Does the Catholic Church teach from the Bible?

MOSES did not PART THE RED SEA...He and his people CROSSED THE REED SEA...a marshy Tidal Area near the Med. At low tide Moses and his people crossed...the following Egyptian Army Crossed in pursuit as the Tide was coming in. They did not all drown but the Egyptian Chariots were swamped and ended the pursuit. This are has been the host of digs where many Egyptian Chariots have been recovered.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Splitinfinity

Can't let you get away with that one.

Your confusing truejew with unfounded information. You must have a different source for your information but whatever it is it is not confirmed at all by the Masoretic and the Septugint Texts of the Hebrew Bible. Bible scholars are still in disagreement as to these claims that you have put forth and in fact deny that Yam Suph means "Reed" as you have declared. Both Hebrew texts as well as Oral Torah confirm that it was indeed the Red Sea This so called Reed Sea which is believed to be the Gulf of Aqaba is now a dried up bed of dirt and does not exist today.

You imply to truejew that the Hebrew bible could have been mistranslated but you never give any facts to verify this. The Rosetta stone has nothing to do with the Hebrew Bible and you know it. Not even close. The Hebrew bible has been known long before Christ while the Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799 by Napoleon and was written in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs and below that in Demotic script and below that in Ancient Greek.script. That has nothing to do with the Masoretic Manuscripts which are in Hebrew and Aramatic. nor the Greek Septuagint manuscripts which are the same bible.

How old is this Rosetta Stone? We do not know but we do know that Torah is at least 3,313 years old and that it has been translated from Hebrew & Aramaic and then to the Greek Septuagint for those 3,313 years. We also have historic literature which verifies the "Red Sea" as well as Oral Torah. For the mistranslation to have been connected to the Rosetta Stone is absolutely false.

As far as chariot wheels and other remnants being found, there has never been any confirmation of this that I am aware of. If so please give references. There is a lot of high speculation by lots of people such as the late Ron Wyatt but he and others like him are not reliable by any means.

The crossing of the Red Sea was not blown dry by a high wind as some have believed. A wind of that magnitude to have parted the waters into a wall of water would have killed everyone And to add further information to this water being divided, the Red Sea was divided into twelve separate channels. One Channel for each tribe. Also the sea bed would not have dried up instantly or even overnight with any sort of a natural phenomenon. If the account is true (which I believe it is) then it was the Father God who made it true and not some modern day scientific wonder boys with their white coats and beakers.

Where in the world do you find the information that the Vatican confirms these mistranslations? Even the Douay Rheims Catholic Bible translates this as Red Sea. Tell me just how would the Vatican ever change the bible back to the original when there is no original to go back to. Torah is known to be at least 3,313 years old but the original Torah is not to be found. No one has original Torah and no one can refer back further than the Masoetic texts.

The fact remains, when we resurrect, our bodies resurrect with us. Otherwise Jesus' body would have remained in the tomb. Mary is still in the grave. She cannot hear you. No long posts twisting or misunderstanding Scripture is going to change that.

reply to post by truejew


You are entitled to your belief and I respect that. I enjoyed our conversation with showing you the truth and if you reject that truth that is your prerogative. It won't take or give to your salvation but you will be surprised. Have a good life.

Originally posted by Seede
Your confusing truejew with unfounded information.

No, I wasn't confused. I have heard his theory before.

Originally posted by Maymunah
reply to post by Augustine62

 

I really do appreciate the information you've written to my post, but reading it more than once I still could not find the relevance? You gave all the proper passages in the Bible and you seem to know the husband well and the bride and her role and his but again...What would the son of God (who bore the spirit without measure) have to do with a "church" that is filled with not only blood but apostasy and STILL to this DAY cannot seem to grasp that the Messiah is no longer hanging on the cross and yet continue keeping the blasphemous images all over the place within their church.

Do the Catholic's just not understand what Idolatry means and is? Not at anytime in any discussion I've witnessed will Catholic's ever address the issue of the "statues" and that's just a portion of the idols inside their "house" there are also relics, images of everything and everyone from Christ to Mary to animals and the bigger most strangest issue of all, the necromancy.

Just please think before responding, because you need to show me Bible verses that support an idol bride and only THEN will I consider the possibility of the Catholic church being "the Bride".

For the record though....I have a conviction within me that always assures me that Jesus' covered all our sin's. ALL of them.

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to define what you understand idolatry to be. We don't worship statues, nor believe the soul of those saints to whom we pray reside in the statues. They are but symbols.

What necromancy?

As for the Crucifix: without Christ on the Cross, it is just an instrument of torture. With Christ remaining on the Cross, it is the tool of Salvation. To simply "start" and "end" in time is to reduce the reality of the Sacrifice. The theology of this is actually sort of deep and I will need to search out some more simple explanations as I'll just bugger it up going from the head.

Also, per your avatar, are you Shi'a or Sunni? This might help me bring some examples in from Islam if you are Shi'a.

Thanks.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Thus a a Mistranslation created a Fantasy scenario that even the Vatican Admits is incorrect. When asked why the Vatican does not change the Bible back to the original Text...the answer was that they felt a change at this point would confuse the Faithful. This is but one of a Multitude of Mistakes that are within the Bible so Teaching from it other than to use it as an Analogy to express a lesson...is fooling oneself. Split Infinity

Can you please supply the actual quote from the Vatican source for this?

Thank you,

Eric

reply to post by Seede

You use only one form of check upon something as important as a Bible that is supposedly the Word of GOD yet you fail to acknowledge that the Bible is a Group of Many Texts that have been put together over many years as well as make an assumption that just because...and there is no specific proof to this...and you state.........
Your confusing truejew with unfounded information. You must have a different source for your information but whatever it is it is not confirmed at all by the Masoretic and the Septugint Texts of the Hebrew Bible. Bible scholars are still in disagreement as to these claims that you have put forth and in fact deny that Yam Suph means "Reed" as you have declared. Both Hebrew texts as well as Oral Torah confirm that it was indeed the Red Sea This so called Reed Sea which is believed to be the Gulf of Aqaba is now a dried up bed of dirt and does not exist today.

These are your statements. Now think of what you state. It verifies what I am saying in that MULTIPLE TEXTS were used and were Translated and even if the language of these text still exists today...the meaning of words change so it MUST be cross referenced in order to lend validity to whether or not what is being placed in the Bible has been translated properly.

You also stated that where the Old Reed Sea existed is now sand...this is true and this is where they have dug up many Egyptian Chariots as if an entire area of SEA can change is this long term passage of time...imagine how different the meanings to words are now from what they were back then..THIS is why the Rosetta Stone was important as it was the KEY to being able to have several versions of a language and Hieroglyphics as well as Greek that was able to provide verification to Ancient Religious Text.

NOTHING in a language retains the same meaning over time. Split Infinity

These are your statements. Now think of what you state. It verifies what I am saying in that MULTIPLE TEXTS were used and were Translated and even if the language of these text still exists today...the meaning of words change so it MUST be cross referenced in order to lend validity to whether or not what is being placed in the Bible has been translated properly.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Splitinfinity

You do have a valid point in a sense but I think you are confused as to how the bibles are translated . When a person translates one language to another, that person only translates what they understand that word to mean to both languages. This is why a translation should entail several translators who are well versed in both languages. As a translator will offer his or her own meaning to a word, that person is caught in not only the culture that they live in but also the belief of that translator. Naturally the translator will not only take one word but will try to understand the complete thought and then compare that usage with other translations of the same word.

Lets take the Jehovah Witness's bible called the The New World translation. This organization used the 1611 KJV in their earlier years of their church and had many problems with this version because their doctrine was not the same as the KJV believers. The main problem was that they believed Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God but was another of many who were sent to witness to this human race. I put this mildly for the sake of argument. The JW's then had some of their members rewrite the scriptures and in 1961 put that bible on their market as The New World bible or also known as the Watchtower bible.

These JW church members who did this work used different manuscripts then did the translators in 1611. I don't have the time or space to delve into this very deeply because if I did then we could argue forever as to which manuscripts are the most accurate. Here is the general idea. There are the manuscripts which agree one with the other and there are manuscripts which do not agree one with the other. The ones which generally agree with each other are called the majority text. These number over 5,000 texts. They are not necessarily the oldest texts but simply that they agree one with the other in doctrine and happenings. The other group of texts were known as corrupt or unreliable texts because there were too many discrepancies in the manuscripts to please the scholars who did the work. This is decided by the scholars and translators.

This group of majority texts were the group that the 1611 KJV was produced with. Naturally there were less discovered texts in 1611 than there are now but still that only adds more confirmation to the 5,000 manuscripts of the 1611 KJV. The JW's chose to use the corrupt group of manuscripts because it suited their doctrine and could be manipulated more into what they wanted. Basically that is how bible producers choose their material. Culture and doctrine are therefore the basic tools that they use. That's what makes religion.

Now let us compare this new JW bible with the KJV in just two examples. There are many more but then you can google all of this and see for yourself.

KJV of Acts 8:37 reads "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
JW of Acts 8:37 ---- This has been removed. Son of God is forbidden to them.

KJV of Colossians 1:14 reads -- ":In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins."
JW of Colossians 1:14 reads -- " by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.

You see that "through his blood" and "redemption" has been removed from the language of the JW's rendition of Colossians 1:14. Now any educated person can realize that this is not simply a matter of just a difference of culture from 1611 to 1961 from the same manuscripts and same English speaking people. This was deliberately formatted to suit the doctrine of the JW's. Translation had nothing to do with this forgery.

Now without argument as to right or wrong, manuscripts and translators are not the only source of consideration. Outright forgery is also a contender. Then we have the reason for this behavior in many cases which is that some new bibles are produced with copy right to be sold for profit. Lots and lots of money is to be made under the Christians assuming that a bible is a bible. Look in your bible and see if Acts 8:37 is there and that Co 1:14 verifies that Jesus' blood is your redemption.

reply to post by Seede

I had no idea Acts8:37 was removed from the ESV, all this time I thought ESV was just like KJV, this is very frustrating. The J.Smith version has Acts 8:37, the Darby has removed 37, and the Diaglott has this; "37 And he ordered to stand the chariot; and they went down both into the water the, both Philip and the eunuch; and he dipped him" .38
Removal of scriptures is strictly prohibited, this seems like blatant disobedience.


Col 1:14

Removal of scriptures is strictly prohibited, this seems like blatant disobedience

reply to post by SmikeS


SmikeS

Yes it is very frustrating to realize that true Christians are being duped. The most disturbing part of this is where are the church guards who should be on watch for these things? Out of 34 bibles that I have personally checked, 18 have been of this corruption. Say what may be said about the Catholic Church (I am not Catholic) they do keep their guard up at all times and do not allow this to be accepted into their doctrine. I have deep respect for their vigilance. You can see how word change and verse change can eventually effect the doctrine of Christianity. Once the deity of Christ has been removed then it has been destroyed. Always be on guard.

The Catholic Church teaches primarily from the New Testament. So, yes, in one respect, the Church does teach from the Bible, if you consider the Bible to include the New Testament.

In terms of the Old Testament, I would say that most Catholics are less familiar with the Old Testament than the New Testament. In Catholicism, for the laity, a lot more emphasis is placed on the sacraments, the Mass itself, with less emphasis on studying the Bible.

However, for priests and monks and nuns, and a minority of Catholic laity, they do undergo a very thorough training on the Bible. Some even go so far as to learn Hebrew, and to study traditional Jewish texts, such as the Talmud, the Mishnah, etc. Some learn Greek and, in the pre-Vatican II years, Latin was almost universally learned even by Catholic school children.

The very word, Catholic, means universal. It's a religion for the masses, so they have to deliberately make the religion accessible to all. The basics of the Bible are taught, as a result.

In some respects, there are many aspects to Catholicism that are extra-biblical -- meaning there are traditions that are not Biblically-based. One example is the Rosary, which is not mentioned in the Bible. I would also state that the use of statues and icons is also extra-biblical, and some outsiders would even perceive as being idolatrous.

While there are many issues that stand out about Catholicism, perhaps the most incongruent with the Bible is the use of statues and the veneration given to the Blessed Mother Mary. The Protestants, for example, were very critical of the Church use of statues, and some Protestant sects - such as the Amish - prohibit statues and even pictures of any kind in their homes and religious buildings to this very day. For Jews and Muslims, these Catholic practices of using statues go directly against the second commandment's instructions to serve G-d and G-d alone.

The Church believes in intercession by the saints. There are some instances in the Bible that lend credence to this tradition, but they are rather unique and require extensive explanation which is rather strained.

I was watching a video series on Hasidic Judaism, and they discussed how some Jews will pray for the deceased to intercede on their behalf to G-d. This is a form of intercession, but again, this is not the norm. Catholics, on the other hand, believe in intercessors of all kinds - saints, the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, etc

Some people believe that the whole point of Catholicism is to bring the Gentile nations to be instructed in the 7 Noahide laws. For the most part, Catholicism has been instrumental in spreading the Hebrew Bible all over the world, moreso than even Judaism could have ever imagined. In faraway places, Gentiles learn about the Bible, far removed from the land of Israel. In this respect, the Church has succeeded.

You have to remember that the Church was started by a Jewish rabbi, and its earliest followers were all Jewish. It was only later when the gospel was preached to the Gentile nations - such as Greece and Rome - where we see a breakdown in Jewish norms, culture, and religious tradition. In Rome, when Constantine adopted Catholicism as the state religion, the pagan temples were altered only slightly so that the Mass could be said in the stead of pagan religious rituals. As a result, Catholicism has adopted a lot of the flavor of Roman paganism as a result - such as the use of statues, intercession of saints, worship that from the outside appears to be related to sun worship, etc.

Insofar as Biblical translations, the Hebrew is the original - in the New and the Old Testament. Even the Catholics botched much of the translation into Latin and later English. I have found that only by going back to original Jewish sources - specifically, the Orthodox Jewish tradition - can you make any sense of Scripture in its original context. This mistranslations of words in the Bible are remarkably common.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


CookieMonster

That article was well written and well said . Hope you don't mind if I copy that for my paper work. You should consider writing and I am very serious about that. Thank you for your time and effort.

NOTHING in a language retains the same meaning over time.

Split Infinity

At times I do not make myself clear at all and it looks like I have done it again. Firstly I want you to know that I love you as a brother in Christ Jesus and do not want to offend you or anyone.

You are right to say that language changes in time and that some words change with that language. When we discussed Red Sea and Reed Sea I took it for granted that you realized we were discussing Torah. Torah is one text in my referencing this discussion and that was the Masoretic Text. It is true that Torah was translated into Greek but not simply for a translation alone. It was a necessity because the Jews had forgotten Hebrew and Aramaic and were caught up in the Greek culture. Actually both the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint were both accepted in this period. The entire Hebrew bible as we know it today was completed after the death of Christ.

So in my thought I assumed that we were discussing just Torah and not the many manuscripts that exist in forming the scriptures. You are correct when you say that there were many manuscripts used to bind the word of God into a book. I stand corrected in misleading both you and truejew. The entire subject lay in the Torah as the book of Exodus describes the journey that the Hebrews took into the promised land. We have only two avenues to believe this account. One is Torah and the other would be Archaeology.

To my knowledge there is no proof in the field of Archaeology in the Reed Sea story of Ron Wyatt and his associates. There is however a lot of controversy but no proof. The late Ron Wyatt was arrested and I believe he spent several months in a Egyptian prison over this incident and the chariot wheel that he found has disappeared. The Egyptian govt. does not allow anymore such expeditions.

Suppose Wyatt was correct in that it was a chariot wheel that he found in the area of the Sea of Reeds. Would not that be a great assumption that it was the wheel of a chariot in Moses' crossing of the sea? Wouldn't you require proof of a claim such as that? I know I would and still do. Do you believe that Torah should be changed on an assumption? If the area which is claimed by Wyatt can be proven that it was indeed the journey of Moses in the Exodus account, then the Torah would be wrong and would have to be rewritten. So we should all understand the ramifications of a claim. Now that does not erase the fact that there are some people who would and will always believe a claim but that does not make it a fact.

Another piece of literature that has to be taken in consideration is oral Torah. Oral Torah is that portion of Torah that is as sacred as written Torah. Oral Torah was gathered by a Spanish scholar by the name of MeAm Loez and in his literature he describes the Exodus also. It not only agrees with Torah but expands upon the Hebrew bible. In this account MeAm Loez tells us that there were twelve canopies of division of the sea. One canopy for each tribe. Between each canopy of water was a wall on either side so that one could poke a finger in the wall. Each tribe was separated by a great wall of water. Why is this important? If this is true then a wind of natural phenomenon could not possibly have separated the water and the land could not have dried by a natural means in such a short time. It would be impossible except for Father God. This is very important to understand because it may involve a total different aspect of the Egyptian army's trying to catch the Hebrews. It may explain the reason the Egyptians were so confused.

Thanks for letting me bend your ear. I appreciate all of you people.

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to define what you understand idolatry to be. We don't worship statues, nor believe the soul of those saints to whom we pray reside in the statues. They are but symbols.

Well for one, believing that a statue bears any kind of life is indeed "idolatry" And that goes along with the claims that the Virgin Mary cries or bleeds etc..

Leviticus 26:1
Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.

(Bowing is not just literally bowing of course, it's symbolic of paying any kind of homage or reverence or veneer to an image made from hands.

Psalm 115:4
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

I could go on and on with Biblical passages of what I understand an idol to be. I would not have otherwise even known of what an idol was/is without the knowledge given us through the Bible. You can call them "symbols" you can call them anything but they are what they are! God knows better than men.

What necromancy?

Wiki is very informative and I'm almost baffled you don't know what it is, so either you truly don't, or you're playing with me? Nevertheless, it's all up in the Catholic religion.

As for the Crucifix: without Christ on the Cross, it is just an instrument of torture. With Christ remaining on the Cross, it is the tool of Salvation. To simply "start" and "end" in time is to reduce the reality of the Sacrifice. The theology of this is actually sort of deep and I will need to search out some more simple explanations as I'll just bugger it up going from the head.

That's your opinion. To me the cross can be a symbol of a lot of things from torture to love and that's various opinions but once again bearing an image of the Messiah in any form is "idolatry". You'd think that after 2000 years or so that man can lay these foolish things to rest and worship God in spirit and truth, but evidently not.

John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Also, per your avatar, are you Shi'a or Sunni? This might help me bring some examples in from Islam if you are Shi'a.

Thanks.

I am a fairly new convert to Sunni Islam. Many years prior I was Christian and even then I felt the same way with regards to the Catholic "Church" but please do not misunderstand me..I am not speaking of the people who are Catholic, most of them I've talked to over the years have a beautiful admirable love for both Christ and God, but the Church oppresses that. (my opinion)

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Because I believe in the Bible and Quran which both have always have masculine references for God, as in King, Father, Husband etc..It does not mean to say God is a "man" I know that and every believer knows as well that God is a Spirit and infinite eternal. I'm trying to sway away from getting too technical because it then complicates simplicity but you can do the research yourself going through history and languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek etc..

I refer to God as He/Him because it is more respectful than "it" and more authoritative than she/her

reply to post by Seede

Thank you for getting an understanding of the concepts I was conveying in my post. There are several versions of the Bible that My Girl has in the house but since we are having our Oak Floors Finished...there is stuff everywhere and I do not know where they are.

I am not a Religious Man but I am a Man who believes in something that most people may refer to as GOD...but I believe that whatever this Interconnectivity is....it is much Greater in it's Complexity and is unto itself....integrated into a MULTIVERSAL INFINITE STATE...that is confined to ONE GROUP of Infinite Divergent Universal Realities of which our Universal Reality is but one of.

This statement would have ramifications that go beyond average conceptual thought. One of these thoughts or concepts being that since everything that we have proven as a fact or reasonable fact based on experimentation and observation thus the Scientific Method...has a basis of undeniable MATH...it is a reasonable conclusion to believe that if the MATH does not dictate it will be so...it will not...and if the MATH dictates it must be...it will be.
There has NEVER been a case where this has not eventually proven to be FACT.

Thus by this Natural Law...the MATH dictates that we are existing in a Infinite Group of Divergent Universal Realities where there are Infinite Versions of You and Me.

The MATH also dictates that not only is their an existence of our Group of Infinite Divergent Alternate Universal Realities but in fact there are an INFINITE NUMBER OF GROUPS...each comprising unto each Group an Infinite Number of Divergent Universal Realities that do not have any association with our own group and contain different Physical Laws as well as different Dimensional States as well as the existence of other Groups that contain Infinite Universal Realities that are also Divergent to each Universe in their group but are Universal Constructs SO ALIEN IN THEIR NATURE...that we would not understand what their Universal Constructs Natural Rules are thus their Physics and Geometry would not even be associated with what we understand Physics and Geometry to be. This is what the MATH DICTATES...INFINITE DIVERSITY IN INFINITE CONSTRUCTS OF UNIVERSAL REALITY.

THUS...the ramifications are...there MUST EXIST A GOD in one of these Infinite Universal Groups of Divergent Universal States....and there is also 100% PROBABILITY that THERE MUST NOT EXIST A GOD...in one of these MULTIVERSAL GROUPS OF INFINITE DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.

The MATH NEVER PROVES ITSELF WRONG. As this applies to this topic....the Bible is a nice group of Stories for the purpose of TEACHING RIGHT AND WRONG. As whether or not it is accurate...there are OBVIOUS overstatements and it is a KNOWN FACT that what is written in the Bible was picked by choice by MEN with an agenda.

I an a HUGE SKEPTIC but in my vast experiences...I have experienced things that I cannot deny that have changed me from an Atheist to an AGNOSTIC. Still...I cannot deny what I have seen and heard with my own senses and I am Highly Trained in the Sensory and Memory Dept. I am not given to believing something is Supernatural until I have tried to Debunk and Investigate EVERY POSSIBILITY. I am exceedingly GOOD AT THIS! MUCH to my surprise...I have knowledge that there is MUCH MORE GOING ON than even I thought possible. This is coming from a person who is fairly certain that there are Infinite versions of Myself. Also it is coming from a person who is Fairly Certain that what people call GOD...is MUCH MORE than they could ever hope to understand and what this is is NOTHING LIKE WHAT THEY THINK IT IS!

I get a chuckle out of people who draw lines between themselves or their Groups that have a belief different than what is in another Groups BOOK! LOL! If you knew the small glimpse of what I know...you would laugh too!
Split Infinity

reply to post by Seede

Seede...do not worry about the possibility of offending me because that is a VERY HARD THING TO DO! LOL!

Also...if you have read my previous reply...you might gain an insight into where I stand as to Religion. I have respect for a persons right to believe what they will...but since this is a board for debate and discussion...I believe it is an appropriate venue to discuss such things as I have brought up.

Because of my THIRD JOB...a job that I sometimes do that I am Highly Trained for and since I have been doing it for so long...over the years I have seen, experienced and learned of things that are of a nature that either a person is capable of mentally coping with...or not. These experiences have changed not only how I perceive reality but how I think. To say they were eye opening events would not do justice to the effect upon me.

Out of what I have experienced and learned...one thing has become exceedingly apparent...Humans have a VERY NARROW and VASTLY INSUFFICIENT ability to even begin to grasp the simplest of analogies that could give a hint to understanding THAT which cannot be understood by our UNDER EVOLVED BRAINS.

It will probably take EONS of EVOLUTIONARY DRIVEN GROWTH for Humans to gain some understanding...but for now...we fight over what something that was written down multiple centuries or even less ago...as to what they meant. Split Infinity

Originally posted by Zippidee
Its so misunderstood! We don't worship Mary or the Saints. Frankly I'm tired of this misconception. How many times do those, that know nothing of the Faith, have to be told that we ask for intercession (to pray for us) or (to ask God to forgive us, guide us and grant us the grace and mercy we need). Yes we pray directly to "our Lord" Jesus Christ! No we don't think that salvation comes through Mary or the Saints. Research it and you will understand.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was waiting for someone to say this.
When I pray the rosary, I am praying with Mary, in my eyes. Asking her for intercession.

Originally posted by Maymunah
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

Because I believe in the Bible and Quran which both have always have masculine references for God, as in King, Father, Husband etc..It does not mean to say God is a "man" I know that and every believer knows as well that God is a Spirit and infinite eternal. I'm trying to sway away from getting too technical because it then complicates simplicity but you can do the research yourself going through history and languages such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Greek etc..

I refer to God as He/Him because it is more respectful than "it" and more authoritative than she/her

Understand that I respect a persons beliefs but since this is a discussion board...I believe it to be an appropriate place to debate these issues.

I do not know if you are a Man or Woman but I have been to the Middle East and I find the treatment of Women appalling. I am a Man....and I am an ALPHA MALE. I have NO TOLERANCE for other men...or as I would call them...Little Boys...who treat Women as a possession or as less than themselves. As an Alpha Male...and I am about as ALPHA as a Man can get...I find it as my duty to prevent any form of oppression in a group...and even though I was in several different countries than my own...I had extreme difficulty dealing with men who in my opinion mistreated their Wives in their own Home and then after acting in this way...turned back to me as if nothing had happened. Here I am in a room of this Woman's home and I am a guest but she is being thrown out of a room to let the MEN SPEAK.

Too many times have I heard the excuse...We are protecting our Women...that is why they cannot drive or show their faces or even speak to another man or be alone with another man who is not family under penalty of a Beating or worse. I am Highly Trained and it takes a lot to get me upset but I was visualizing in my mind...breaking this BOYS...as to me he is not a Man...Neck with my bare hands. How is it you allow this treatment? Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


I never suggested anything about the treatment you're talking about and have witnessed.

I mean..I am an American if that's what you want to know and have not only witnessed women close to me beaten by their "American" husbands/boyfriends, but I myself also have been hit not once by one man and verbally abused (both American men)

You have to understand too that the middle east is a vast area. In UAE alone there are I believe 7 what we call "cities" each of them differ and vary on rules, customs, laws etc..But I think (just guess here) you might be referring to Saudi Arabia? If so, I can't speak for their customs and laws though I do think they are strong/harsh. I'm in Jordan though and I can drive, with or without my husband, I can wear what I choose, speak when I please but I do all of these things with respect to my husband as his wife, not as a Religion or Race. This country is not that different to America at all, other than the medical and the pay and housing design, the people themselves are really just like the rest of us humans

Feel free to ask any questions you'd like. I will give you my answers based on my experience but as we know, experiences vary with each individual.

PS: Is my avatar throwing you off? I thought to change it, but I honestly forgot how. I chose it because she was pretty to me, not for any other reason than that.

reply to post by Maymunah

The current King of Jordan went to a School very close to where I live in Mass. I also have met some of his family and I know their history...Female American Movie Star marries King of Jordan. Jordan is VERY PROGRESSIVE as well as a good U.S. Ally.

I was also guessing you were in the States. Still...whether it be in the U.S. or Middle East...I have seen Women treated with Violence. I am very protective of Women and it took all I had not to stand up in this persons home and teach him a lesson.

I have a Strong Mother both Mentally and Physically and come from a Military Family. There has been ingrained in me a Code of Conduct since I was but a Child and part of this Code was a MAN NEVER BEATS A WOMAN. I am a Highly Trained Man who loves peace but is capable of extreme violence...but never violence that has no reason or direction. I am much larger and muscular than those I have met in the Middle East. I found that I could stop actions against women but with a stare. The thing is...in that stare...THEY KNEW I WAS SERIOUS.

Word got around and there was no smacking around of Wives during a visit to a home. The thing that really got to me was when they did smack their own Wives around...I could read their body language and their eyes and could tell...THEY ENJOYED IT! This sickens me to no end. It was as if they thought I would approve. I did not!
I remember each account...and wish they were in MY COUNTRY where I would have given them what they deserved. Split Infinity