Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 09-26-2004, 10:03 AM

Some more blatant Biblical sexism:

1 Corinthians 11:3-10

NIV: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

NASB: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

A clear hierarchy: God > Christ > man > woman

A proper feminist viewpoint would be the two sexes side by side.

Ed · 09-26-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Well in science you study an effect to determine a cause. The universe is the effect and the main characteristic of the universe is that it is a diversity of entities within a unity, ie a single thing. And in fact the universe is filled with a multitude of diversities within unities. This means that the cause of the universe probably has that characteristic or something similar to it.

lp: Ed's fallacious Law of Resemblance: effects must resemble causes.

No, its called the Law of Sufficient Cause and it is Aristotle's not mine.

Quote:

Ed: And only the Christian God has that characteristic of being a diversity within a unity, ie the Trinity. Therefore it is the most likely cause of the universe.

lp: Many Hindus believe that the numerous deities of Hinduism are aspects of a single god. This single Hindu God is therefore a diversity within a unity, and one much more like the "real" Universe, which has much more than three parts.

So why not convert to Hinduism?

Yes, but hinduism believes that the diversity of gods is an illusion, and ultimately ALL is ONE and all diversity is an illlusion. However, in the Trinity the three personal diversity is real not an illusion. And in fact all diversity is real not illusions, just like the universe is made up of real diversity within a unity.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-27-2004, 01:33 AM

Quote:

lp: Ed's fallacious Law of Resemblance: effects must resemble causes.

No, its called the Law of Sufficient Cause and it is Aristotle's not mine.

I think Aristotle would be spinning in his grave...

Quote:

lp: Many Hindus believe that the numerous deities of Hinduism are aspects of a single god. This single Hindu God is therefore a diversity within a unity, and one much more like the "real" Universe, which has much more than three parts.

So why not convert to Hinduism?

Yes, but hinduism believes that the diversity of gods is an illusion, and ultimately ALL is ONE and all diversity is an illlusion. However, in the Trinity the three personal diversity is real not an illusion. And in fact all diversity is real not illusions, just like the universe is made up of real diversity within a unity.

The whole point of the Trinity doctrine is that the elements are NOT separate. They are as intertwined as the Hindu deities are.

And where is your evidence that "in fact all diversity is real not illusions"? This is inherently unprovable.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-27-2004, 04:15 AM

Incidentally, Ed, you've now posted twice since the following question was asked, without answering it. I don't want it to get lost.

Quote:

Because of this physically coercing belief in the true God is now a sin.

OK, please provide the chapter and verse where this is made clear.

Ed · 09-27-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

Well, I follow this thread enough - I figure I may as well post every now and again:

lp: And in some other threads here, QueenofSwords has stated something similar about not appreciating the prospect of the eternal damnation of many of her family and friends.

ed:Sometimes truth is unpleasant, but that doesn't mean you cover your hears and reject it.

ss: So the truth (that one's relatives might go to hell while you go to heaven) is unpleasant? Even while you're in heaven? If it's imperfect in that aspect, why not be imperfect in another (Like.. I dunno... god chaining you down to a spot and forcing you to praise him for eternity)??.

No, when you are in heaven you will see more clearly the justice of it all. So it is not imperfect.

Quote:

Ed: ... it appears that they are not approaching the evidence with a truly open mind, even open to the possibility of the supernatural. ...

lp: Did this include having an open mind about the possibility that some other religion might be true? Like Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Hellenic paganism or ...

ed:Yes, until you find out which one is the most rational and fits reality the best then you should reject the others.

ss: What criteria do you use to select which one "fits reality the best"? Or even which is most rational?

Look at history, philosophy, science, and your own experience. That is how determine if it fits reality. Also, look at its foundational beliefs and see if they are confirmed by logic.

Quote:

(God changing his mind about something...)
ED: He didn't.

lp: Not even about creating humanity, as in the story of Noah's Flood?

ed:Nope.

ss: So god created the world, populated it, left it for a while. Then killed everyone... because he WANTED TO from the beginning? Why'd he have to wait so long then? More victims?

No, he never left it and He never wanted to kill everyone, it was just required by justice.

Quote:

d: Yes, because there is scientific evidence for a Triune creator

lp: A "triune" one? Why not a hundred-part one or a million-part one?

ed:Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

ss: Really? Lots of people I know experience just that on acid. Although if you want a better example look at the post above:

Well they may have thought they experienced such a being, but most would not claim them as the creator of the universe. But anyway I am primarily referring what sane non drug users believe and claim.

Quote:

lp: Many Hindus believe that the numerous deities of Hinduism are aspects of a single god. This single Hindu God is therefore a diversity within a unity, and one much more like the "real" Universe, which has much more than three parts.

So why not convert to Hinduism?

See my post above to lp where I deal with Hinduism.

Quote:

lp: (Hillary talking to ghosts...)
Ed: Yeah, hopefully you didn't vote for her or her husband, they both are a little too far out there!

lp: I don't see how that's any different from prayer.

ed:Prayer is communication with a living person....

ss: ...who lives in the sky and we can't see. That's rational and "fits reality better" than talking to dead people how?

Who said he lives in the sky? That was just an early anthropomorphic way of describing a transcendent being. But the existence of God is based on logic unlike talking to dead people.

Quote:

Ed: while there is no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary.

lp: And you are sure of this how?

Ed: It is called research.

ss: You RESEARCHED that? All I was lookin for was a claim that that sort of thing was irrational. So there's research that can scientifically prove/disprove the existance of ghosts.. but not god?

No, I didnt say that I could disprove the existence of ghosts, but there is very little evidence to back up Hillariy's experience while there is a great deal of evidence to back up Christian experience with God.

secular spoon · 09-27-2004, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

No, I didnt say that I could disprove the existence of ghosts, but there is very little evidence to back up Hillariy's experience while there is a great deal of evidence to back up Christian experience with God.

And this evidence is? Keep it specific to the christian god now.....

Jack the Bodiless · 09-28-2004, 02:20 AM

Ed, why are you contradicting yourself?

Quote:

ss: So the truth (that one's relatives might go to hell while you go to heaven) is unpleasant? Even while you're in heaven? If it's imperfect in that aspect, why not be imperfect in another (Like.. I dunno... god chaining you down to a spot and forcing you to praise him for eternity)??.

No, when you are in heaven you will see more clearly the justice of it all. So it is not imperfect.

Compare this response with the next one:

Quote:

ss: What criteria do you use to select which one "fits reality the best"? Or even which is most rational?

Look at history, philosophy, science, and your own experience. That is how determine if it fits reality. Also, look at its foundational beliefs and see if they are confirmed by logic.

So, which is it? Can we see that Christianity "fits reality" NOW, or do we have to wait until after we're dead to see this?

There is much about Christianity which plainly doesn't fit reality (such as the Genesis creation story, the evil of the "good" God of the Old Testament, and so forth). It is not possible to deduce that the Christian God exists by studying the real world: that's why Christians are supposed to "have faith".

Quote:

Yes, because there is scientific evidence for a Triune creator

lp: A "triune" one? Why not a hundred-part one or a million-part one?

ed:Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

ss: Really? Lots of people I know experience just that on acid. Although if you want a better example look at the post above:

Well they may have thought they experienced such a being, but most would not claim them as the creator of the universe. But anyway I am primarily referring what sane non drug users believe and claim.

Are you denying the existence of millions of Hindus, and all other polytheists throughout hstory? Or are you claiming that they're all insane or on drugs?

Quote:

See my post above to lp where I deal with Hinduism.

You have never adequately "dealt with" Hinduism.

History, philosophy, science, and our own experience tells us that Hinduism fits reality better than Christianity does. There is no "Problem of Evil" in Hinduism, there is no pattern of "threes" in the Universe, and if we apply "Ed's Law of Resemblances" we note many examples of nested hirearchies in the Universe (Seattle is a part of Washington State, which is a part of the United States...), which mirrors the Hindu pantheon structure.

Ed · 09-29-2004, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

lp: However it does address church government and many of the founding fathers of US patterned our government on biblical church government.

lp: Absolute rubbish. They were more into Polybius, for example, than the Bible.

ed:Fraid not, a study done by Dr. Donald Lutz found that the most cited source in the Founding Fathers letters and writings was the Bible.

ss: Pfffsh. According to both christian and secular sources they identified 34% of citations coming from the bible. Not that I can access the publication online but I found a quote :

[From the site above ]..in addition to their general citation count from 1760 to 1805, Lutz and Hyneman compile a count specific to political debate on the Constitution between the years 1787 and 1788 (the years corresponding to the drafting and ratification of the Constitution). According to Lutz, this sample "comes close to exhausting" the literature written on the Constitution during this period (Relative Influence, p. 194). If the founders believed that the Bible was truly relevant to the Constitution, Biblical citations should appear in abundance in this sample, but, they don't. On the contrary, Biblical citations are virtually nonexistent in this sample. According to Lutz, federalist (i.e., pro-Constitution) writers never quoted the Bible in their political writings between 1787 and 1788. Conversely, anti-federalist writers quoted the Bible only 9% of the time. According to Lutz:

The Bible's prominence disappears, which is not surprising since the debate centered upon specific institutions about which the Bible has little to say. The Anti-Federalists do drag it in with respect to basic principles of government, but the Federalist's inclination to Enlightenment rationalism is most evident here in their failure to consider the Bible relevant....The debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment (Relative Influence, pp. 194-195, emphasis ours).

As usual the research I did was shoddy, but damn ed.. it only takes a 2 minute google search. I'd be interested in knowing if the above is correct.

Yes, I never said that they derived specific institutions from the bible, only over arching moral principles, such as human rights and their origin, representative government, and etc. BTW Montesquieu, Blackstone and the English whigs all accepted the Christian worldview and many of their ideas were derived from that worldview.

Quote:

Ed: But only Christianity has the strong evidence to back it up.

lp: Prove that it does not back up any other religion, and prove that it does not back up any Christian sect but yours.

ed: I have already done the first, and second is irrelevant because I am referring to the basics of historic orthodox Christianity not to any particular denomination.

ss: Could you do me a favour and retype the evidence? You might've done it somewhere in these 18 pages but I'm certainly not wading through them again.

I am not going to go over all it again, but the foundational one is the fact that the universe is a diversity within a unity and so is the Trinity. This is like a fingerprint that the Christian God is the cause of the universe.

lpetrich · 09-30-2004, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Yes, I never said that they derived specific institutions from the bible, only over arching moral principles, such as human rights and their origin, representative government, and etc.

That's a pathetic "argument" that suggest ignorance of the classical Greco-Roman world; ancient Greece and Rome had supplied many more models for democratic practice than the Bible. The Senate certainly did not get its name from the Bible!

Quote:

BTW Montesquieu, Blackstone and the English whigs all accepted the Christian worldview

As to "accepting the Christian worldview", the same could be said of their opponents, like supporters of aristocratic privilege and the Divine Right of Kings.

Quote:

and many of their ideas were derived from that worldview.

Can you demonstrate that that was the case for them and not for the supporters of monarchy and aristocracy?

Ed · 09-30-2004, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Well since there will be a new universe, ie "heavens and earth", we will probably be learning about it and exploring it.

lp: Which would be rather hard to do if one is singing hymns all day.

As I stated above we will not be singing hymns all day, remember Revelation is mostly symbolic and not meant literally.

Quote:

(white robes as a "hebrew symbol"...)

Ed: Go ask you local religion professor or jewish rabbi.

lp: Or perhaps somewhere online, if anywhere.

Yes, that would work.

Quote:

(learning that God is just...)

Ed: By seeing what He does in certain situations both past and present.

jtb: And how does one determine what Mr. G. does in the present day?

By communicatiing with Him and seeing if his actions back up His words.

Quote:

(Charles Darwin and QueenofSwords...)
Ed: I don't know what they "honestly believe". Sometimes people are dishonest even to themselves.

lp: Can you show that that's the case for both CD and QoS?

No, only God knows their hearts.

Quote:

(CD on how the eternal damnation of many of his favorite people is a "damnable doctrine"...)

Ed: Not many people "wish" true Christianity to be true, they just find out that it is. ...

lp: And what makes you so sure of that?

Talking to other Christians and my own experience.

Quote:

(QoS believing what CD had believed...)

Ed: Sometimes truth is unpleasant, but that doesn't mean you cover your hears and reject it.

lp: Does that apply to you also, Ed?

Yes.

Quote:

(Having an open mind about some other religion possibly being true...)
Ed: Yes, until you find out which one is the most rational and fits reality the best then you should reject the others.

lp: And if it is some belief system than yours that is the most rational and fits reality the best?

Yes, you are free to choose some other belief system than mine.

Quote:

(the Shroud of Turin vs. the Cloak of Kandahar and the Tooth of Kandy...)
Ed: You should take seriously whichever one is backed up by the most evidence. Or reject both if neither has strong evidence.

lp: So if the Cloak of Kandahar turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Islam? And if the Tooth of Kandy turns out to be genuine, you'll convert to Buddhism?

I would recommend choosing my worldview based on more than just one piece of evidence. As I stated above I beilieve the truth of Christianity is based on multiple threads of evidence from history, science, experience and philosophy.

Quote:

(God changing his mind about creating humanity in the story of Noah's Flood)

Ed: Nope.

lp: I reread Genesis 6, and I see no reason to change my mind about this.

Change your mind about what?

Quote:

(a hundred-part or a million-part creator...)

Ed: Because noone has claimed to experienced such a being or seriously proposed such a cause of the universe.

lp: Prove it.

I can't, but I have never heard of any religion or scientific theory with such a belief. If you can provide one I will accept your refutation.

Quote:

(no scientific evidence that dead people have talked to Hillary?)

Ed: It is called research.

lp: What research?

Well maybe not research but experience with dead people.

Quote:

Ed: Prayer is communication with a living person.

lp: As when one prays to Allah or Shiva or Isis or St. Anne or St. Jude or numerous other deities and saints...

No, because none of those beings are living persons.

Quote:

(on how I could not vote for Hillary because I live in California...)

Ed: Now you have really disappointed me!

lp: What's so horrible about Hillary?

Well I guess she is not as horrible as her husband.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-26-2004, 10:03 AM	#451
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Some more blatant Biblical sexism: 1 Corinthians 11:3-10 NIV: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. NASB: But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. A clear hierarchy: God > Christ > man > woman A proper feminist viewpoint would be the two sexes side by side.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.