lpetrich

So what's your point? That we should never do anything out of fear of some adverse side effect?

Why would that be a bad thing to tell a child?

lpetrich

That women-shouting-in-church bit is an old apologist fairy tale; notice how the apologists do not back it up with independent evidence.

Mageth

i am interested to hear what your thougts are regarding social utopia. however counting some thoughts as "bad" and some as "good", or more precisely, some socially beneficial and some socially destructive, is dangerous.
i characterize you in this way because you are just as intolerant of dissenting views as christianity.

"Social utopia?" An unachievable pipe dream, of course.

It's obvious that you don't know enough about me to characterize me in any way. I feel strongly that anyone has the right to hold any opinion or thought they damn well please. It's when they try to institutionalize or enforce opinions that are harmful, as Paul did in his writings about women, that I have a problem. And I'm free to hold the opinion that we would be better off without opinions such as racism, sexism, and homophobia. Much harm, but little, if any, good comes from these kinds of thought. It seems to me that people holding such opinions tend to express those opinions in ways that harm others and society as a whole.

Note, however, that I'm not, and have not, advocated any kind of thought control - I've just expressed my opinion on something I feel we'd be better off without.

essentially, the atheistic worldview, and the christian worldview are similiar because you both are intolerant of different "opinions".

Strawman - there is no "atheistic worldview."

Besides that, xianity's attitude towards women, and your opinions that you've expressed here, causes harm to women.

My expressed opinions, and those expressed by others on this thread, causes no harm to women, and indeed is very beneficial to women.

To me, that's the key point. (Some) christians want to impose some harmful opinions imposed by a 2000-year-old book on society. If I'm doing anything, it's raising my voice against that tyranny.

i cant speak for christianity as a whole, but as i've said before, i think that some of st pauls sentiments are best not used as the basis for christian practice in todays society.

And they would be "best" not used as the basis for christian practice in any society, today, in the past or in the future, IMO. If they aren't fair/right today, why were they fair/right 2000 years ago? And don't go off into the "society was different" thing. A woman is a woman, and such attitudes are imposed on her personally regardless of the calendar year.

im sorry, on one hand people don't want to have their intellects insulted, yet on the other you fail to make obvious connections. i will try to do better, and i apologize to those whom i offended.

I "fail to make obvious connections?" Because I don't agree with your neanderthal logic? Perhaps it's because the "obvious connections" are not there?

And believe me, you've come nowhere near insulting my intellect. Amused it a little, perhaps...

free thought.....
free thought is thought without bounds. no thoughts are good or bad. or free thought is the state of human affairs wherein individuals are able to think and posit ideas as they choose

What the hell is "thought without bounds?" Thought always has bounds.

Thoughts in and of themselves are not "good" or "bad," IMO. It's in the expression of the thoughts, towards others, where moral judgments may be made - e.g. Paul's institutionalizing sexism.

Think or posit anything about women you want; that's your right. But it's not right for you or anyone else (including myself, if I was so inclined) to try to enforce/institutionalize harmful "thoughts" or ideas, religiously based or otherwise.

lpetrich

So what?

That only proves that the Bible is not some universal revelation, because a universal revelation would be expressed in unambiguous and clear language that could be unambiguously and clearly translated.

And an omnipotent being would implant it into our minds, thus ensuring that every human being who ever lived would have access to it in uncorrupted form.

Queen of Swords

And this is your standard? Is this the only thing men are better at doing than women are better at doing? quote:


Yes, but let's hear it from you. Why does your benevolent god allow evil to exist?


Please point out where I called Paul an "oppressive male thug", or else stop playing with your strawman.

You are evading the question. If Paul "keeps with the times", why should we put his commands into practice - especially those dealing with gender roles? Please stay on topic.

In other words, you can't back up your claims with objective data. Well, that's nothing new.

Please answer the question. Was Paul more concerned with preserving the status quo than with upholding human rights? Was he so afraid of the Romans/Jews that he had to "let in a few additions"?

Please answer the question. Do you see no difference between an omniscient, all-powerful god and the Chinese/Westerners?

Women undergoing what hormone replacement? And what does this have to do with the normal functioning of men and women anyway? You're grasping at straws.

In other words, nothing to do with their gender? Perhaps you could teach Paul something.

Is that the point? You might as well say, "would a class of white people even LISTEN to a black man teach?"

That's not what you said the first time. You said that a male role model could provide a child with goals and a sense of being male. A girl doesn't need a sense of being male - and as for goals, those aren't exactly gender-specific any more.

We're not talking about psychology here. We're talking about the act of human reproduction, which you likened to agriculture. I am pointing out what's wrong with your analogy.

Really? Please point out a case where "no" always means "yes".

Yes, and provide a reference for that claim. Who did the study on sexual advances and found out that 99% of them were unwanted?

Corwin

lp....

Even cracking water into hydrogen isn't thermodynamcially impossible.... when you have a fuel tank. (Thermodynamics only applies to a closed system. If you can pull up to a pump and get more fuel... thermodynamics doesn't apply...) Now... it still might not be efficient enough to be workable... but it would function. Auto manufacturers have been working on the problem, mostly centered around the idea of cracking either water or methane or alcohol into hydrogen, and then either burning the hydrogen or running it through a fuel cell. (Which makes 'water powered' much more attractive.... both processes produce water as a waste product, which can then be recracked increasing overall efficiency.)

But as I said... what they're finding is that this whole process... while perfectly acceptable in theory.... is a LOT easier said than done. (There are still efficiency issues.... as well as cost. Fuel cells don't have to be made out of platinum and palladium anymore..... but they still ain't cheap.)

lpetrich

I am very familiar with quantum mechanics, and in it, entities have both particle and wave properties. However, most macroscopic entities strongly manifest only one of these property sets, with the other being too small to see. Which is why our direct experience is one-or-the-other.

Wave-particle duality, as it's called, is abundantly confirmed experimentally; however, it represents some very knotty theoretical problems, and I'm not going to claim that that is fully understood.

But I don't see how it supports any theology; a rational being ought not to have created such an odd Universe.

lpetrich

I think I get what you are getting at, Corwin. A car powered by fuel cells that is "recharged" by supplying it electricity to electrolyze water.

On second thought, you may have misunderstood fuel-cell fuels; these are not water, but substances like hydrogen and methanol to be combined with oxygen to produce electricity. Water results from this, but is not the "fuel".

Corwin

Water can easily be the fuel... if you crack it into hydrogen and oxygen to pump through the fuel cell. If the system is set up to do this then the water created by the reaction can be recirculated back into the water reservoir to be used again, thus increasing overall efficiency.

Mageth

define what god is. if you simply say god is "anything supernatural" then you are simply a materialist. if thats not a worldview i don't know what is.

God is - not. There, I didn't say god is anything supernatural. Materialism may be a worldview, but atheism is not. Note that an atheist may be, but is not necessarily, a materialist.

whenever anyone says "dog", you as a person hear the sounds spoken. this moves from your ear to your brain. as such those sounds have no meaning. upon hearing those sounds you automatically think of a cute furry puppy. however not everyone sees the same furry creature when they hear the word dog.

point is language and everything else is meaningless without the value placed on it by people.

And the point of this in the context of the current discussion is....?

i imagine your logic condemning st paul is as follows.
paul instructs women to not speak in church.
not speaking in church leads to inequality between men and women.
anyone whose teachings lead to inequality for women hates women.
therefore
paul hates women

in this line of reasoning you make many assumptions.
1. anyone whose teachings lead to inequality for women hates women.
2. implicitly, you assume hatred of women is bad.

if this is not correct, please add to or fix the logic.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. Please do not ascribe opinions to me which I have not expressed. You express your views, I express mine. That's the way these debates are supposed to work, you know. Continuation of this practice will get you a very bad reputation around here.

I repeat so perhaps you will be able to make the connection within your amazing, stupendous intellect:

You said:
"i imagine your logic condemning st paul is as follows.."
and later:
"in this line of reasoning you make many assumptions"

Please IMMEDIATELY DESIST from speaking from my perspective. Speak your thoughts, ask me questions about what I think. DON'T tell me what I think.

I would have to agree with this one statement though:

"implicitly, you assume hatred of women is bad"

Well, of course it is. Do you not think hatred of women is bad? If not, please explain why.

true, but only a man can feel joy at his being a man. and neither can a man feel happy that he is a woman, only a woman can do that.

The original point, raised by you, was different emotions between men and women. In both cases, they feel the same emotions (joy or happiness or whatever), just for different reasons.