Freethought & Rationalism Archive

secular spoon · 10-05-2004, 09:43 PM

Woah... 2 posts in a day!

Quote:

There are dire consequences if you disobey, ie stds if you engage in promiscuous sex and etc.

So all the people with AIDS in africa have it for disobeying god? THAT is the source of your morals?

Quote:

The medieval church had corrupt leaders who were consolidating their power, they cared little about the bible. You have yet to demonstrate God's non existence.

Isn't the burden of proof on you here? Demonstrate his existance.

Quote:

jtb: I am STILL restraining my pet dragon to allow you to live, Ed. You haven't thanked me yet.

ed: You have yet to prove his existence.

He's proved it as much as you've proved your god's existance. But it's true, the burden of proof is on jtb... and I think he might have lied. You caught him!

Quote:

Ed: From God's perspective natural and supernatural consequences are basically identical, since God is the ultimate cause of both.

jtb: Being hacked to death by religious fanatics isn't a "natural consequence" of failing to worship God.

ed: It may be, it certainly isn't supernatural.

Correct me if I'm wrong here jack, but did you mean that it would be more a "natural consequence" of having fanatics for neigbours, rather than a "natural consequence" of failing to worship god?

Quote:

jtb: Would you like to argue that the 3,000 victims of 9/11/2001 died as a natural consequence of America's failure to adopt Islam?

ed: No, because Islam is not part of reality as Christianity is. But I am not claiming I know what the purpose of 9-11 was.

And how is it less real than christianity?

Ed · 10-06-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Deborah?

Originally Posted by Ed
No, God just inspired her to fill the gap.

lp: Of course, she could have done so on her own initiative.

Yes, but the biblical evidence implies otherwise.

Quote:

Ed: It depends on what you mean by "female-friendly", ie not everything you want is necessarily good for you or "user friendly".

lp: So what?

Because something that may initially appear to be good, may actually not be so good.

Quote:

Ed: It may be good for women to be mods and admins, but it may not be good for them to be leaders in the church.

lp: Why not? Will "the church" lose virility?

I don't know exactly why. But I am sure God has a good reason. It could be because God seems to have more male characteristics than female even though he is neither, since he refers to himself as He. And the leaders represent God to the congregation in some ways.

Quote:

Ed: No, she was praising the high divorce rate in American society.

lp: I'd like to see what she originally said. And if divorce is such a big sin, shouldn't divorcees like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich have been purged from the Republican Party?

Its not the unforgivable sin though.

Ed · 10-07-2004, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

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.

A clear hierarchy: CEO > your boss > you

But that doesn't make you any less human or any less intrinsically valuable.
So what's your point? Any social unit without a leader is in trouble. Again I never said that the bible is a feminist book.

lpetrich · 10-09-2004, 06:09 AM

(God as male...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I don't know exactly why. But I am sure God has a good reason. It could be because God seems to have more male characteristics than female even though he is neither, since he refers to himself as He.

Why should one ever have to speculate about things like that?

(Divorce supposedly a sin...)

Quote:

Its not the unforgivable sin though.

True, it's not saying: "You Holy Ghost you, you are nothing but a spook!" But why let divorcees off scot-free if they just so happen to be Republican politicians?

Quote:

A clear hierarchy: CEO > your boss > you

An analogy which would make legitimate the Divine Right of Kings:
God > king > subjects
among other hierarchies that Ed presumably rejects.

And what is so terrible about women being full citizens in society?

Quote:

But that doesn't make you any less human or any less intrinsically valuable.

However, "intrinsic value" means nothing if one is considered subhuman by ohters.

Quote:

So what's your point? Any social unit without a leader is in trouble.

Why are social units supposed to need leaders? Especially small ones.

Quote:

Again I never said that the bible is a feminist book.

But you implied that it was a sort-of feminist book, at least in the sense of being pro-woman.

Ed · 10-10-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

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

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

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

I doubt it.

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?

Ed: 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.

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

No, the personal elements ARE separate, ie totally separate persons. But their essence is the same, ie divine.

Quote:

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

Well it may be unprovable, but all of human experience tells us that we are each unique individuals and birds are not dogs and dogs are not cats and etc. And I am not you.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-11-2004, 02:07 AM

Too many misconceptions to address. You need to learn more about Hinduism.

For instance, the "higher" Hindu deities don't have a "shared personhood": they are impersonal. The "lesser" Hindu deities have distinct personalities.

The minds of mortals work the same way. We are all part of the Brahman, but we have separate personalities, and only deep meditation can begin to reveal the interconnectedness of all things.

Ed · 10-11-2004, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

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

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

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

There is no specific chapter and verse but given that Christ is our ultimate example and He never physically coerced belief in him but rather used arguments and evidence. Then so should we when evangelizing non-believers and to do otherwise is a sin.

Ed · 10-11-2004, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by secular spoon

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......

Look up my old EoG thread and also read most of my posts in this thread and the Philosophy thread.

secular spoon · 10-11-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Look up my old EoG thread and also read most of my posts in this thread and the Philosophy thread.

Damn ed, you don't like typing do you. Just write it again:

-Whats the evidence against hilary's claims?
-What evidence is for your claims?

Jack the Bodiless · 10-12-2004, 01:36 AM

Quote:

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

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

There is no specific chapter and verse but given that Christ is our ultimate example and He never physically coerced belief in him but rather used arguments and evidence. Then so should we when evangelizing non-believers and to do otherwise is a sin.

As I suspected: you are inventing doctrine. In this case: inventing a new "sin" that directly contradicts the Old Testament and isn't mentioned in the New.

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

10-11-2004, 02:07 AM	#476
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Too many misconceptions to address. You need to learn more about Hinduism. For instance, the "higher" Hindu deities don't have a "shared personhood": they are impersonal. The "lesser" Hindu deities have distinct personalities. The minds of mortals work the same way. We are all part of the Brahman, but we have separate personalities, and only deep meditation can begin to reveal the interconnectedness of all things.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.