Negative views of female sexuality: origins, I

[Susan's Slave]

Oh boy! Padder I am in complete agreement with you on everything you say in your post.

Saraha, I always enjoy your posts, can't say I agree with everything but you do make me smile! I have never been dead, so I can't speak with authority on what this man "saw".

I do not believe in reincarnation, but I do believe the spirit lives on forever. Every child is a unique combination of the parent's DNA. I do not believe that scientists have found two exact DNA strands. Each human not only has unique fingerprints, but also unique retinas, ears, and feet, etc. I believe our spirit is unique in the same way.

As for God being female, I think it is more likely that God is the best parts of both male and female. We are all made in his/her image so he, or she, can't be one or the other. I think we lack a good word in common usage to describe God (I certainly do not like "it" when speaking of my creator!).

I like your thoughts on the estrogen/testosterone issue. I believe it is true that we are injesting much more female hormones through our food and water. (I use Wild Yam cream in addition to soy products, flax seed, and other natural suppliments high in phyto-estrogens). I wonder how long until the last bull straps on a lacy bra and a pair of sexy high heels?

You certainly don't much care for the Roman Catholic faith. Having never been Catholic I can only agree that their priests have certainly proven themselves capable of human failures. Of course so have many of our other religious leaders (and politicians and school teachers, and ...).

Custer, welcome back! Didn't mean to hijack your thread, just to point out some areas of disagreement with your statements.

You state in your last post that the story of Adam and Eve is a "child-like myth." How can you know? We will never "know" how man was created as it was done (or the process started for the Darwinists) back in the sands of time. I "know" because the Bible told me so and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God written by men divinely inspired. I have never told anyone else that they must follow my beliefs, just don't try to suggest you know better.

I did not mean to suggest that the Bible is true simply because lots of people believe it is, only that a very significant percentage of the world does claim some for of Christ based religion. If you add in the people that believe in the God of Abraham then you add in all Jewish and Muslim believers as well. What I was trying to get across was that by quoting Wikipedia you use a source of far more recent vintage accepted by a far smaller following. You have admitted yourself that it is flawed (although apparently far less so that the Encyclopedia Britannica).

I only know that archeologists and other scientists have verified so much of the Bible's historical fact when it comes to locations, wars, other countries, living conditions, and people of the Bible. Look to references outside the Jewish and Christian faith and you will find proof of it's historical accuracy.

I don't know what inconsistancies you are referring to but I assume that you must be referring at least in part to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. I do not believe they are inconsistant, but they do reflect the points of view of four different people living very close to affairs at hand. I think the Greeks and Romans certainly have provided historical verification of much of what was reported in the Gospels. Ask any policeman how hard it is to get a clear vision of an accident or crime from any group of witnesses!

You state regarding the truth of the Bible, "It isn't because it can't be." What does that mean? A reasonable corollary would be, "It is because it can be." We will never be able to convince the other of our points of view in all of this. I just ask that you not blame all the world's, or women's, problems on any one person, religion, sex, or other group. The world is a fucked up place because people live in it and people are not perfect. And I know this because the Bible told me so! LOL- sorry couldn't resist.

 

[fionasissyslut]

Oh boy! Padder I am in complete agreement with you on everything you say in your post.

Saraha, I always enjoy your posts, can't say I agree with everything but you do make me smile! I have never been dead, so I can't speak with authority on what this man "saw".

I do not believe in reincarnation, but I do believe the spirit lives on forever. Every child is a unique combination of the parent's DNA. I do not believe that scientists have found two exact DNA strands. Each human not only has unique fingerprints, but also unique retinas, ears, and feet, etc. I believe our spirit is unique in the same way.

As for God being female, I think it is more likely that God is the best parts of both male and female. We are all made in his/her image so he, or she, can't be one or the other. I think we lack a good word in common usage to describe God (I certainly do not like "it" when speaking of my creator!).

I like your thoughts on the estrogen/testosterone issue. I believe it is true that we are injesting much more female hormones through our food and water. (I use Wild Yam cream in addition to soy products, flax seed, and other natural suppliments high in phyto-estrogens). I wonder how long until the last bull straps on a lacy bra and a pair of sexy high heels?

You certainly don't much care for the Roman Catholic faith. Having never been Catholic I can only agree that their priests have certainly proven themselves capable of human failures. Of course so have many of our other religious leaders (and politicians and school teachers, and ...).

Custer, welcome back! Didn't mean to hijack your thread, just to point out some areas of disagreement with your statements.

You state in your last post that the story of Adam and Eve is a "child-like myth." How can you know? We will never "know" how man was created as it was done (or the process started for the Darwinists) back in the sands of time. I "know" because the Bible told me so and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God written by men divinely inspired. I have never told anyone else that they must follow my beliefs, just don't try to suggest you know better.

I did not mean to suggest that the Bible is true simply because lots of people believe it is, only that a very significant percentage of the world does claim some for of Christ based religion. If you add in the people that believe in the God of Abraham then you add in all Jewish and Muslim believers as well. What I was trying to get across was that by quoting Wikipedia you use a source of far more recent vintage accepted by a far smaller following. You have admitted yourself that it is flawed (although apparently far less so that the Encyclopedia Britannica).

I only know that archeologists and other scientists have verified so much of the Bible's historical fact when it comes to locations, wars, other countries, living conditions, and people of the Bible. Look to references outside the Jewish and Christian faith and you will find proof of it's historical accuracy.

I don't know what inconsistancies you are referring to but I assume that you must be referring at least in part to the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John. I do not believe they are inconsistant, but they do reflect the points of view of four different people living very close to affairs at hand. I think the Greeks and Romans certainly have provided historical verification of much of what was reported in the Gospels. Ask any policeman how hard it is to get a clear vision of an accident or crime from any group of witnesses!

You state regarding the truth of the Bible, "It isn't because it can't be." What does that mean? A reasonable corollary would be, "It is because it can be." We will never be able to convince the other of our points of view in all of this. I just ask that you not blame all the world's, or women's, problems on any one person, religion, sex, or other group. The world is a fucked up place because people live in it and people are not perfect. And I know this because the Bible told me so! LOL- sorry couldn't resist.

how can anyone know?so why do religious people say they DO know,or have the answers?
I knew this because my EYES told me so,because i took my head out of the bible and looked around me to really see how bad the world is,don't have to read a book to get such basic information.
The world is a fucked up place mainly because of religion and nationalism,both think their religion/country are right and they will kill anyone who disagrees.
THE ONLY REASON CHRISTIANITY IS SO WIDESPREAD,IS BECAUSE CHRISTIANS FROM EUROPE(UK,SPAIN PORTUGESE ETC) INVADED OTHER COUNTRIES(SOUTH AMERICA,CENTRAL AMERICA,AUSTRALIA,INDIA AFRICA)AND ****** THE INDIGINOUS POPULATION TO CONFORM OR BE KILLED

 

[mimi27406]

Sorry Susan

Custer is right. The old Testement should be viewed as a history of the Hebrews. The new were writen by men with very biased opinions.
More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any other, and it all comes down to we are mortal.

More to the point, no organized religion I am familar with recognizes our gender. Cuckold, is somewhere between Queer an Infidial. To each his own, but I do not believe anyone of the cuckold, cuckoldress faturnity will make the Christian roles/

 

[Custer Laststand]

Hi Ms. Mimi,

Your comments seem to imply you're a woman. Am I right? If I have it wrong, please let me know (and my apologies).

Custer is right. The Old Testament should be viewed as a history of the Hebrews. The New
[Testament was] writen by men with very biased opinions.

Thank you, Mimi, for your "Custer is right" vote of confidence, and your other comments as well.

To enlarge slightly: I'm moderately confident my comments on this subject are at least approximately right, otherwise I wouldn't be saying these things. I'm not a "biblical scholar," though, so I'm going out on something of a limb. Forum members have to judge for themselves, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view) whether my comments are basically right or I'm full of shit. (I would prefer forum members who think the latter would look into it and try to find out more for themselves, in addition to commenting in this thread.)

More wars have been fought over religious beliefs than any other, and it all comes down to we are mortal.

Ain't that the truth. Leaders of all description, be they national, religious, or tribal, always find it easiest to incite their followers to war if they convince them their religious beliefs and values are under assault by "unbelievers" (/"infidels") (meaning, those they want to wage war against), and easiest to inspire their followers to massacre the "unbelievers" (/"Infidels) or fight to the bloody end if they convince them "God" (whoever that is) is on their side. This always seems to be easy to do, in the main because most people are not what can be called critical thinkers when it comes to religious concepts.

More to the point, no organized religion I am familar with recognizes our gender.

If by "our gender" you mean women, you have it right. One of the main purposes of most religions is to perpetuate historical oppression of women thereby maintaining patriarchy and keeping men "in the drivers seat." (I say "most religions" because I suspect Buddhism does not suffer from this "keep women in their place" affliction.... but, I don't know much about Buddhism.)

Incidentally, apparently at least one gospel (potentially a New Testament gospel) was written by a woman, Mary of Magdala. Arguably she was Jesus Christ's wife, and as such probably knew more about him than anyone else of that time. (I say "arguably" because she was referred to as his companion; in the parlance of the time, "companion" meant "wife.") Following conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity in 313 CE (CE => Common Era), which in turn converted Christianity from an outlaw religion to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire, the "Gospel of Mary" did not make the cut when the early higher-ups of Christianity selected, from the *many* candidate gospels, those to include in what became known as the New Testament. Subsequently, Mary of Magdala was demoted by the early church to the status of **********. If she were to come back to life today (a concept Christians are big on) and hired a good lawyer, she could probably sue the Christian Church (the Catholic Church, more specifically) successfully, because there is nothing in the Bible to support the idea that she was a **********, adulteress, sinner, or Jesus' girlfriend.

A cuckold is somewhere between a "queer" and an "infidel."

I'll have to say the relationship between this assertion and your previous sentence seems unclear, Mimi. There are, of course, many people, religious and otherwise, who do not "approve of" or "much respect" men who are cuckolds. This, I think, is mostly because male ownership of their wives, especially including keeping them "under control" sexually, is part of historical judeo-christian culture. Maybe that's what you mean....?

To each his own, but I do not believe anyone of the cuckold / cuckoldress faturnity will make the Christian roles.

Well, I don't know.... I don't think I'd say that. There are lots of Christian cuckolds and cuckoldresses, just as there are lots of cuckolds and cuckoldresses of every other religious flavor, because female sexuality is not a function of religious belief. Rather, it is a function of evolutionary biology.

It can be said, though, that among religious people who strongly disapprove of such behavior (because they are "fundamentalists," for instance), those who engage in it generally work hard to conceal that they are cuckolds (/cuckoldresses) while loudly denouncing this behavior in others. That is, they have a strong tendency to be — to put it succinctly — hypocrites.

—Custer

 

[fionasissyslut]

Custer is totaly right.
There have been many cases of people claiming to have been to heaven,the uncocious mind is a strange thing,especially in a traumatised state,there are also many cases of people claiming that during an operation the have seen a bright light or a tunnel,so the conclusion that Christians come to is that this must be a sighting of heaven.
There are many explanations of these cases,and once again Christians need to prove their case by claiming this MUST be heaven,not withstanding the drugs administered during an operation or the aforementioned traumatised mind.
Anyway it all depends on your definition of death,is it when the heart stops beating?or is it when the brain is starved of oxygen for too long?in which case the heart would stop and you would be medically dead.
If i believe, i go to heaven,if i don't believe,i don't give a toss.

 

[fionasissyslut]

Well, I tried NOT to get involved in this discussion. Surely it doesn't belong here ... or maybe it does ... lol. You can believe in Christ and all the things you feel correct in being a Christian, but if you haven't been forgiven for your sins, you'll burn in hell with the rest of the lot. You can not enter the gates of Heaven as a sinner. If you believe in Christ, and you read your bible, you'll know this. Its for sure, God doesn't leave this open for debate. I hope I don't get challenged to quoting scripture. My father was a Methodist minister, so I've heard it a million times. You might debate what a SIN is. A good start would be with the Ten Commandments, but I lost many an arguement with my father over "beliefs" and "opinion". If you don't believe in Christ there's really no need to comment on this point. I can say that non-believers better hope to hell they're not WRONG. If believers are wrong ... they'll simply rot in the ground. So think deeply before you bring up your Darwinian theories.

Personally, if we're going to talk OFF SUBJECT, I would prefer to discuss Dec.23rd, 2012 ... that's coming up in 3 years ...

As for moving on to the topic of women & sissies ... I totally, 100% agree, let's move on. This topic is a bit disturbing and not worthy of debate in this kind of forum. Mac

Agreed,that the worst that can happen to a believer is that they rot in the ground,but as a non believer the same fate awaits me,the problem is that the Christian religion is an expansionist religion,alway looking for new recruits unlike,other more established older religions,who don't use threats or intimidations on their followers
If you don't do this,this will happen to you and it will be awfull for you,it's just a way of controlling people to believe in your Christian god.
God most certainly leaves nothing open to debate,IF you believe in him/her,which personaly i don't,so the threats hold no fear for me.
In the UK as previously stated,we are ditching creationist,theory in favour of scientific study of evolution,which by the way are not mere theories as is the bible

 

[fionasissyslut]

OH is the world gonna end on that date?
Seen it all before,loads of twats climb up a moutain and........ nothing happens

 

[Susan's Slave]

I thought if I took a few days off from this topic it might settle down. Guess I was wrong on that one.

Fiona, you are still offering up the same drivel but you have not bothered to answer any of the questions I posed. Also, for the record the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines evolution as a theory. It also defines creationism as a theory. The Bible is not a theory, it is, "the sacred scriptures of Christians ... and of Judaism."

Mac, it is good to have another believer chime in, and I do agree that this is probably not the best forum to have this discussion. However, Custer brought it up and I felt his comments needed to be addressed. I will tell you that I base my case for going to Heaven on Romans 10-9, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." As for needing forgiveness, you are correct. Acts10:43, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Fiona, I still love ya man - er I mean sissy - and Jesus loves you too! It's almost mean to pray for you because you hate it so much, but I still will pray for you!

 

[fionasissyslut]

I thought if I took a few days off from this topic it might settle down. Guess I was wrong on that one.

Fiona, you are still offering up the same drivel but you have not bothered to answer any of the questions I posed. Also, for the record the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines evolution as a theory. It also defines creationism as a theory. The Bible is not a theory, it is, "the sacred scriptures of Christians ... and of Judaism."

Mac, it is good to have another believer chime in, and I do agree that this is probably not the best forum to have this discussion. However, Custer brought it up and I felt his comments needed to be addressed. I will tell you that I base my case for going to Heaven on Romans 10-9, "That if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." As for needing forgiveness, you are correct. Acts10:43, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."

Fiona, I still love ya man - er I mean sissy - and Jesus loves you too! It's almost mean to pray for you because you hate it so much, but I still will pray for you!

What is actualy sacred about a book written by man? don't get that at all!
It's just a book
The only thing that is unremiting drivel is actually the bible,you can quote anything you like from the bible but the point is i don't BELIEVE this drivel,along with many many others,and you can make it mean anything you want.
Sorry i don't actually need your prayers or your patronising atitudes,that you are in some way superior to someone that doesn't believe in YOUR god,i've reached 60 without feeling the need to use the bible or any other book to make me feel better about myself.
That's just a dictionary definition or opinion,not an actual statement or comment on what is actualy a SCIENCE based study,which has been proved over and over and taken further by modern science,unlike your book of fairy stories.
I prefer to believe in science based FACT,not a book written thousands of years ago by people that had little grasp of Science as we do today,one can not break the laws of physics eg turning water into wine,or coming back from the dead,when you jump up,you come down,GRAVITY,proven science,now that i believe.
Your god being the creator of all things,you say,will of course have created evil,or was that his/her little joke?
How can you say he/her exsists,when children were burned alive,in concentration camps,and the Vatican stood by and did nothing,which has taken them 60years to apologise for,nice religious caring people?
Where was your god,when Mengla carried out medical experiments on children,and of course the standard reply from Christians is that these were non believers who had done something to offend your god,nice god then.
You have chosen to completely ignore my point about Christians in the past,taking over other countries,murdering,looting and enslaving,and then praying to their god,beyond belief !!

 

[Susan's Slave]

Good stuff Mac. This forum does park inself right in the middle of the Galatians verses but the Luke verses do give us hope!

 

[Jorge88]

Wow

Well we must say this is a very interesting thread.
We must also say this:
It may appear to be a silly debate, but it is not.
In our opinion it touches on one of the basic problems of Cuckolding.
It is not accepted by society, much less by Religion.
This is a very big problem because it is one of the biggest obstacles for a woman (Or a husband in some cases) to take that first big step and Cuckold.
In other words this beautiful lady will think in her mind " If I Cuckold my husband I will go to hell".
This can definitely be a big problem.
Well, in our opinion both sides of the debate are elegant solutions to this complicated problem.
The two elegant solutions are basically these:
1) I do not believe in hell so therefore I can Cuckold.
2) I do believe in Hell but Christ has forgiven me unconditionally when he went to the Cross, and therefore I will not go to Hell for Cuckolding.
Well in our opinion it is impossible to demonstrate the validity of either one or the other Elegant solution.
So therefore both are excelent even though they are in opposition.
We stress the word Elegant, because both persons that have postulated these opposite solutions are Cuckolding.
So this only reinforces our theory that Cuckolding is normal behavior.
That it is good.
That it is healthy for our mind and emotional wellbeing and that it feels good.
Thank you all again for this excellent thread and all your posts.

Best Regards:
Alicia and Jorge

 

[fionasissyslut]

Thank you very much Alicia and Jorg for joining the debate and not patronising the other posters,nice to hear an inteligent view,which i don't necessarily agree with,however Mr Mcnfries is wrong when he says non believers are in any way offended by his views or bible quotations,we are more bemused,as to why they feel the need to pepper any debate with quotations from a book that we don't believe in,as if we are going to suddenly fall to our knees and cry out that we we can see the error of our ways,please forgive me,its like a form of bullying,follow our god or you will burn in hell.
As we say in the UK "not bovvered"
Turn up at church wearing a dress,and you will see Christian understanding first hand.

 

[fionasissyslut]

Susan's Slave ... I'm a King James - New Testiment believer myself; that's were Jesus and his Apostles spoke. Try the following (I'll spare the non-believers the words).
John 3:3-6 about being reborn
Acts 2:38-41 baptism
Galatians 5:19-26 defines sins
Luke 15:7 repenting of sins

I promise, I will say NO MORE in the cuckolds forums regarding this. Sorry if anyone's offended. I can understand how aggitating this could be to non-believers. Mac

So let me get this right,you are saying that a married woman can commit adultary,then quote a few verses from your book in repentance and all is square with your god?
What about the vows,made in church?

 

[Jorge88]

About our opinion

Dear Fiona:

Thank you for your reply.
Well I think it is important to clarify our opinion a little bit more.
When we say that both solutions are Elegant we do not mean that both have to be accepted.
Nor do we mean that one or the other has to be accepted as right.
What we mean is that they are Elegant in essence because:
Each of the two solutions has permitted each of you individually to live your life as you think right.
In our opinion both of you are living your lives correctly from a Cuckolding point of view.
In fact we think that Cuckolding is necessary for a couple to live a happy and fulfilling life.
So both of your solutions are Elegant in that the have permitted both of you to live a happy life with your respective spouses.
You have both, in fact done something that other unhappy couples have not been able to do (Take that first step).
And again we emphasize that this thread is very important because it will help some undecided couple adopt one or the other solutions, so as to Cuckold with a clear conscience.
Wow, you guys are really great.
And we say this from the bottom of our hearts: What can be better than doing what you like, and especiallly if it is not bad for your health.
And the best part is being in complete agreement with your husband or wife.
What can be better than that?

Best Regards:
Alicia and Jorge

 

[mimi27406]

So true

Sorry the bible was written by the Jews and does not stand up to any sort of objective scrutiny in the year 2009..
religious people and followers of the bible have tried to claim the moral high ground,but as we all know you don't have to believe in god to be a good and moral person

fionasissyslut is right on target.

 

[fionasissyslut]

Nice to hear

fionasissyslut is right on target.

Nice to hear an alternative view to the bible bashers

 

[barbiescuckoldress]

Fantastic post Custer...
The question (ok, just one of the questions!) I've always wondered about is how society got away from the matriarchal model of ruling...
(I'm not getting into the women vs men argument here- I think it's stupid...of course we all know that women are superior...kidding! I judge on actions, not on gender.)- especially in pre DNA testing days, with thinking of offspring...how easy was it to say- of course you're the father, darling! Which kind of ties in with the cuckolding conversation...
Another thing that reading this thread reminded me of was just how aggravating I find the whole Bible concept...anyone who has studied a foreign language understands just how difficult it can be to find direct translations...to say nothing of how the meaning of words changes over time...

 

[Custer Laststand]

Hi Ms. Barbiescuckoldress,

Fantastic post Custer...

Thank you!

The question (ok, just one question!) I've always wondered about is how society got away from the matriarchal model of ruling.

Actually, that is a good question. I've read in more than one "informal source" that human society (/societies) were matriarchal at some point in the relatively-distant past (thousands of years ago? tens of thousands of years ago?), but none of these sources presented evidence of any kind — hard data, as it were — of that actually being the case, nor did they cite credible references one could consult. This suggests people who say that may simply be repeating each other. If you're aware of evidence — described in serious peer-reviewed journal papers — of matriarchy being the norm sometime in the past, I'd definitely be interested in the reference(s).

I'm not getting into the women vs. men argument here — I think it's stupid. Of course, we all know that women are superior... (just kidding!)

I suppose one could say that's the case, arguably, in an average sense. As you know, no doubt, women are now substantially in the majority at universities and colleges nationwide here in the U.S. and, of all undergraduates admitted as freshmen, a higher proportion of women than men graduate successfully. A woman acquaintance from India told me, within the past year or so, the same is true in India. I think this is also the case throughout the western nations (e.g., Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in addition to the U.S.), but I know less about these other countries.

I judge on actions, not on gender.

That's very wise. People who are intelligent (and wise), competent and compassionate are where you find them... which is a way of saying neither the male nor female gender has a monopoly on incompetence.

In pre-DNA testing days, re. offspring, how easy it was [for a married woman] to say: "Of course you're the father, darling!"

I agree. So-called "paternity tests" (if an apparent-father demanded one), prior to the advent of DNA analysis, were not particularly reliable.

Which ties in with the cuckolding conversation.

Yes. See:

"Sperm Wars: The Science of Sex," by Robin Baker, Ph.D. (BasicBooks, 1996, 319 pp. [hardcover]).

This is an outstanding "science for the layperson" book. I strongly recommend it.... it will change your view of woman/man relationships forever (if you haven't already read it). Baker gives numbers for the percentage of children sired by men other than their apparent fathers — i.e., the husbands of their mothers — in western nations. It's about 10% overall. He also gives a breakdown by social class. It's about 1% among upper-class couples, 3 to 5% among middle-class couples, and 15 to 30% percent among lower-class couples. (I'm quoting these numbers from memory... one has to dig to find them, since Baker's book, unfortunately, does not include an index.)

Another thing this thread reminded me of was just how aggravating I find the whole Bible concept.... anyone who has studied a foreign language understands just how difficult it can be to find direct translations, to say nothing of how the meaning of words changes over time.

You have this right, for sure. See, for instance:

"Misquoting Jesus," by Bart D. Ehrman (2005, HarperSanFrancisco, 242 pp. [hardcover]).

Ehrman points out that prior to the invention of duplicating machines (i.e., throughout most of human history), the Bible was transcribed innumerable times over the generations by countless monks and scribes who introduced *many* errors, misquotes and (as you point out) mis-translations. In addition, from time-to-time a scribe revised the previous text to reflect his own interpretation of "how things should be."

I'll note here, incidentally, that Bart Ehrman is not some sort of "anti-religion fanatic." Rather, he's a respected theologian. As noted on the dust jacket, he chairs the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is an authority on the history of the New Testament, the early church, and the life of Jesus.

So, if you're skeptical of the idea that the Bible represents some sort of "original truth" (or if you reject that idea altogether), your skepticism is solidly-justified.

Thanks for taking the trouble to comment in this thread, Ms. Barbiescuckoldress. I appreciate it.

—Custer

 

[Susan's Slave]

You are absolutely correct that translations vary, words have changed, and people argue about what was really meant by this verse or that. However, from the beginning of time man has been keeping history alive by having storytellers that pass stories on from generation to generation by memorizing them and repeating them at every gathering. Putting them to music or in verse helped.

When man learned to put thought to paper storytelling became a lost art, although there are still areas of the world where this tradition holds strong. Although you would think putting things on paper would be better we have lost so much history through inproper care and storage. Paper decomposes, gets wet, or burned. A favorite way of rewriting history is to search out all copies of a document and burn them because you disagree and don't want others to know the truth. This still goes on today, although in the U.S. it it the fundamentalist Christians that call for it.

However, there are historical documents that have not been distroyed that provide original Hebrew and Greek testimonies from the time of Christ. From these documents language experts can determine the original thought of the author. You may wish to check out work being done with scrolls from the Dead Sea area and various palimsest documents such as the Codex Ephraemi.

We are already having a battle with people who do not accept really old documentation (writings, pictures, film, verbal accounts) from World War II about the Holocaust. In 2000 years where will we stand on that history?

 

[carina_halerose]

Ok all of you all brought the bible into this so I am going to put my $.02 in. The bible and other religious books should be on the bookshelves under historical fiction. It’s nothing but stories that regular men have written that take place in real places, as are many other religious writings in other religions. The bible has been rewritten many times with each person changing it slightly as King James did. Now the religious right is writing their version. Taking out any word or phrase that might be seen as liberal statement. Look at all the horrible things done throughout history that were done in the name of this god or that god. I have faith but I do not have religion and never will have it. The world would be a far better place with more faith in it then religion. I will defend anyone’s right to have their religion and believes. I only wish the believers would treat us non believers the same way.