Talk:Women

I'm not going into the Biblical issues here; that's for more scholarly folk than myself. However: "Also not explicitly stated in the Bible, it is obvious that," does that work? At what level of opinion and/or writer's logic does CP draw the line? Aziraphale 03:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

NO, this does not work. The logic in that is completely flawed.

Also, if Eve was created from Adam's rib, wouldn't she be his sister? They are of the same flesh and blood...

-- Orly 10:24 14 March 2007 (CET)

If god does not approve of menstruation, why did "he" design women that way?

-- Orly 15:42 14 March 2007 (CET)

I thought of taking it out to. But those verses are in the bible still... I thought it better to explain their role than to refuse to acknowledge them just for their inconvenience.

-- BornAgainBrit

Free advice for you to use, or not, as yous see fit: the reason religious debates are never resolved is simple (imo): people are trying to understand why a possibly omnipotent / omniscient being does what it does. We have no frame of reference for this, so we're stuck making all kinds of assumptions. Simple answer to any "why" question is, unfortunately, "why not?" Or "because." Or "it will all make sense 1,000 years from now, we simply lack perspective." Which doesn't mean those arguments are right, but what are you going to do?

My advice: read, study, pray if you like. But you probably won't get an answer you like, and (conversely) you not getting an answer you like doesn't prove anything.

Aziraphale 13:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT) , going back to technical edits where the Chicago Manual can be proved far more easily ;)

This is really a terrible article! Some facts maybe? /What

Never mind: asked and answered on TimSvendsen's page Sedge 23:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)