^
Ephesians 5:22, 6:5-6, - you forgot to read 5:25-33, which discusses how men are to behave. 6:5-6 is dealing with slaves, not women.

Colossians 3:18, 3:22 - you forgot to read 3:19, which again deals with men. 3:22 is again about slaves, not women. What is your purpose in quoting these verses, especially when you leave out sections for your own purposes?

Titus 2:3-5, 2:9 - 2:3-5 seem very good pieces of advice, and nothing that I can see as being oppressive to women. Verses 6-8 are also good advice, aimed at the men, which you again failed to quote. Verse 9 deals with slaves..... again.

1 Peter 2:18, 3:1 - 2:18 deals with slaves - seriously, I want to know what your point is. As for 3:1, you again forgot to mention 3:7, dealing with men.

In short, you have cherry picked every single one of these verses, clearly ignoring half the passages (the half dealing with the males). You can't take one side only and not even examine the other half. The advice on how men and women are to act towards each other are to be observed together. If they are followed together, it cannot be possible for one to take advantage of the other. It is when humanity adds their own selfish egos and agendas to these rules that they can be abused. I'm not denying that. Ignore the edict for the man to Love their wives, and you have a case where the relationship can be abused, and made unequal. Use the laws for men and women together, not separately.

Husbands, Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her (in other words, be willing to die for your wife if need be, as Christ died for the church). Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord - funny thing is, Christians (both male and female) submit to Christ all the time, yet they are not 2nd Class citizens in this world, nor are they 2nd-class citizens in God's kingdom (indeed Chrisitans are described in the Bible as heirs to God's eternal Kingdom - inheritors of Royal standing). How can these laws used together signal inequality and oppression?

And for some unknown reason you keep throwing in Red Herrings about slaves, and I'm still trying to work out what that has to do with this topic - please tell me, I really would like to know

I think it's relevant to include passages pertaining to slavery, to show that biblical admonitions exist that allude to owning other people, which in large part was the place of a wife, as property to her husband. As for your curiosity about omission of passages to men, I would imagine it would be clearly a matter of remaining on topic to reference scripture related to gods opinion of women. Otherwise had someone else entered passages related to men, someone could take it upon themselves to call that OT and even a red herring , in itself.

^
Fair enough, I'll accept that, though i do not think you can discuss biblical guidelines/laws given to women without also looking at the laws/guides given to men. I would be interested in your opinion of my response though, particularly this paragraph:

Husbands, Love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her (in other words, be willing to die for your wife if need be, as Christ died for the church). Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord - funny thing is, Christians (both male and female) submit to Christ all the time, yet they are not 2nd Class citizens in this world, nor are they 2nd-class citizens in God's kingdom (indeed Chrisitans are described in the Bible as heirs to God's eternal Kingdom - inheritors of Royal standing). How can these laws used together signal inequality and oppression?

The italicized sections are the quotes that are repeated over and over in those passages you quoted in your last post. Thanks, GW

There's a big difference between love and submission. Men were to love their wives, but women were to submit to the authority of their husbands. I imagine that women all over the globe would be incredibly lovable if they went around submitting to their husbands... after all, why would a husband have any reason to not love his wife if she is doing as she's told and being a submissive little wifey?

I would lay down my life to protect my husband... but submit to him? Heck no. Not in a million years, not even if you paid me (although that might change if we were talking a lot of money ).

But Shadow, it's submission as in the same context that Christians submit to Christ. Yet being Christian has somehow not made us second-class citizens - not in this world, and not in God's world. As I said, according to the Bible, Christians are in fact royal inheritors to an eternal kingdom. How is a Christian unequal, oppressed, subjugated by God? Yet in a familial context, suddenly there's inequality going on.

For the record, just a quick suggestion, but you may be confusing "submission" with "dominance" - a subtly different definition that people often get confused with.

Like I have always said... I'm a devout Christian, but I actually don't read the Bible very often and I'd be willing to say that there are atheists here who have read it more than I have.

That being said, when I've read the words that women are to submit to men, I've taken that in a more historical context rather than being literal.

The word submission between a man and a woman might have been a veiled reference to sex and procreation. Let's face it, up until the 20th century pregnancy and giving birth and post partum recovery for women was extremely dangerous, and a possible death sentence. It would be easy to see how women could simply refuse the act for fear of their own lives. Without women willing to have children (lots of them), the world would be a very different place--like non-existent. I tend to look at it as "Ladies, you can't refuse to have children, because without you risking your lives, we have no humanity"

Of course, that is purely my own interpretation, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

You're welcome. As I mentioned to Isis2200 earlier, about that passage and both parts of the verse speaking to her friends abused spouse issue. One can interpret the Scriptures as they like. If an abusive male reads in them he has a right to control his woman, and that means through physical violence and /or intimidation, they can claim the bible tells them so. And if an abused woman wants to extricate herself from being a child of god, made in the image and likeness of the Divine, she may glean courage from the passage that she may interpret as telling her she is a sacred vessel and abuse is sacrilege.


However I stand by what I said earlier also. If there was not a blatant biblical reference to womens inferiority and subjugation to the male (patriarchy), one would have no cause to address such matters because it would be wholly true, that women were entirely equal throughout the entire bible. That is not the case, and while there may be passages that impart women to have privilege, it does not negate or dismiss the very real fact there are scriptures that make women as property and worth-less than men and their right to hold authority over their person.

I think a red herring in this case may also be recognized as any effort meant to sidetrack what is present in the matter of womens being made inferior ,by biblical admonition. It exists. And if one is to first believe the bible is the irrefutable word of a god, they must recognize all that that contains.

God's opinion of women

They're alright but can sometimes be a bit mouthy, I suppose...

But I thought that when it says "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord", that it means that a wife should submit to her husband as she submits to God? If that is the case... is man God's equal? If God isn't pleased can't he punish man? If a woman submits to man as she submits to God then surely she should submit to his judgement and punishment of her.

Out of interest, how, when reading the Bible, do Christians decide which definition of a word is applicable? I have been looking through a few sites to read up on this, and each site has a different reading of this passage.

Proof that god is a male! Males think women talk to much because after the first of their kind did what he was told in the garden, learning that lesson, there's no going back boyyyyy. And now it's way to late for them to catch up. Imagine.

They can, but it would be a fair comment to state that some interpretations are more correct than others!

Of course they could claim this. They would be ignoring the context to do so, but they could claim so.

And I also stand by what I said earlier. If the context is taken into consideration then this is not an issue. It is when context is ignored, and taken to serve selfish and abusive agendas, that they can be misinterpreted.

Well, some people like PA do a great deal of research, they have studied long and hard and made good interpretations through that study.

I'm more intuitive, my faith comes from within myself and by waiting to hear God, the interpretation comes from that place. What I hear in respect to meaning, may be quite different from what others hear. I've heard Biblical literalists tell me that voice is not God and that I open myself to the Devil when I do this, but fortunately I beg to differ. It's FAITH and the acceptance of God's Word, God's Word which comes from the light within the heart. I see God in the Bible, but I see God in poet Robert Frost too.

I would hope they would take it into the context wherein they could live with the thought that no one should accept as the pretext that a divine being would sanction abuse, and that should be understood as a matter of context.

But the Bible also states that we as humans are not to judge others. Condemning another person is wrong. Only God has the power to do this. So logically it would stand that these passages are not advocating the male right to punish their wife (which is wrong, imo). As a Christian, I submit to Christ. I trust him in life to help me through trials and ordeals. He is a friend and confidante, a shoulder to cry on when needed, a friendly ear to hear my triumphs and tragedies. Jesus does not condemn me, stand-over me, belittle me, tell me I'm worthless, abuse me, or any such thing. He is kind and loving and always there when I need him most.

There are many factors to consider when reading a word - many people just take the definition that best suits their purposes, which is not the correct way. The most correct way would be to go back to the Greek or Hebrew text and read what that word is, and the usage that word had in society. If it is ambiguous or could mean multiple things, look at the passage itself - how does this fit in with the context of the passage and the context of the Bible as a whole? Does this word appear in other parts of the book, and how is it used in those contexts (and if the author has written more than one book of the Bible - Paul, for example - how has that word been used by that particular author)?

There are many other contextual steps to follow, but these are the ones off the top of my head that relate specifically to your question. As you can see, context is not easy. Many people take a 2 minute look at a Bible passage, make the jump from what it says to how it applies today, and ignore everything else. In order to properly study a passage, it takes time and effort. But I digress. I'm going off topic, and I'll stop there. hope I've answered your question though

That's interesting... my grandfather was a Christian, and like you his faith came from within... and he was told the exact same thing, that he was opening himself to the Devil. He was told this on one occasion by the priest at his church, who was less than polite about it, and he stopped going to church services and turned his back on "organised religion" from that point forward. He remained a Christian, but never went to another service. He would enter churches - he took me to see the architecture inside them when I was young - but he couldn't stand to be in the presence of a clergyman.

You are woman and I hear Your ROOOAAAAR!

i'm glad you pointed that out... because GW makes a habit of only presenting part of the verse...

such as quoting an entire chapter except for 1 verse... lol...

you always have to double check her references to the Bible... because it seems to me that she does it on purpose... if she even actually reads what she posts...

And that's where I might differ a little. I have no problem with Clergy and I am a member of a very organized (although sometimes I wonder haha) denomination. In my practice, we have no designated clergy... we are ALL clergy and ministers of faith. It's an important part of our practice to hear the Word of God, and minister that Word to the congregation. I've only done it perhaps 3 times in 10 years though.

minister to a congregation implys one has a knowledge that another can't have..I find this absurd.... a teacher of gods word would encourage a seek and you shall find yourslef approach , the truth of god life whatever you call it lives in each of us its only the one who has forgotten this claims otherwise....teaching through ones life lived not preaching as if they know and you don't..I am assuming you probably mean the first.., a true teacher gives one back to themselves no matter the path not becomes the source speaking on behalf of a diety for another .or claiming one path.....this creates dependencys and slavery not love and interdependence......LOL

I'm not sure what you're hoping I'll say. And I'm really not sure what the LOL was about.

My faith is one of absolute equality, noting more nothing less. We are all equal, we are all capable of being ministers if we choose to.

Perhaps it would help if I explained how my faith's worship service works? I'd be happy to do so, it's quite unique when compared to other Christian dominations and sects.

Good post shadow! It also bothers me a great deal that sites never seem to agree. They will go into detail about the meaning of certain words and then they just seem to interject their own opinion.





Why say anything at all if it's not contributing to the discussion at hand. It seems like you take more joy attacking someone than actually adding content to this thread.

would anyone be welcome to minister from their inner truth???? You are uisng words as worship etc.. do you reference the bible as your rule book???

I find it interesting that "your'religion is diffenernt .every religon says this ..of course it has to be diffenrt or who would join ????? this is still IMO excluvisit generating superiority adgendas and history shows us what this has lead too. more intolerance and idsunity and harm........yes why don't you explain how 'different ' you are???

I had a friend who was a Quaker. He tried to explain to me once that each and every member of the congregation at his church could lead the service... sometimes nobody chose to speak and they all sat in silence, which was fine. His church had no set rules, no two people believed the same thing, and they all had a differing opinion of what constituted sin. Anyone could speak, and as everyone had different beliefs it made for a very interesting church.

because GW had just PURPOSELY left out parts of the post... and if it's spotted by someone, it should indeed be pointed out... after all... nobody minds when someone says something about sources that us Christians use...

if GW didn't PURPOSELY take things out of context time after time... then i couldn't say she did... now could i?

Going on the Quaker faith, I found this rather interesting.
Quaker Women's Tracts


Three centuries before the equality of women became a serious concern in most Western societies, Quaker women were exercising their status as full and equal members of the Society of Friends by producing tracts that broke new ground in religion, social reform, and literature.
Some 100 of them are reproduced on microfilm in this collection, which is sure to be of interest to researchers in English and American history, religion, and women's studies. It provides a fascinating look at the early history of the Society of Friends, from its founding in England in 1647 through the settlement of Pennsylvania and beyond. It also offers a rich compendium of women's writings at a time when the literary world was almost entirely male.

From its very founding the Society of Friends advocated equality between men and women, both internally and in the larger world. Female believers served effectively as theoreticians, religious writers, and "missionaries" to a society that often persecuted them.

These tracts represent Quaker values and activities during the English Civil War and Restoration--the Friends' humanitarian efforts, their calls for social and political reform, and their pursuit of inner spiritual experience rather than strict adherence to a particular religious creed.

The titles of the tracts reflect many of these concerns. There are "warnings" and "alarms" to the people of England, "lamentations" and "declarations" of suffering and persecution, and "salutations" and "visitations" of love. Though most were published in England, the tracts illuminate the reasons behind the Quaker emigration to North America and the founding of the Pennsylvania colony, as well as the core of current Quaker belief.

Materials in Quaker Women's Tracts have been microfilmed from three major collections of original Quaker literature:


The Friends Historical Library, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania
The Quaker Collection, Haverford College, Pennsylvania
The Lilly Library, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

interesting read Gw, I'm reading a book currently on the history of veganism and there is some of info on the quakers....do they use the bible too do you know???

men are worth more in the bible( and women still make less then men for the same jobs) this is only one example with text that shows how women are devalued in that society.

Leviticus 27
27:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
27:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation.

27:3 And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
27:4 And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.
27:5 And if it be from five years old even unto twenty years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
27:7 And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.


1 Corinthians 11 is a great example of bible bs and women.1 Timothy 2 is another.

interesting note - it seems only 144,000 men are going to 'heaven' and they are all undefiled with women = virgins.

Revelation 14
14:1 And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.
14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps:
14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.

Revelation 7

7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.


so how many of the guys here are virgins?

I believe MissW. is the foremost authority on the practice, however I found this in the meantime.


Excerpt:
The historical position of Friends (Quakers) regarding the Bible can be summarized in a few brief points:
The primary authority is the Spirit of God rather than anything written.
The Bible is a faithful declaration of the Spirit containing all the chief doctrines of Christianity, and thus can be relied upon as a secondary authority and a check as to whether claimed revelations of the Spirit are true revelations.
The Bible can only be truly understood when we are in that Spirit which is its source.
Jesus Christ is the true Word of God (John 1:14), but the Bible can be considered the words of God.

Actually, Shadows explanation was pretty good.

A service is held on Sunday (or what we call "first day") it's typically silent. Some people will bring a book to read, it might be the Bible, it might be the Torah or the Q'uran heck, like I said in another thread, it could be Winnie the Pooh (I typically don't care to read). But what we make an attempt to do is sit in utter silence, sometimes it's a lot like meditation, and just wait to hear the Word of God. If you are hearing the Word of God and feel like it's something you'd like to share with everyone else you are free to do so. No one is allowed to comment on what you've delivered a sermon about, it simply IS. Because we are a faith of respect, equality and friendliness, it's rare to find someone delivering a sermon about something that would offend or put anyone off (although it's happened, but rare)

We have different types of sermons, some are what we call "weighty" Friends, who deliver profoundly spiritual sermons that could move the stanchest atheist to tears, others deliver simple sermons of affirmation about life and love. I tend to not deliver sermons by choice (and when I have they have been "weighty"), and my meetings tend to go for months without anyone ever delivering a sermon of any kind at all, just an hour of silence. Yes, our services and ministry include Christ and God, we are mostly Trinitarians, but not all of us are. However, the Bible is not the Word of God. We don't reject it outright, it has some good things to say, BUT, it's not the only religious text of value... there is God in everything.

Quakers are members of a very small organization of "Peace Churches" which includes Mennonites, Bretheren and Quakers, but also include Molokans, Amish and a few others. We are absolute advocates of non-violence and it's debatable of whether or not we'd even defend ourselves in personal defence. I go back and forth on this. We are typically liberal in our politics and our religious beliefs, and the Peace Churches and Quakers in particular have a peace activism office with the UN (United Nations). Quaker churches even handfast or marry homosexual couples like any commited couple and we register them with our national registry.

And yes, there has been ongoing discussion in our sect about vegetarianism because of our beliefs about non-violence. Nothing is ever a requirement in Quakerism, but a vast majority of Friends are vegetarians and extremely health concious.

We have no dogma and say no creeds, I would never say an oath in court or even the pledge of allegance in most cases.

You asked if we use the Bible... I'd have to say yes, and some Quakers are amazingly knowedgable about the Bible in the same way PA or IamsSon is, however, we don't not care if the Bible is inerrant, in our practice it is NOT the Word of God, it is merely the words of God which is very different from any Christian practice really (Unitarians might be the only exception).

Over a month ago, BNW started a thread that said that "Quakers rock" and this is largely because we don't exclude other texts from our practice... we believe that like the Bible, there is God in other religious and non-religious texts as well. What is written, is man's experience with God who shares those WordS, the Word of God is in your heart on the Light. We've frequently been called "Christian Spiritualists".

Some people would call this a deist practice and not a Christian practice, but the difference is that we do believe Jesus to be the son of God and that God and Christ are one in the same, HOWEVER, this does NOT exclude any other practices. To us, the God of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Native Americans etc... are all the same God and he dwells within. There's actually a beautiful story about early American Quakers and an Indian Chief on the warpath that recognized that his Great One and the Quaker God were the same, and as a general rule, there was never any strife or disagreement between Quakers and Native Americans. We were equal and worshipping the same "Great One". If you're interested in that true story, I posted it in Rebel's Native American Stories thread.

You also mentioned "joining" because we're different.... well that's not how it works. Friends don't actively seek members, and because we don't, our numbers have been dwindling. In most states, it's quite difficult to find a Quaker meeting at all. When a child is born to a Quaker family, they are not considered to be Quakers, you come to the practice when you are an adult, and able to be "convinced" by the Holy Spirit that Quakerism is right for you. At my meeting, we have many many attendants that are not "convinced" they don't call themselves Quakers, but attend anyway. It's a serious undertaking to be convinced, and it comes with a few lifestyle changes, although they aren't a requirement, most if not all Quakers do choose the lifestyle choices--which puts a lot of average Americans off the faith. We choose to live simply, never owning more than we need, and we give what's left over to chairity. I give 60% of my income away.

And because I was writing this dissertation when GW posted, her information is also very accurate. Thanks GW.

Personal criticisms of the articles main points by the author, not withstanding, it's a fascinating read. Makes one glad they didn't live in a biblical society. Also puts into perspective the potential inherent in the prior post:Theocracy at the Grocery Store (Or, Mom,There’s a Dominionist Lawyer in my juice) A reconstructinist dystopia wherein all laws are based on biblical values. It would set womens value at right about that of property. Again.



The Biblical Way To Treat Women With Dignity

Author: Farrell Till
As noted in previous articles, a popular claim of Christianity is that the Bible has accorded women a status superior to that in societies dominated by other religions. Those who make this claim are either very ignorant of what the Bible teaches or else have no scruples against misrepresenting facts to try to further the cause of Christianity. Many of the deplorable attitudes toward women found in the Bible have already been examined, but none were more flagrantly sexist in their scope than a "test" in Numbers 5 that Yahweh required of women accused of adultery.

If any man suspected his wife of "going astray" but had no evidence to confirm his suspicion, he was entitled to take her to the priest, "if the spirit of jealousy comes upon him" (vs:11-15), and the priest would subject her to a trial by ordeal, which she had to pass in order to prove her innocence. The man was required to bring a meal offering, which the priest would put into the woman's hands. He would then take a concoction of "holy water" and dust from the tabernacle floor, which was called "the bitter water that brings a curse," and say an incantation over the woman:

If no man has lain with you, and if you have not gone astray to uncleanness while under your husband's authority, be free from this bitter water that brings a curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband's authority, and if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has lain with you... Yahweh himself make you a curse and an oath among your people, when Yahweh makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach and make your belly swell and your thigh rot" (vs:19-22).

At this point, the woman was required to say, "Amen, so be it" (v:22). Who says that Yahweh didn't have a sense of fairness?
. (Continued)

And how was the woman caught in adultery judged in the New Testament???? In the New Testament, the woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus and Jesus basically said "he who is without sin cast the first stone". In other words, do not judge because you are just as bad as she is, and in the same position.

I'm going to guess that skeptics are going to cry that I'm picking and choosing which verses to follow here, to which I'd respond that in this particular context, the Old Testament and New Testament are differnet (assuming that the Law from Numbers 5 is from God, that is - there is an indication that it could be a Mosaic law given by Moses and not a law from God, but that's beside the point for this discussion) then it was a context-specific law, given to people at a time when God himself interacted with creation. In the New testament, when it was coming towards a time when God no longer directly intervened with creation in the same way as the Old Testament, God gave a law better suited to this age - since God is the only one who can Judge, instead of Judgin others, instead Love your neighbour, indeed Love your enemy. This is a popular difference between the two testaments, when God was directly involved and cited his own divine right to Judge, as opposed to the New testament, when such judgement is unable to be given by mere humans.

Jesus' example in not condemning the woman caught in adultery is an example that all Christians should follow.

Regards, PA

I recall a QUOTE from DARWIN that you left a huge part out of it too....so whats the problem??

thaphantum...if you feel parts are left out..just say it...no need to get your knickers in a twist over it...just point them out and say BUT GW LOOK AT THIS GIRLY...you forgot this--->>

and hence you will have proved YOUR POINT..and not one person here can accuse you of trying to just attack............see??

Besides I wanna see you post more jokes like the cow joke...

man I just love humour in a topic..cuz it makes people feel less on edge and post without the abuse LMAO

PA you seem angry at PEOPLE who you refer to as the skeptics are going to CRY!!!!...relax PA you are a MOD...maybe ...just maybe you shouldnt be dragging yourself into debates??? its ok to give an opinion..but when you drag yourself into debates and only DEFEND one side that you follow...people are going to say..PA is just showing baised remarks...PA I am just saying..relax a lil...I think you still see yourself as a member and jump straight in both feet

Yea maybe Jesus is NOT condeming ANYONE...I belive you PA LMAo...but please think about it...dont let this get to you...the reason WHY I am just quoting you..is to gently remind you that...the 1st line of your post sounded a lil angry...from what I saw...thats all

And ANGER is NOT PA...PA rises above anger...

So, are you saying that with the advent of the NT and jesus example regarding the stoning of the adulteress, that adultery was no longer prosecuted nor prosecutable, according to the old testament laws?

I agree with PA here, you have to look at what JESUS said if you're going to try and use the Bible to condem the Christian God. Jesus states that all are created equally and are to be judged equally in the eyes of God. If you're only looking at what the OT says, you're not really looking at it from a Christian perspective.

No anger here, BM If it is possible to be the opposite of angry, then that is how I am right now - I am in fact anti-angry I was just commenting on a probable reaction to my post before it happened, to save time - the word "cry" was not meant in a negative context. For the record, a moderator is able to engage in debate (there is nothing wrong with this), even if they hold strong views to one part side of the debate. Thank you for your concern, but I a ssure you that it is not necessary.

As an aside, I don't think projecting, especially as a moderator, is helpful at all. It seems petty actually. All due respect, I figure if you can speak it I can comment to.

Now, if you would be so kind as to clarify your previous response and answer my earlier question?

In the sense that the Old Testament required adulterers be put to death, then "no", the adulterer was no longer prosecutable in that respect. However, adultery was and is a major issue in society. Though it is more a problem that is dealt with within the family unit. Marriages have been destroyed because of the actions of adultery. This is not an either/or scenario, where adultery is either condoned or condemned. Adultery is not correct, regardless of which convenant one were to judge by. But the social punishment as a result of adultery is not death, but forgiveness - at least it is according to Jesus.

Good...cuz I have NEVER seen you angry...so im glad you aint lol

Interesting. There would seem to be a contention in that respect however. Given jesus said he did not come to abolish the old testament laws, but to fulfill them. (Excerpt relates NIV bible passages )Jesus orders Christians to follow the Old Testament's laws: "Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)" It is quite clear from these verses from the New Testament that Jesus peace be upon him did honor the Old Testament and did say that every single "letter" of it has to be honored, followed and fulfilled.

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)" We clearly see in these verses that Jesus peace be upon him did not prohibit for the Old Testament to be followed, but only warned his followers to not follow it the way the current religious leaders of the Law (the Jewish Rabies) were following it.

So according to Jesus peace be upon him, the adulterer in the New Testament must be put to death.

This is the bit I have trouble understanding. The OT is quoted to demonstrate the nature of God by Christians, but the moment it's a verse that defines God as not such a nice chap the response is "that's the OT, that's not relevant". It has me befuddled no end. We are supposed to abide by the Ten Commandments of the OT... they're in the OT. Who decided which bits are relevant and which bits aren't?

Personally, I think the interpretations and the apologist rhetoric that defines what is and is not relevant , is a result of what comes after the process that compiled what is the bible today. When there were councils and patriarchal authorities that literally composed what is todays christian bible, and there exist banned books one will never see in that bible, it is evidence early on that though mortals claim god inspired the texts, there were other mortals that claim their authority not to let it all be known. Making for an incomplete, contextually skewed, composition. This is why, I think, there is so much to take into consideration and critique about what is now regarded as "gods word", when blatant contradictions , discrepancies and the like are discovered in a book that we're suppose to believe was inspired by a perfect being, unto imperfect human scribes. So basically, as I see it, the answer to the question of what counts and what doesn't, is arbitrary and usually is subject to the discretion of who believes what they wish to read, and those that discount it because they cant accept that it is there. Context, is something often used to apologize for the discrepancies. However if context were indeed the case, 21st century society would have no use for textual allegories, parables and metaphors that are over 2000 years old and out of context in themselves, because they were borrowed (some say stolen) from the jews, and the pagans. So the irrefutable trait some accord the bible, is in fact untrue.