Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 07-31-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
I don't remember the reference. But I do have evidence that Christianity lifted the status of women in Greek and Roman societies.

lp: In what way? By allowing many of them to become Christian priestesses?

Originally Posted by Ed
No, by allowing them to choose to refuse marriage proposals and also initiate divorces.

lp: News to me. And where in either the Old Testament or the New Testament are women granted either right? Nowhere that I'm aware of.

I was not referring to a specific teaching in the scriptures, but early Christians understood Christ's treatment of women as equals as giving them these rights.

Quote:

Ed: The very name of the theory points to the truth of my statement.

lp: Except that only two of the strands are named after names of God (YHWH, Elohim), and that these are used mainly as labels.

OK, I exaggerated a little, but they are more than just labels. They build a whole hypothetical authorship and Hebrew history from them.

secular spoon · 07-31-2004, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

[on the DH:] I never said that the name is the WHOLE theory, I said that the name is the foundation of it. Of course they have built a whole structure of different assumptions on top of the foundation of the name hypothesis. But when the foundation is flawed the whole thing collapses.

Sorry if I misunderstood you Ed, but the point of my post was to show with (very little) research I could find out that the DH does, in fact, have more to it than the names. If you point me towards some reliable sources that state that " they have built a whole structure of different assumptions on top of the foundation of the name hypothesis" I'd be more than happy to change my views on the DH.

Just from that crappy site I found, it looks like the name would be the least important part, or at most only important as a label. It's only a name afterall. The other identifying traits seem much more... substantial.. as evidence to me.

Feel free to call me out on this if its wrong, but please provide some references so I can correct my mistakes!

[edit: And now that I think of it. Just what sort of theory can you build from a name? It's just 1 word that they use to identify a personage with. I seriously doubt this theory would've got very far if all it had was 4 sections of the OT with 4 different names for god]

-ss

lpetrich · 08-01-2004, 07:16 AM

(on allowing women to choose to refuse marriage proposals and also initiate divorces...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I was not referring to a specific teaching in the scriptures, but early Christians understood Christ's treatment of women as equals as giving them these rights.

It is not apparent to me that they had demonstrated any such "understanding".

Furthermore, did Jesus Christ appoint some women as apostles?

And if women are supposed to be the social equals of men, then women should be allowed to teach adult men. Saying that "the sexes are different" is no argument -- you must fill in the chain of reasoning between that and women not being allowed to teach adult men.

Ed · 08-03-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

(where christ-on-a-stick, QueenofSwords, and others had argued against the existence of the Xtian God...)
Originally Posted by Ed
In their little testimonials that you linked to.

lp: Then what is your opinion of their arguments? I suggest that you quote their arguments and then respond to them here.

I have covered their arguments in threads all over this site. Unless they themselves come to this thread to present their arguments I will not rehash those arguments again anytime soon.

Quote:

Ed: Once you understand the magnitude of God's extreme moral purity, ie Holiness, you realize how eternal damnation is the natural consequence of rebelling against Him, ie doing wrong, including doing good for the wrong reason.

jtb: Seems like an awfully thin-skinned and unforgiving entity.

How so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed
I said it is the natural consequence of God's extreme moral purity, it is not something God designed. IOW it is inherent in the nature of ultimate reality, ie God did not create Himself. But God did provide a way to be forgiven, thru His Son.

lp: Does God also have a Daughter?

Yes, He has millions of human daughters.

Quote:

lp: And why does one have to be "forgiven"?

Because we have rebelled against his moral law and not recognized Him as creator and King.

Quote:

lp: And this is a strange argument: "God can't help it, because he's only acting according to his nature" -- implying that God is not responsible for his actions.

No, He can't help it because He is limited to acting according to the laws of reality. Just like you cannot jump off your roof and flap your arms and start flying.

Ed · 08-04-2004, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed: No, Ex. 7:13 just says that Pharoah's heart was hardened it does not say by whom.

jtb: Yes, it DOES. It says that this will happen AS GOD HAD SAID in Exodus 7:3 - which says that GOD will do the hardening.

However, I note that you are beginning to back off from your initial assertion that "the correct translation" was that PHARAOH initially hardened his own heart. You're still defying the Bible, but you're no longer reversing what the Bible actually says.

Ed: Ex. 7:3 is just a prediction that God will harden Pharoah's heart at some indefinite time in the future dealings with freeing His people.

jtb: It is the ONLY VERSE that Exodus 7:13 could POSSIBLY be referring to.

There is NO OTHER VERSE that fits.

That was the point of my challenge.

Keep trying, Ed: keep reading that Bible. Eventually, you might understand....

No, it is not referring to any verse. Exodus 7:13 just states that Pharoah heart was hardened. Given that we know that in most cases God allows free will it is a rational assumption that Pharoah hardened his own heart in all cases unless otherwise stated. 7:3 is just a prediction that God will at some unspecified point He will harden his heart.

Jack the Bodiless · 08-05-2004, 01:44 AM

Quote:

No, it is not referring to any verse. Exodus 7:13 just states that Pharoah heart was hardened.

No, it does not "just" say this.

Quote:

Given that we know that in most cases God allows free will it is a rational assumption that Pharoah hardened his own heart in all cases unless otherwise stated.

It is pretty easy for a nonexistent being to "allow" free will (my pet dragon has allowed you to remain un-incinerated thus far: are you not grateful for that?).

But it IS otherwise stated. What part of "as God had said" do you STILL not understand?

Quote:

7:3 is just a prediction that God will at some unspecified point He will harden his heart.

It IS the verse that Exodus 7:13 refers to.

You have been proved wrong, Ed. You have LOST this argument (like so many others).

lpetrich · 08-05-2004, 04:02 PM

(atheist arguments made by various people here...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

I have covered their arguments in threads all over this site. ...

URL's, please?

Also, on related subjects, would Heaven really be worth looking forward to? At least as described in the Book of Revelation. A subject that has been discussed in detail in the various "Heaven" threads in GRD. Consider:

* Heaven is likely to be b-o-r-i-n-g.
* Especially if it mainly consists of wearing white robes and singing hymns all day.
* If one likes wearing pants, then why can't one wear them?
* Will one ever get any sex?
* Or ever get to do much else than sing hymns all day?
* And more seriously: would one be completely happy if many of one's friends and relatives end up in Hell instead? Might one want to join them?

Quote:

Yes, He has millions of human daughters.

Alongside millions of human sons, making Jesus Christ less-than-unique.

(why forgiveness is supposed to be necessary...)

Quote:

Because we have rebelled against his moral law and not recognized Him as creator and King.

Which seems very contrived.

("God can't help it, because he's only acting according to his nature"...)

Quote:

No, He can't help it because He is limited to acting according to the laws of reality...

Which is another version of "God can't help it".

Ed · 08-05-2004, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Originally Posted by Ed
Because all humans are naturally anti-Christian God and atheists especially so.

lp: And how is that supposed to be the case?

Because of the Fall.

Quote:

(Hillary Clinton talking to Eleanor Roosevelt...)
Ed: That relationship is non-existent, at least it is impossible she has one with Eleanor.

lp: I wonder what makes Ed so sure of this.

Because dead people cannot communicate to living people.

Quote:

Ed: Though she could have been communicating with another spiritual being pretending to Eleanor, ie a demon.

lp: A good one or a bad one?

Non-sequitor.

lpetrich · 08-07-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed

Because of the Fall.

Which explains everything. (sarcasm) Can't you guys think of anything better?

An omnipotent, omniscient being would be omni-responsible, by omission as well as by commission.

Quote:

Because dead people cannot communicate to living people.

And you are sure of that for what reason?

Ed · 08-07-2004, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Ed:

I see that you're still having problems with reading comprehension.

"Where did such an innate moral sense come from?"

In other words: what is the SOURCE, the ORIGIN, of this innate moral sense?

Evolution and social conditioning.

"How can the moral come from the amoral?"

By evolution and social conditioning.

No amount of wittering about "oughts" will change the fact that "evolution and social conditioning" is an ANSWER to the QUESTION.

Evolution and social conditioning explain WHY we have an innate moral sense. If (for instance) we feel that child-rape is wrong and should be prevented because we have an innate sense that this is right, and we also have a known REASON why this should be so: then what's the problem? Nothing is left unexplained here!

What is the reason that child rape is wrong? If it is just a feeling then what is difference between your feeling and someone who has a feeling that it is not wrong? Also, evolution made men stronger than women, does that mean that it is alright to force your wife or some other woman to have sex with you because you are stronger and because you CAN do it?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.