Religion

[Efstathios]

So...basically your arguement is "It's all common sense anyway"

If it was common sense why would we need a book to tell us that?

As for the alcohol, a BAC (blood alcohol content) of .4 is fatal for most people.
It is called alcohol poisoning when someone's BAC is around 30%
Which makes me question your knowledge of alcohol and its effects if you don't think alcohol poisening is real.
Also if J had done anything I would have known. I have access to things a lot of people do not.

As for Lot... A single bottle of wine isn't going to make someone who drinks pass out. If there was a enough alcohol for him to completely pass out (Not impair judgement, not black out) He would not have been able to have an erection. Have one of your male friends drink to the point that he passes out and try to jerk him off if you want proof.
I'm implying that the story is just that, a story and not fact. It cannot be fact.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

So...basically your arguement is "It's all common sense anyway"

If it was common sense why would we need a book to tell us that?

As for the alcohol, a BAC (blood alcohol content) of .4 is fatal for most people.
It is called alcohol poisoning when someone's BAC is around 30%
Which makes me question your knowledge of alcohol and its effects if you don't think alcohol poisening is real.
Also if J had done anything I would have known. I have access to things a lot of people do not.

As for Lot... A single bottle of wine isn't going to make someone who drinks pass out. If there was a enough alcohol for him to completely pass out (Not impair judgement, not black out) He would not have been able to have an erection. Have one of your male friends drink to the point that he passes out and try to jerk him off if you want proof.
I'm implying that the story is just that, a story and not fact. It cannot be fact.

So what's your argument exactly, the Bible is stupid because it contains common sense? You'd be surprised how many people a little common sense could help if they were willing. You've probably heard people say "life doesn't come with instructions". Well, yes, it kind of does. The Bible is just that -- basic guidelines for how to live your life well.

I understand the concept of "alcohol poisoning" but what I'm saying is it's a misconception that alcohol contains some level of actual "poison". Since it isn't poisonous you can't actually BE "poisoned" from drinking alcohol. A trained paramedic first brought this to my attention.

Regarding Lot's story, well first of all who says it was a single bottle of wine that he'd consumed? Second, given that it was indeed, how do you know the alcohol content of the actual wine and the capacity of the bottle? And furthermore how do you know he passed out? How ridiculous. Drunken people can have sex, I don't know what your problem is with that fact, I guess you just have to fight it because it's the only aspect of your argument left. That's okay. And once again, what exactly are you trying to prove anyway?  

[Efstathios]

My problem with the bible is that it incites people to do terrible things in the name of religion.

My arguement is that the bible is stupid because it says some big man in the sky spontaneously made everything out of nothing.
1. We have disproved spontaneous generation
2. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed
3. We have evidence that life developed slowly

The bible cannot be factually accurate. It is full of factual fallacies and therefore it's morals aren't trustworthy until people accept that it's all myth and mother goose tales. Then we'll go from there.

I cede the point on alcohol poisoning. It is immaterial.

As for your last paragraph

1. The bible. Genesis to be specific (Or Moses, if you prefer)
2. We can conjecture, but I'll cede that point as well.
3. Once again, the biblical passage.
4. Drunk people can have sex, unconscious males with high BACs cannot.
There's more to the arguement, that seems to be the sticking point for you though, so that's the part I'm argueing. I'm trying to prove it cannot be factually accurate.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

My problem with the bible is that it incites people to do terrible things in the name of religion.

My arguement is that the bible is stupid because it says some big man in the sky spontaneously made everything out of nothing.
1. We have disproved spontaneous generation
2. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed
3. We have evidence that life developed slowly

The bible cannot be factually accurate. It is full of factual fallacies and therefore it's morals aren't trustworthy until people accept that it's all myth and mother goose tales. Then we'll go from there.

I cede the point on alcohol poisoning. It is immaterial.

As for your last paragraph

1. The bible. Genesis to be specific (Or Moses, if you prefer)
2. We can conjecture, but I'll cede that point as well.
3. Once again, the biblical passage.
4. Drunk people can have sex, unconscious males with high BACs cannot.
There's more to the arguement, that seems to be the sticking point for you though, so that's the part I'm argueing. I'm trying to prove it cannot be factually accurate.

Well first, science declares itself that essentially "proving" something is fundamentally impossible. Not a single scientific theory (or "law") can actually be proven. So keep that in mind.

Second, you haven't disproved "spontaneous generation", and you also can't prove that matter can't be created or destroyed. One thing that I find extremely ridiculous about your argument is that you are trying to prove METAPHYSICS using PHYSICS that we have observed during our VERY short time here on Earth, and you think that because of these observations (not even your own, at that) you can disprove that the events of the Bible are accurate. Not too long ago it was science that dictated the Earth was flat, remember that? Science can not disprove anything but itself, as once evidence is found that contradicts science, it is possible that established theories are at fault rather than said evidence. You, and many others, commonly make the mistake that you can prove something IN ANOTHER DIMENSION with our relatively null scientific knowledge of THIS dimension. Furthermore, you aren't using complete logic -- if God is so powerful that He can single-handedly create ALL matter, then He can certainly be an exception to any and all laws of science. So you can just stop trying to win a vain battle.

And as a prime example, the theory of preservation of mass is very incomplete. It makes no attempt to explain where the material CAME from, as surely it came from SOMEWHERE. According to the theory it has always been there, which doesn't actually make logical sense. And just to save you the trouble, I know many scientists maintain that material came from gasses floating in space or some crap. This still doesn't explain where the gasses came from. And if they were somehow just the result of a chemical reaction, then the chemicals causing the reaction had to come from somewhere too, and chemical reaction itself had to come from somewhere as well. According to science there must be a Creator. It's just that its role is questionable.

I don't really care WHAT evidence you have that life developed slowly. You neglect to mention there's plenty that shows it didn't; which isn't at all relative to the discussion by the way. Nothing in the Bible actually says it DIDN'T. And I could even argue that the Bible and all other sources supporting it together make a vast amount of evidence. I wonder why you are so quick to judge a book called the Bible, while you believe without question everything you read in a book called Grade 10 Science. A book written by simple men, containing constantly-changing information that you can't even personally verify and thus nothing more than speculation. I mean what has a science textbook ever done for someone? Yet civilization was established on the book called the Bible. The Bible contains timeless wisdom, while today's science textbook will be considered worthless, except for its comedic value, by the year 3000. A pretty safe bet considering science but a few hundred years ago.

And as for Lot, dear God woman, I'm not even going to argue that any more. Nowhere does the text mention that Lot WAS unconscious, that's pure misleading speculation on your part. It CAN be factually accurate; and besides, even if it wasn't, that would prove nothing because of the simple fact of logic that God does not need to obey the scientific laws HE HIMSELF CREATED. You can't argue that God didn't grant him a boner just for the situation.  

[Efstathios]

Actualy nowhere has anyone ever actually believed that the Earth was flat. That was a myth from a satire written about the church in like, the 1500's. Also we don't laugh at the ACTUAL science from way back when! The Library of Alexandria contained information that we are still trying to recover. We have found batteries that were used by witch doctors centuries before we thought they were invented. We've even found computers, actually. People today still quote ancient scientists and philosophers! If I'm going to learn from an ancient book it will be the works of Aristotle or Plato, not the Bible.
They had mechanics, engineering, even programming in ancient Greece!

You'd rather believe in a ghost story than try to figure things out for yourself?
You speak of science being laughed at, but at least 8 times out of 10 religion is laughed at, not old science.
Who are you to argue about how powerful God is. I mean, did you even ask him? Did you ask him if it was creation or intelligent design or if he didnt even make it at all?

I don't even want to argue Creation vs. Intelligent design vs. Evolution again. Here is your arguement here is my arguement.

I'm tired of the Lot thing too.

Now, I must say, if people would accept that the Bible cannot be taken as literal fact and that Christians DO NOT follow the rules of the OT, I wouldn't have such a problem.
But I cannot support anything that is used as justification for prejudice or inequality. If people would stop misusing it, I would stop argueing against it.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Actualy nowhere has anyone ever actually believed that the Earth was flat. That was a myth from a satire written about the church in like, the 1500's. Also we don't laugh at the ACTUAL science from way back when! The Library of Alexandria contained information that we are still trying to recover. We have found batteries that were used by witch doctors centuries before we thought they were invented. We've even found computers, actually. People today still quote ancient scientists and philosophers! If I'm going to learn from an ancient book it will be the works of Aristotle or Plato, not the Bible.
They had mechanics, engineering, even programming in ancient Greece!

You'd rather believe in a ghost story than try to figure things out for yourself?
You speak of science being laughed at, but at least 8 times out of 10 religion is laughed at, not old science.
Who are you to argue about how powerful God is. I mean, did you even ask him? Did you ask him if it was creation or intelligent design or if he didnt even make it at all?

I don't even want to argue Creation vs. Intelligent design vs. Evolution again. Here is your arguement here is my arguement.

I'm tired of the Lot thing too.

Now, I must say, if people would accept that the Bible cannot be taken as literal fact and that Christians DO NOT follow the rules of the OT, I wouldn't have such a problem.
But I cannot support anything that is used as justification for prejudice or inequality. If people would stop misusing it, I would stop argueing against it.

But people believed the world was flat. Really, all science is, is a compilation of theories based on common observations. Anyone who went out to sea believed if they strayed too far they would fall off the side of the Earth (lmao). This was an observation and so in my perspective it was science.

But I didn't say we MOCK the science of old. Persians were performing brain surgery before Christ's birth! The Christian astral projectionist Swedenborg invented dozens of things that are in common use today, but could never build them because of technological limits of his day! In fact he drew a working schematic of a machine-gun long before anyone else had ever planned the semi-automatic firearm. So by no means am I mocking science new or old. I'm simply saying that, for every accurate scientific theory, there are countless inaccurate theories. And more often than not, those theories can't be proven incorrect until years, if not centuries, after their conception. For example look how many different models of molecular structure we've passed as "accepted" before we came to the current one, which is probably ALSO inaccurate. My point is, the wisdom of the Bible is timeless and infinite, outliving any simple theory.

I never claimed to know how powerful God is, although it's my FIRM believe that His power is immeasurable. Belief aside, my point was not one of religion but of simple logic. Assuming that God is real, which you were, there is no logical reason He would have to follow the laws of science when He CREATED all matter in the first place. This is the primary reason science can not, and will not ever, be able to prove or disprove the existence of a God. Science is often considered the simple laws of nature, but I think it is more accurate to consider science the laws of men. We create science really, when we observe something and believe that it is an absolute and definite "law", when really there IS no "definite" and "absolute" if you consider. You can't actually PROVE that any of this was actually typed by a person, I mean according to laws such as the law of probability it is entirely possible that this post is somehow nothing but the result of some kind of electronic interference. It's not likely in the least, but then again the chances of it happening are still far greater than any scientific theory of "creation" (or whatever the name for "beginning of the universe" you guys use is). And you believe in that, I'm guessing, so logically you would have to believe that this message COULD be only the result of electronic interference for example. And if you believe that then you must believe that almost ANYTHING is possible, including the very real presence and existence of God exactly how He is described in the Bible.

I really think you are underrating "prejudice" and "inequality". I mean so much is entailed by those words. Not everyone deserves to be equal. To say that is to say that there should be no punishment and no emotion really. Sure, the Bible advocates inequality in a few places, but it NEVER advocates unfairness. We are all CREATED equal, but that says nothing of what we choose to BECOME. "Prejudice" is really just another word for "bias" which is really just another word for "opinion", so come on, you're prejudiced. Hell, I bet you're prejudiced against racists. I bet you're prejudiced against the worst most blasphemous of hypocrite Bible-abusers. I'm sure if I looked for a second I could point out some of your very evident prejudices just by those you have exercised right here. We all have opinions, so we all have prejudice. And we SHOULD all have prejudice. It's what prompts us to stand up for what we think is right, even if we don't have the spine to actually do it. I have prejudice against murderers and rapists, and I think they should not be treated equally among us. Is this because of the Bible? Mostly. But I don't think it's such a bad prejudice, and I don't think it's such a bad form of inequality either -- because it is inequality, and it is prejudice, but that doesn't stop it from being fair.  

[Efstathios]

Well, sailors also thought that manatees were mermaids...But if you want to call that science, I suppose that is your perogative.

The Roman army had machine guns. Saw it on history channel XD.
Ok, so you're judging all of science together, not only the good stuff. So, should I be judging all of religion together? Cause I think scientology would poke a monstrous black whole in your wisdom case. Perhaps we should limit the science to biology as we are limiting the religion to Christianity.
All molecular models are more concept charts than "accurate" representations. It's actually impossible to make an accurate one since, as of yet they haven't actually found any particles at all. Everything is just made up of the speed of something smaller. My personal theory is that matter is actually energy going so fast it feels solid, that's just me though.

The Bible has outlived inaccurate scientific theories only because people believed it blindly. Science keeps getting refined and perhaps you haven't noticed, so has the Bible. It has been edited, retranslated, truncated, misinterpreted, reinterpeted, and used as justification for countless monstrosities. It may or may not have originally been from God, but it has been adulterated by so many men and misused by so many, how could it possibly still be anywhere near what it was originally?

I've heard enough inexplicable and seen enough inexplicable occurences to know that there is more than atheists would like to believe, if you wish to name all or part of it God, the name makes no difference to me. The power attributed to the Abrahamic God is limited to this world though.

You're moving into "Prove he's real!" "No, you prove he isn't!" Territory there.

We're all created equal but

Moses

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

All are created equal except for women then. If I remember right Adam ate from the tree of knowledge as well...

Moses

Leviticus 25:42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth aout of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
Levitcus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

Ok, so everyone's equal unless they make the grave sin and terrible choice of being a woman or a non-isrealite.
This is my idea of an unfair prejudice that is not based on a conscious choice made by that person.
I'm not sure you're defining prejudice right in those other cases, but I'll let that go.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Well, sailors also thought that manatees were mermaids...But if you want to call that science, I suppose that is your perogative.

The Roman army had machine guns. Saw it on history channel XD.
Ok, so you're judging all of science together, not only the good stuff. So, should I be judging all of religion together? Cause I think scientology would poke a monstrous black whole in your wisdom case. Perhaps we should limit the science to biology as we are limiting the religion to Christianity.
All molecular models are more concept charts than "accurate" representations. It's actually impossible to make an accurate one since, as of yet they haven't actually found any particles at all. Everything is just made up of the speed of something smaller. My personal theory is that matter is actually energy going so fast it feels solid, that's just me though.

The Bible has outlived inaccurate scientific theories only because people believed it blindly. Science keeps getting refined and perhaps you haven't noticed, so has the Bible. It has been edited, retranslated, truncated, misinterpreted, reinterpeted, and used as justification for countless monstrosities. It may or may not have originally been from God, but it has been adulterated by so many men and misused by so many, how could it possibly still be anywhere near what it was originally?

I've heard enough inexplicable and seen enough inexplicable occurences to know that there is more than atheists would like to believe, if you wish to name all or part of it God, the name makes no difference to me. The power attributed to the Abrahamic God is limited to this world though.

You're moving into "Prove he's real!" "No, you prove he isn't!" Territory there.

We're all created equal but

Moses

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

All are created equal except for women then. If I remember right Adam ate from the tree of knowledge as well...

Moses

Leviticus 25:42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth aout of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen.
Levitcus 25:44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are around you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids

Ok, so everyone's equal unless they make the grave sin and terrible choice of being a woman or a non-isrealite.
This is my idea of an unfair prejudice that is not based on a conscious choice made by that person.
I'm not sure you're defining prejudice right in those other cases, but I'll let that go.

Okay well first the Roman Army did not have machine-guns... neutral

I mostly agree, other than that. Except for a few minor bits...

People can BLAME the Bible for whatever they want, but that doesn't mean there's anything actually wrong with the Bible. I could blame Oprah Winfrey for raping someone but that doesn't make her responsible.

Right, Adam ate the "forbidden fruit". That's why God punished Adam in the very next verse. In fact Adam's punishment spans a few verses. For some reason you chose to completely ignore that though.

As for gentiles, sure, they were allowed to be sold as bondmen. They were still created equal, and CHOSE to remain gentiles. So really the inequality is not one of unfairness, the choice is there.  

[Efstathios]

They did too have machine guns!
They fired javelins. (Not modern machine guns of course, but it was in fact, a machine gun)

I'm not talking about people blaming the Bible, I'm talking about people using the Bible to justify things. I'm talking about people mixing Church and State. It's wrong. If people could just figure out that they're not to be using the OT anymore, they're supposed to have moved on to the NT (Which is why I call the OT outdated, it's not the current law. It's like the 18th amendment)

Moses

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt though eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to the; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return

It appears to say he's going to step on thorns and his food will taste bad. It does not subjugate him to the will of another person. Also girls are just as subject to thorns and thistles as guys...
Men and women also eat the same things.

Sorry about the KJV my grandma's Mormon so this is the version I have. XP  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

They did too have machine guns!
They fired javelins. (Not modern machine guns of course, but it was in fact, a machine gun)

I'm not talking about people blaming the Bible, I'm talking about people using the Bible to justify things. I'm talking about people mixing Church and State. It's wrong. If people could just figure out that they're not to be using the OT anymore, they're supposed to have moved on to the NT (Which is why I call the OT outdated, it's not the current law. It's like the 18th amendment)

Moses

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it:cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt though eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to the; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken:for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return

It appears to say he's going to step on thorns and his food will taste bad. It does not subjugate him to the will of another person. Also girls are just as subject to thorns and thistles as guys...
Men and women also eat the same things.

Sorry about the KJV my grandma's Mormon so this is the version I have. XP

O Jesus, your grandmother's a mormon, no wonder you have such a negative view on religion blaugh

As for Adam's punishment, yes, it's arguably lesser than that of Eve. But in your King James, it's a little different. In classical versions such as Douay, it is stated that sons of Adam are cursed to work in fields for their entire life (all men just to clarify). So I mean, while men are to have domain over women, they also have to do the tasking physical work. While Adam receives only one real condition, a life of labour is arguably just as bad as Eve's punishment of cramps, the pain of birth, and some degree of servitude to her husband. The rest of the verses really I suppose are not specific to Adam but rather all humans, but the point is that while working in the fields men will be subject to wounds from thorns and thistles since women were not assigned the same role.

Meh, minor details really.  

[Efstathios]

Then that would make that officially outdated.

Men don't work all day in the fields anymore (Are you seriously saying that women didn't work as hard? If I could find my Bible I would give you the verses where it details her entire day, begining before dawn to make everyone's breakfast, her duties more than most people today with all our time-savers could do in a day, ending late after everyone's gone to bed).
So since most men don't work the fields anymore, and since women are equal breadwinners in today's society... That really doesn't apply anymore.
We finally figured out (As hard as religious people tried to stop us) That women are equal and equally capable. More so perhaps because we have to deal with "Eve's curse" In addition to Adam's.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Then that would make that officially outdated.

Men don't work all day in the fields anymore (Are you seriously saying that women didn't work as hard? If I could find my Bible I would give you the verses where it details her entire day, begining before dawn to make everyone's breakfast, her duties more than most people today with all our time-savers could do in a day, ending late after everyone's gone to bed).
So since most men don't work the fields anymore, and since women are equal breadwinners in today's society... That really doesn't apply anymore.
We finally figured out (As hard as religious people tried to stop us) That women are equal and equally capable. More so perhaps because we have to deal with "Eve's curse" In addition to Adam's.

Very misleading and a little inaccurate. You could say that the Bible's outdated because of things like this, but I disagree completely. It's not outdated just because our society functions differently; it's just... that -- different. I mean I agree it's outdated if your definition of "outdated" is "old and different". I mean you could also say that the works of Shakespeare are outdated, but yet people are performing them still today in the classical way and even in new creative ways. Just because we don't live in a medieval society does not make Shakespeare's works outdated.

And, I said misleading because, you claim that "most men don't work in fields any more". So what? MORE men work in fields than WOMEN, and that's all the passage is really attributed to. I myself have done much work in fields, growing up in the middle of a particularly wide one.

Another misleading statement is that womens' work in the Bible arguably exceeds that of men; yes, perhaps, but in the passage you mentioned it's talking about PHYSICAL work, farm labour and the like, which women generally didn't, and still don't, do.

As for inaccuracies, women are not "equally capable". I mean, well, arguably they are technically, but that is not to say that women and men share the same characteristics in ANY aspect. The woman's body is much different from the man's, I think no study is necessary to see that. The physically-strongest women are still leagues less-so than the strongest men. The woman's body deals with physical pain and work in a much different way, for example in childbirth. A man would generally be in considerably more pain than a woman if it were hypothetically possible for a man to give birth to a child. Yet who can't attest to the "whiny woman" in many situations that men may find in fact pretty enjoyable. For example during my good time in the Canadian Air Cadets I had the misfortune of this experience many times. During camps, in an undesireable climate, the women cadets would constantly complain about the weather conditions, dirty water, having to walk in mud, dealing with animals, etc. Yet the men generally found great entertainment in these same things. Similarly, men generally find some things very unpleasant that women might enjoy (you're a woman, do you really need examples of that). So men and women are physically equal, perhaps, but not the same by any means.

That, and this is really off-topic.  

[Efstathios]

I suggested when we began this discussion that we create a new topic for it, you disagreed.

Shakespeare is not outdated as entertainment and I don't know of anyone denied rights or wars waged over arts.

If I want to carry a parasol, that is 'old and different' and just fine, but I should have the sense to adapt to advances in science (We now know about UV rays) by wearing sunblock.
Adapting old wisdom to accomodate new knowledge is part of wisdom.
The words of the prophets were written for their times, times change.

I sing the tune I have all along. The Bible is a very nice book of stories, just like Mother Goose. Now, in the parable of the three pigs was the lesson to build a brick house to protect yourself from a wolf that will in real life never come? Or was the lesson, perhaps, that one should be hard-working and prepare adequately for possible dangers?

Your arguement "There's differences between boys and girls" isn't really applicable. In the age of technology, it doesn't matter who's bigger and stronger. Both sexes do the same work.
Not to mention advances such as Ibprofuen and BC.

I'm afraid I can't think of anything I enjoy that any males I know don't. We all listen to metal, read the same types of books, disdain the media and pop culture. We kinda dress the same too 0.o
Being raised in an Amazon household I don't know as much about cars as they do, but I'm catching up.
Most girls I know love camping, hunting and above all football. (Meself, I hate sports and so do all my male friends, except H.S. wrestling and hockey)

Which brings us to the one biggest failing point of organized religion, exceptions.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

I suggested when we began this discussion that we create a new topic for it, you disagreed.

Shakespeare is not outdated as entertainment and I don't know of anyone denied rights or wars waged over arts.

If I want to carry a parasol, that is 'old and different' and just fine, but I should have the sense to adapt to advances in science (We now know about UV rays) by wearing sunblock.
Adapting old wisdom to accomodate new knowledge is part of wisdom.
The words of the prophets were written for their times, times change.

I sing the tune I have all along. The Bible is a very nice book of stories, just like Mother Goose. Now, in the parable of the three pigs was the lesson to build a brick house to protect yourself from a wolf that will in real life never come? Or was the lesson, perhaps, that one should be hard-working and prepare adequately for possible dangers?

Your arguement "There's differences between boys and girls" isn't really applicable. In the age of technology, it doesn't matter who's bigger and stronger. Both sexes do the same work.
Not to mention advances such as Ibprofuen and BC.

I'm afraid I can't think of anything I enjoy that any males I know don't. We all listen to metal, read the same types of books, disdain the media and pop culture. We kinda dress the same too 0.o
Being raised in an Amazon household I don't know as much about cars as they do, but I'm catching up.
Most girls I know love camping, hunting and above all football. (Meself, I hate sports and so do all my male friends, except H.S. wrestling and hockey)

Which brings us to the one biggest failing point of organized religion, exceptions.

But the words of the prophets were not written only for their times. Nothing in the Bible no longer applies to us. The parable of the three pigs and the big bad wolf was written by men to teach a very basic lesson. One needs not study that tale because it is fundamentally very simple. It does not answer questions for us that nothing else can, it is but a single story meant for children to understand right away.

Of course both genders are similar... geez... but just as in my previous example, a woman's physique often limits her from some career choices such as fire-fighter, because (all "political correctness" aside) the fact is she is simply unable to do the job of lifting more than she weighs. And as for the Bible's example, I have yet to see a woman that actually does the work of farming with the efficiency of a man. These are not perspectives based in prejudice, they are simply realistic observations. You named preferences; of course both men and women can be like-minded on any subject. Physically, men and women differ.

Exceptions? I do not see your point... "exceptions" is just "weaknesses" really. If God has decreed a rule without exceptions then that is a rule without exceptions in my book.  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

But the words of the prophets were not written only for their times. Nothing in the Bible no longer applies to us. The parable of the three pigs and the big bad wolf was written by men to teach a very basic lesson. One needs not study that tale because it is fundamentally very simple. It does not answer questions for us that nothing else can, it is but a single story meant for children to understand right away.

Would you at least agree that it needs to be interpreted in such a way as to be functional and beneficial in the light of advances in science and modern thought?

NOCTVRNVS

Of course both genders are similar... geez... but just as in my previous example, a woman's physique often limits her from some career choices such as fire-fighter, because (all "political correctness" aside) the fact is she is simply unable to do the job of lifting more than she weighs. And as for the Bible's example, I have yet to see a woman that actually does the work of farming with the efficiency of a man. These are not perspectives based in prejudice, they are simply realistic observations. You named preferences; of course both men and women can be like-minded on any subject. Physically, men and women differ.

Most jobs today, very few exceptions, do not require more physical exertion that the average female is capable of. You don't have to be able to lift more than your own body weight to be a CEO, author, web page designer, veterinarian, doctor, lawyer, tech assistant, etc. It is also an accepted fact that women can and should be able to lift their own body weight(and more). The physical requirements to have a reasonable expectation of being able to save your own or loved ones life are as follows:
*Be able to swim 1/2 a mile or more
*Run at top speed 200 yards or more
*Be able to jump over obstacles higher than your waist
*Be in condition to pull your body upwards by the strength of your arms until your chin touches your hands at least 15-20 times
*Be able to dip between parallel bars at least 25 times
These requirements were recorded by Earle Leiderman, Matt Furey later added a few others.
Anyway, with a little training women can do all that, my aunt is certainly butch enough to do farm work as well as any man. Also, there are female fire-fighters who are just as effective as their male counter-parts.
Certainly some jobs favor males, but there is nothing a female cannot do better.

NOCTVRNVS

Exceptions? I do not see your point... "exceptions" is just "weaknesses" really. If God has decreed a rule without exceptions then that is a rule without exceptions in my book.

Back when the book was written God might have provided for exceptions, later editors may have deemed them unecessary and cut them out before they reached us today, also the language may have been imperfectly translated.

For instance, Christians claim that the man of the house should have the final say.
What if the woman is the breadwinner? If she's making the money, then she should have the final say.
In ancient times women couldn't have jobs or own property, only the men had any financial holdings at all, so of course, his world was the law of the household.
Nowadays that rule is defunct, the man is no longer the default leader of the house.
I think what he meant was that the person with the most responsibility should be the head, women weren't educated and probably couldn't be trusted to responsibly handle anything outside of the house, now that's changed, family structure has changed too.