>Coming from an absolute moron who doesn't know that a biological father is a HUMAN FATHER. The same moron who doesn't even know what the Bible actually says. A moron who twists things around even when confronted with his OWN WORDS, and makes up definitions to words that don't even exist in the dictionary let alone the Bible. You truly are as stupid as you sound!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com