WRONG_WOEID WRONG_WOEID

Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

 Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity (in the picture Caster-Semenya)Innate, subliminal and remote in the human psyche is an extraordinary preoccupation with sex, sects, sexuality and secularity.  Evidence for this can be had from the earliest cave paintings, shrines, asherims and other archeological finds.

Discoveries depict evidence of civil administration, phallic cults, vaginal cults, other forms of worship including female deification, from man’s earliest existence.

It would therefore seem strange that these phonetically similar expressions endure a tempestuous relationship.  Emotions are strong surrounding each cause, especially as each compete for supremacy to affect secular direction. The influences of logic, reason, and religious dogma, are also very strong, no one wants to compromise.

Where health and medicine is concerned, religion has conceded a lot of ground. Mental illnesses were thought to be possession by evil spirits, treated by exorcism.  Diseases were once considered to be curses of God. The church however has acceded that the conditions may be as a result of sicknesses treated by vaccinations, drugs or therapy.



On the other hand, in view of overwhelming evidence of sexuality as a spectrum rather than male or female, the sects are unprepared to be concessionary or conciliatory. They refuse to accept scientific thought where sex and sexuality is concerned.
One of the earliest accounts of this phenomenon that sparked debate was documented by Professor Michaux in the 1880s.  After being married for two months a patient recorded as Sophie V was unable to consummate her marriage. The husband could not penetrate her vagina. After examination the physician told the distressed Sophie V that she was in fact a man!

She had no vagina, one testicle was discovered in her labia, and there was a tiny penis, but without the urinary tract. The church and state (France) were on the same page on the issue: Sophie was not legally married, because two men could not be considered married.  The marriage therefore, was not considered legal.

Of course, this was long before Toriano Edwards could offer any alternate solutions.  So the humane, godly, legal, and ethical thing for 42 year old Sophie V to do was to start acting like a man and go and find a wife after considering herself a woman for forty-two years.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, one of the most conservative of countries, has led the world in recognizing that gender has many shades or degrees. The Revolution of 1979 brought another revolution with it – a sex-change revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a proclamation allowing gender-change operations, for persons ‘suffering’ from sexual development disorders.  Surprisingly, government agreed to fund half the cost of the operation.

This decree by the Ayatollah was not necessarily evidence of liberality or an act of benevolence. If strict Islamic law was to be observed, gender had to be specifically defined as either male or female. The clerics and theology in general, had faced ridicule and embarrassment by the many persons of unspecific gender that were being subjected to whippings and other religious punishments. Assigning a gender was the solution. In contrast, other deformities or handicaps in the same country, some that even incapacitated persons’ ability to praise Allah, received no government support, assistance or funding.

In the West however, in an age of equal opportunity, changing concept of the model family, and equal work for equal pay, why is there such emphasis on gender? The whole agenda seems to be for the purpose of crimination and discrimination, to the detriment, I dare say, of the development and productivity of the society as a whole.

Some of the most productive and developed economies are located on the Scandinavian Peninsular where gender equality is the highest in the world. This is despite the long, dark perpetual winters.  Whereas, the Islamic states, with abundant oil resources, long bright days of sunshine, but also extreme levels of social, educational and economic dimorphism, continue to struggle for survival.
Understandably, sport is one of those professions where gender specification is required. Yet with the most modern technology and expertise at its disposal, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) is, at best, trashing in murky, unchartered waters.  The gender of 1932 Olympic Hundred Yards gold medalist, Stella Walsh, is still disputed today.

The IAAF began gender testing in the 1960s by examining naked bodies. They soon realized that a penis or vagina does not qualify an athlete as male or female.  The Austrian, 1966 world champion women’s downhill skier, Erika Schinegger, was found to be chromosomally male in tests by the IOC while preparing for the 1968 Winter Olympics.

This cleared the way for chromosome testing.  But it was soon discovered that women may have a single X chromosome and men may also have two as well, therefore, chromosome testing was abandoned also.
 
Then a gene that triggered male determination was discovered.  The SRY gene detection method was thought appropriate.  But after eight women at the Atlanta Games, who were unanimously cleared for the games as women, tested positive for the gene; the IOC, emboldened by protest from the American Medical Association, gave up gender testing in despair, concluding that there was no decisive method of distinguishing male from female.


The issue again took centre stage at the Berlin World Championship games in 2009. Speculation was rife about the 18 year old female South African 800 M champion Caster Semenya. One of her rivals was intentionally blunt about what everyone else was speculating: ‘For me, she’s not a woman. She is a man.’  The IAAF and the IOC, under intense pressure to resolve the issue, announced that it would try again to determine decisively what makes a woman a woman.
 
Eventually Caster Semenya was cleared to compete as a woman.  The IOC retreated from its strictly male and female distinction. It declared that if the athlete’s body produced sufficient testosterone to give the competitor an unfair advantage then that person could not compete as a woman. Hormone therapy was recommended for those athletes who produced excessive testosterone despite the risky side-effects.

Who is right?  This question –whether the IOC, the state, science or the church – cannot be overlooked.  Iran performs the second most sex changes in the world. But does ensuring that one has a definite gender assigned by the state address the mental, psychological and temperamental state of the person? Not really. These characteristics are also undoubtedly sexual.

Or should the position as taken with Sophie V be adopted? You are a man so go and learn to act like one: walk like one, talk like one, wear masculine clothes and find a wife.  Or like the IOC, resort to hormone therapy treatment? In short, move the goalpost, fix nature, but maintain the status-quo.

Why is it that in the era of organ transplant, immunization, wireless communication and space travel – ideas that were inconceivable a few years ago – governments have such difficulty accepting varied degrees of sexuality as proven by science? The answer to the question is that sectarianism wields tremendous power and influence over the state. In the eyes of religion, to accept sex as a wide spectrum opens the door, or at least a window, for homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Obviously, many persons like Sophie V have lived lives as a result of a misinterpretation of their sexuality. In this context, how do we then define homosexuality or same-sex marriage, especially in the absence of fool-proof methods of testing? Or additionally, considering the difficulty the IOC has with conclusively defining gender, why should the secular and sectarian authorities wish to confine gender to the presence of a vagina or penis?

In the absence of credible information the laity is trapped in a cage of apprehension. They begin to perceive imaginary threats to the status quo of established institutions like sex, the missionary position, and marriage. Beside that, marriage is made to seem synonymous with sex or as a precursor to sex.  In reality, nothing is further from the truth.  

Marriage as understood in the Holy Bible is very different to the concept of marriage as understood by the legal system in secular western societies. What is considered common-law marriage in today’s law was considered a wholesome marriage, biblically speaking.

Two becoming one flesh in scripture actually meant 90% male and 10% female. The relationship was one of ownership rather than an equitable one. There was no provision for a woman to put away her husband, but a husband was allowed under the law to put away his wife for simply not being pleased with her.  Most significantly, the husband could cleave to as many wives as he pleased while the woman could only be one flesh with one husband.

The concept of monogamy is not biblical. Although the apostle Paul seemed to be leaning in this direction he reserved monogamy as a qualification for bishops, but not all Christians:  “This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach…” (1 Timothy 3: 1-2 KJV).


In order to take away the mirror image of biblical-marriage (or negative, if you will) the concept of biblical marriage was superimposed onto the modern secular understanding of legal marriage as though they are the same or similar arrangements. Therefore, the church has a vested interest in securing definitions of legal concepts that would suit its agenda and dogma.

Marriage in Western jurisprudence is extremely unique. It is officiated, supervised and sanctioned by the state, instead of between the parties involved. Western Marriage is also an extraordinary improvement on what marriages were in scripture. Astonishingly, it took away the right from the man to dispose of his wife in any casual way and also ensured a semblance of collective ownership of property.  Significantly also, it esteemed the spouse’s position as next of kin – above all other contenders, especially where property was in dispute, and instituted the one man – one wife model. But with one caveat, that one be male and one female.  

Many would argue that the scriptures cannot be improved upon. I think that the apostle Paul would disagree. Many of his writings were diametrically opposed to established scripture. It must be noted here, that the apostle at the time did not consider himself to be writing scripture when he wrote his letters.  The writings of Paul were made scripture some 250 years afterwards by the (secular) Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

There is a theme though, running through Paul’s epistles of a wider scope for understanding.  He seemed frustrated that when the church should have been eating meat they were still drinking milk (Heb 5:12). In understanding be not children, he urged, but be men (1Cor. 14:20). Once, he referenced a situation of things lawful for him to do, but he could not, as a result of weak brothers that may be looking on, who may stumble as a result of his liberality (Rom. 14:21).

However, it is his unique position, that education supersedes spiritual gifts, is what distinguishes Paul as singular among the writers of scripture. Paul esteems learning above spiritual gifts. Let all things be done to edify, he says (1Cor. 14:26). Clearly, Paul’s thinking was an improvement on scripture. His preference for celibacy may have been a radical approach (radical that he was) to countering polygamy.

As the understanding of other sexual conditions come to light, what is so wrong to remove this threshold or caveat so that persons of other sexual orientation may benefit from the marriage law? Secular administrations are responsible for the protection of basic human rights, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all constituents, not just the ‘perfectly’ made ones.

Setting sex aside, suppose there are two friends  (not intimate) that loved each other to death, who shared all things in common, are of the same mind, who worked together to build themselves; should they have to form a company, with articles of association, with a secretary and legal team, simply to signify that they owned things in common?

This type of relationship is not unknown to the clergy. The Bible tells us that the relationship of David and Jonathan was like that. They made vows and covenants with each other in order to establish the relationship between their families into the future. God was the only witness. At the news of Jonathan’s death, David wept inconsolably in despair, “…thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (2Samuel 1:26)

This relationship was not sexual, but importantly, the two shared each other’s vision, mind and will with an inseparable love.  Jonathan died in battle. He did not have to leave a will.  David who he loved as his own soul, knew his last will and testament, and could administer Jonathan’s estate just as Jonathan would have it.

Mephibosheth, Jonathans only surviving heir was only five when his father was killed. When David became king he sent for Mephibosheth, and asked him to sit at his (David’s) table continually, as one of the King’s sons (2Samuel 9:11). Symbolically, when David equated Mephibosheth to the King’s sons – the word of the King being law – Mephibosheth became David’s son in law, as a result of the vows that Jonathan and David had made. This was a novel idea for its time, but the least that David could do for his friend.

For statistical purposes, the need for gender classification is absolutely necessary. We also understand the reason why gender verification is necessary in sports. There is also the need when determining measurable benchmarks like affirmative action and gender equality. But certainly, not to get a job, earn a living, have a family, or to have a relationship.  Ideally, there should not be any prohibition to such mundane and basic human activities.

This is especially so in light of what we now know about the human body and psyche. Most persons do not go through the strain and challenge of being odd just for kicks.  Erika Schinegger’s affection to women disturbed her. "I thought I was a lesbian," she said. "I was interested in girls and cars, not dresses. Other girls thought I was a freak. I was lonely. My attempts at relationships with boys left me cold."


It was not until the tests were completed and an operation done to protrude Erika’s internal testes and penis did s/he really feel complete. Yet, should one have to undergo these tests to grow up, have a family, earn a living…or just be human? In the absence of these tests, or where the tests are inconclusive – then what? Can anyone of us beside the parties involved make that call?

Science has made great strides, but the jury is still out on what makes a woman a woman. Only God knows what goes on in the human body and mind. None of us are gods, only made in God’s image and likeness (genderless). To make the call, or be critical and obstructive of those who have to live with the decision is not only presumptuous, but also unnecessary interference in someone else’s concern.

Leonart Matthias


Reporting by Caribarena news, publishing by Ofer Shaked.

Hits: 2625

24 Comments In This Article   

HEADER   

@leonart matthias - Previous was Rastaman’s

#24 Rastaman » 2014-02-23 22:08

I really could not explain it; David had complicated stuff going on. We read “David's sowing of sin by the sword (struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword...have killed him with the sword.... 2Sa 12:9) would reap a similar harvest. And just as Nathan had had prophesied (and David also may have "foretold" when he called for fourfold restitution [2Sa 12:6] - David's son by Bathsheba was the first of the four to die [2Sa 12:14, 15]) we see Absalom avenge Amnon's rape of his sister Tamar (Observe Amnon taking a woman that was forbidden, just as his father had done!) by striking Amnon and putting him to death (see 2Sa 13:28,29). We see Joab and his armor bearers strike Absalom and kill him (2Sa 18:14,15), which prompted a painful mourning from King David (he would have surely given anything to go back and reverse that night he looked at Bathsheba but it was too little, too late as they say)...And finally we see King Solomon order the death of David's other son Adonijah (2Ki 2:23, 24, 25). While David did not live to see Adonijah's death, he must surely have been aware that his passing of the reign to his son Solomon was tantamount to passing a death sentence on his eldest son Adonijah.” He got stuff and was punished also. Me done
2
0
+
−

Rastaman

@leonart matthias - Spiritual things need JAH guidance

#23 leonart matthias » 2014-02-23 21:46

At face value, this seems to suggest that God gave David multiple wives, and then stood ready to add more with divine sanction. David had just murdered a man in order to have another woman. Despite the generosity of God who had made him sovereign ruler of the land, the king had stolen the wife of a servant and to satisfy his carnal lust. Nathan the prophet pronounces judgment against Israel’s king. As such, 2 Samuel 12 hardly constitutes divine approval for the practice of polygamy.
In Deuteronomy 17:17: Your Moses said ”Do not multiply wives or your heart will be led astray! If this applied to the great kings of Israel, how much more the subjects of the kingdom. Moreover, monogamous marriage is clearly taught in Genesis (2:22-24), and then reiterated by Christ himself. Indeed, Jesus went on to say that, “Anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matt 19:9). Not only so, but marriage is an analogy for the relationship that God has with his people, with the Church, His one and only bride.
Furthermore, reading the Bible for all its worth involves recognition that the narratives of Scripture are often descriptive as opposed to prescriptive.
1
1
+
−

leonart matthias

rastaman

#22 leonart matthias » 2014-02-22 23:26

Rastaman, i will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are serious and provide a response.

You commented in essence that David and Moses were punished, repented, and had a painful end for having “multiple wives”. i replied that it was not scriptural. You then posted events that both men repented and were punished for, that had nothing to do with their multiple wives.

in the case of moses God told him to speak to the rock and he disobeyed and struck the rock and god was angry with him therefore promised him that he would not enter into the promised land. that account had nothing to do with his wives.

david’s case is one I would like to elaborate on a little. David had an affair with a man’s wife then had the man killed and took his wife. god told david that because of what he had done others will take his wives, that the sword will not depart from his house etc.
what I wish to mention though is that in 2Samuel 12:8 god told david that he (god)had given david his master’s house and his master's wives, and that if he (david ) wanted more (wives) he(God) would have given him more, yet david went and did such a deed.
why would God be giving david more than one wife if God had a problem with it? why god never condemned any of the prophets or patriarchs for polygamy? many pastors suggest that the adversity tht occur in their lives is because of polygamy but it is speculation.not god.
1
3
+
−

leonart matthias

@leonart matthias

#21 Rastaman » 2014-02-22 07:42

Read Psalm 51. David said Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions. Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are proved. All happened after the prophet Nathan came to David sometime after David committed adultery with Bathsheba. That child died and David was ruined thereafter, his daughter got raped by one of David’s own son. Another son got hanged while on the run after raping David wives.
For Moses, he struck the rock instead of speaking to it as commanded by God. Moses became impatient after constant condemnation by his own folks. Moses repented and held on firmly by prayer and by the grace of God to humbly received wisdom and strength from God to overcome his impatience so that he was called of God the meekest man upon the face of the whole earth. Moses got to the border but he never got into the Promised Land. How painful.
2
0
+
−

Rastaman

APOLOGY

#20 leonart matthias » 2014-02-21 19:12

Readers I would like to apologize for an error I made in the post. the blogs titled leonart matthias were written by me and inadvertently transposed the name and title. Sorry to DrDr BS for the impersonation.

In response to rastaman, I have to admit that I have not found any evidence of moses or david repenting or receiving the wages of sin or having a painful end. I am certain that it is not in the bible. moses, in the bible actually had the distinction of being the only person that we know was buried by god. also after 120 years his physical strength had not abated or his eyes dim. I would not call that such a painful end.

As for david he lived to a ripe old age leading israel for 40 years. at the end he could praise god that allowed his eyes to see a successor on his throne.

if rastaman or anyother blogger has found it even in an apocryphal book or any other text, please post it. it would be of interest to me. thanks very much.
3
0
+
−

leonart matthias

@Skywell

#19 ANTIGUAN WOMAN! » 2014-02-21 14:47

You are killing me.lol.lol
5
0
+
−

ANTIGUAN WOMAN!

@Response pt1

#18 Rastaman » 2014-02-21 06:17

What you failed to find in your research on Moses and David multiple wives examples is that they repented and received the wages of their sins later in life. So are you going to get smart on this topic and use them as examples and follow them in their mistakes and share a painful end too?
3
0
+
−

Rastaman

SANCTIMONIOUS....

#17 Jumbee Picknee » 2014-02-21 00:57

Gad, as sanctimonious as, We, profess to be!!!
halleluJAH!!! AMEN!!!
One, would think, that by now;
Somewhere, somehow...
We would be over this row...yet, instead...
There's confusion, as to,
Who is sleeping in their bed.

Gad, as sanctimonious as, We, claim to be!!!
hallelujah!!! AMEN!!!
Your children should not be hungry,
Nor, Angry!!! On their way to bed;
but, instead...be always clothed and fed.

Gad, as sanctimonious as, We, claim to be!!!
hallelujah!!! AMEN!!!
Wars, hate, envy and strife,
Would've been illuminated,
Stoned to death, dead, dead, dead;
however, instead...they're still a part of life...

Gad, as sanctimonious as, We, claim to be!!!
hallelujah!!! AMEN!!!
Women and men,
Should be living in perfect harmony,
Still, it's pure acrimony, divorce and sodomy...
That, even Sparrow, Said so, in many a Calypso...

Gad, as sanctimonious as, We, claim to be!!!
What this tells me,
Religion and it's confusion,
Been spewed from the pulpits,
Like loaded guns shooting bullets of spit,
Raining down on the Nation,
Is, the real, true culprit...
In need of sanitization.
4
0
+
−

Jumbee Picknee

leonart matthias

#16 response pt2 » 2014-02-20 23:38

This brings me to my next point that I raised in my opinion. the secular marriage instituted by the state is different from that instituted by god as listed in my opinion.

the only thing in scripture that did not involve the state or the temple was marriage. Even if a donkey had a young foal, the owner had to go to the temple, but not marriage. who made it a civil matter or a religious matter? MAN. who put it together? MAN. if it is man who put it together then it is not what god instituted, even though they are called by the same word.

Calling different things by similar words has tricked us a lot. the other point you raised was about putting away the wife for sexual immorality. This is actually reinforcing my point but you don’t know unless you understand the culture that this was spoken in.

In our 21st century context we understand sexual immorality as fornication. But it is impossible for a married woman to fornicate. She was an adulteress. If she committed adultery, there would be no need to put her away. She would be dead. the law (Deut 22:24) said she should be stoned until she die. sexual immorality at the time was as simple as a woman exposing herself in front of her husband. If a woman made sexual advances at her husband it was considered sexual immorality. if the wife went into the husbands bed without permission that was sexual immorality. it is for these simple reasons I was saying that a wife may be put away.
3
0
+
−

response pt2

leonart matthias

#15 response pt1 » 2014-02-20 23:01

I also find comments by thebanned-one interesting. let us first examine the quotation from Genesis 2:24 about the two becoming one flesh. this should also deal with the quotation from Mark’s gospel.

we are told that that scripture was written by Moses. Moses himself had two wives Tharbis and Zipporah. So moses could not have understood it to mean that he could only cleave to one. He most likely understood it to mean that he could be one with as many as possible. Moses also wrote this (Exodus 21:10) “ If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.” And this (Deuteronomy 21:15), “If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated…”

David and all the other prophets of God would also have known of that scripture. David amassed eight wives. david was one of the most prolific scripture writers. don’t even mention Solomon. Therefore, we must ask ourselves how the persons in that day interpreted it? that would be the right interpretation. Clearly they understood it to mean that they could have as many wives as possible. All jesus was using this scripture to convey was that god had joined both together and not man. Concluding what god put together let not man put asunder.
0
3
+
−

response pt1

leonart matthias

#14 DrDr BS » 2014-02-20 22:55

I wish to respond to DrDr BS on some of the points he made. He said that I am trying to lead my audience. That is correct. I am not attempting to mislead. The conclusion that I am leading to is that only god knows what a person is made of and only he alone should judge. Also no one should attempt to hinder or obstruct the lives of anyone.

We now live in the age of better understanding when we should be providing wheelchair access facilities for persons with disabilities to improve their lives, not hindering. those of us who have endured untold sufferings as a result of the misunderstanding of our skin colour should not be happy to jump on any bandwagon to inflict the same on others we don’t understand.

Humanity has a sorry history of abusing persons designated as freaks. albinos are still being killed in certain parts of the world today. i don’t know if it is as a kind of eugenics or something like that.

What I know, is that it is wrong. We know that god made man and that he said that it was good. Soon after we read of giants, dwarfs, **ed, hunched, halt, lame, mute, simple, deaf and blind. How they come about I really don’t know, and I don’t care. What I know is that none of them made themselves and cannot be blamed for their condition. I also know that god said in Leviticus 19:14 that, “Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God” I just want us to fear God.
2
0
+
−

DrDr BS

@Antigua woman

#13 skyewill » 2014-02-20 20:06

You are correct a virgina is very distinctive. I saw one once maybe twice
3
4
+
−

skyewill

RE: Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

#12 ANTIGUAN WOMAN! » 2014-02-20 13:42

So she/he was born with Nuts,which was not visible.Did she have a Visible Vagina? Or was she/he just blank down there? Because a Vagina is very distinctive.
7
0
+
−

ANTIGUAN WOMAN!

Education education!!!

#11 SPEED BUMP » 2014-02-20 13:27

To add to my post....
When a child of this sort is born the parents don't see any tools down there so then the person is label as a female. But its not there fault. I am wondering if we will one day have a se_uality test before declaring what gender is the new born child.
1
1
+
−

SPEED BUMP

Education education!!!

#10 SPEED BUMP » 2014-02-20 13:23

I researched Caster Semenya about 4 years ago and it was discovered that she/he was actually a 'male'. Extensive medical examination discovered that she (he) has a pair of 'NUTS' but they did not come down, they were internal. The two internal "NUTS" and the testosterone proved that this person was of a birth defect, thus the incomplete formation of the 'tools'.

After I followed that story it gave be a different outlook on the gay. I know for sure that some Gays are just followers but there are others (most I think) that are ligit; They are probably of a similar birth defect. We just don't know so then we should stop treating them like they are nasty. Yes, those that are pretenders make it confusing.

Education is what we need and this Athlete's situation is a good one to teach your kids. I have been using it to explain to my kids. But when they get older they will too realize that some of them (fake Gays) are pretenders.
1
1
+
−

SPEED BUMP

@ banned one

#9 ANTIGUAN WOMAN! » 2014-02-20 12:47

I really was not saying anything about the Person.I just thought it was a Man. I guess thats why the writer used her,to try and bring about his point that people can be any gender they want to be. But seriously,i thought it was a Man.
6
0
+
−

ANTIGUAN WOMAN!

ANTIGUAN WOMAN & Duncy Bat

#8 thebanned-one » 2014-02-20 11:46

ANTIGUAN WOMAN & Duncy Bat, the picture is of 18 year old female South African 800 M champion Caster Semenya.Here is another pic of her:
2
1
+
−

thebanned-one

Wrong version!

#7 Duncy Bat Too » 2014-02-20 10:56

Nope...this "person" looks like a male version of Vybz Kartel!
2
1
+
−

Duncy Bat Too

RE: Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

#6 ANTIGUAN WOMAN! » 2014-02-20 10:26

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 27) GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE,MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM.)

Unless a beign is been created by another method like evolution,to this day there are two genders,ie Male= MEN, Female= Women. No in betweens. -anything other than the above is a genetic disorder. This is one topic which is not up for deabte Case closed. @ duncy bat, that is because it is not a woman(the Pic above).LOL.
5
0
+
−

ANTIGUAN WOMAN!

servant leadership

#5 thebanned-one » 2014-02-20 10:22

Quote:
Two becoming one flesh in scripture actually meant 90% male and 10% female. The relationship was one of ownership rather than an equitable one.
Another exception (already dealt with the divorce issue), is this idea that the bible basically gives permission to a man to treat his wife as his possession:
Quote:
Ephesians 5:25-33- Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church

Now this makes clear that a wife's needs should be tantamount to her husband. In fact the bible shows that Christ loved the church so much that he was willing to sacrifice his life. There are many christian men who ignore this requirement and instead speak about the portion about wives should obey their husbands yet ignore the requirement of husbands
3
0
+
−

thebanned-one

RE: Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

#4 Duncy Bat » 2014-02-20 08:17

This woman looks like a female version of Vybz Kartel.
5
1
+
−

Duncy Bat

RE: Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

#3 thebanned-one » 2014-02-20 07:51

Mr Mathias, where do i start? As usual a very thought provoking article (look forward to future articles). I will take exception to: 1. your suggestion that monogamy is not biblical and Paul only spoke of it for Bishops. Let me point you to:
a:)
1 Corinthians 7:1-40 - Each man should have his own wife and wife her own husband

b.)Mark 10:7 ESV / 12
‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,

c:) Genesis 2:24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

2:) your suggestion that a man could simply put away his wife due to displeasure with her is also not biblical. It is made clear that sexual morality is the only reason:
Matthew 19:9
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
3
2
+
−

thebanned-one

I am still sticking with Adam and Eve

#2 Humble Servant » 2014-02-20 07:32

This article enlightens the mind. I have always turned to the Bible for answers to examine things like these that stumped me. Then the word said God created male and female and it was perfect but sin came into being and everything deteriorates. Therefore man, earth, plant deteriorates to this. The word concluded that there will be a new earth where it will remain in the perfect state that God intended; that's good news for me and you that all things will be perfect once again. Even though the best of science tried to redeem things on earth, the word said it will still come down to this until God performs in miracle makeover. Finally the word concludes: The Cosmology of the earth and everything in it will “pass away.” God, who caused the flood of Noah’s day, will again renew the earth the way it was in the beginning. Hebrews 1:10-11, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like clothing; like a cloak you will roll them up, and like clothing they will be changed.” That’s good stuff.
3
1
+
−

Humble Servant

RE: Sex Sects Sexuality and Secularity

#1 Dr Dr BS » 2014-02-20 05:43

@Leonart Matthias " None of us are gods, only made in God’s image and likeness (genderless)".
At first I got the impression that the facts would have been laid out and that persons would be allowed to come to their own conclusion but with statements like the one quoted above coming from the author, it clearly shows that he is trying to lead his audience to a certain desired outcome or conclusion.

I am made in the image and likeness of God and I am not genderless, unless, well, maybe I wasn't.
5
3
+
−

Dr Dr BS

Add comment

Follow us on Facebook

Spotlight on Education

Previous Next
Govt to give Two Uniforms
Antigua St. John's - Minister of Education Dr Jacqui Quinn-Leandro has confirmed...  Read more

Latest Opinion Pieces

App

Android LogoDownload Caribarena's Android App Click To Download

Find us on Twitter!