brighid

Apologies accepted. You must understand where the angry or bitter reactions come from with regards to atheists and Christianity. The more you examine this site and it’s contents the more you will understand, that as a segment of society that is discriminated against because of lack of belief in one of the myriad of gods, that we are a bit conditioned to be defensive. Each of us that were brought up in Christianity has our own horror stories or reasons for leaving the flock long before we began our journey on the path of atheism. Our President (and his father) believes that atheists don’t have the right to be citizens and too many theists believe that we are somehow evil and therefore we can be a bit reactionary. Often they come in here to preach, not to discuss and are often time irrational and patronizing. Therefore when a newcomer or lurker posts something in the manner you have it brings out the defenses and perhaps this isn’t the most appropriate behavior, but it must be understood to be built on a sturdy foundation of experience. You must also understand that many of the arguments you or other theists come here and make are very old news to us and have been dissected here many, many times.

I hope that you will stay and learn and come to the understanding that those non-theists that frequent this forum are extremely good people, even if we disagree with theists vehemently. The existence of god and how his/her Biblical rules apply to morality is a very important subject to many of us, as well as it probably is to you.

Please take the time to read some of the information in this library. It will serve to educate you and allow you to debate in a more credible way. If you choose to present what for us is the same, old, tired theistic mumbo-jumbo (and if you haven’t learned this already ) you will be greeted in a rather edgy and brash way. If you choose to continue your dialogues in here for the purpose of understanding the atheists, agnostic, humanist, skeptic and free thinker point of view while examining the foundations of your faith in an honest and objective manner, you will be received in a much more pleasant way.

There is really no hostility directed at you personally, for no one here really knows you but rather it is directed at your argument and the attacks we have received in the pass. We will allow you a great deal of freedom to express yourself, more freedom then you are use to in theistic circles, but be prepared to be confronted by a diverse group of people who are very well educated and very well versed in many areas.

As a Christian theist (I hope I am not making an improper assumption) you likely have little to no experience with atheism, agnosticism or humanism and it’s likely that you have been taught things that present us all in a pretty negative light. Such as you did not expect us to be so educated. I think it’s reasonable to believe that you may have been taught that we are evil, responsible for the decline of civilization and lack morality. If you can handle fierce and open debate and stay here long enough you will find those indoctrinated prejudicial thoughts to be incorrect. Hopefully your moral character dictates to you that it is imperative that you purge yourself of prejudice and ideas fostered by false witness.

Welcome to the Lion’s Den.


Brighid

Mageth

god is referred to as the father. jesus was a man. in this tradition males are the teachers and the sources of enlightenment. whether you agree or not, the stance is consistent. i know i'm going to get into trouble here but i will continue

men plant a seed, and women incubate that seed. neither would function without the other, but the sower always intiates any seed/field relationship, at least symbolically. in the same way men are called to be leaders in that a man and woman form one flesh. the relationship between parents and offspring and that of husband and wife can be thought along parallel lines.


Fortunately, with modern science, we now know that, during intercourse, the man does not insert a little human encased in a "seed" into the woman that then grows inside the woman into a baby. Indeed, of the two, the woman's role is the closest to the "seed" provider analogy.

Also note that, with modern science, we are damn near to the place (if we're not alrealdy there) where men are not "necessary" for procreation.

the point of the discussion here was only to provide insight into pauls dictate that women not talk in church. it was a sign of the culture of the times, not proof of the falibility of the bible, imo.

Oh really? Sounds like you're trying to do some serious backpedalling here. Your second "culture" explanation doesn't jibe with the points you were making earlier, which you claimed to be "consistent."

Note also that Paul (and others in the NT, IIRC) refers to several women who were active leaders in various churches. So even Paul wasn't "consistent" on this point.

If we are all made "in god's image," where does "female" come from? It seems, to be consistent, god must be as much female as he is male.

Deputy42

sure here goes:
while equality is a seemingly universal good, it has dangerous consequences. define equality of sexes.....thats where you get into trouble. i am the first person to agree that people should be treated as king said "by the content of their character"s.

arguments about equality of sexes seem to hinge on the assertion that men and women are the same. while both are members of the same species, i think you will agree that men and women have many differences.

i wouldn't go so far as to invoke aristotle and ergon, but i think gender roles are important. sure, ultimately, a woman can teach a son how to throw a football as well as a man, and anyone can do anything if they put their mind to it. but i think you would also agree that a male role model is important to young people, and the importance lies in the male aspect.


more on the "man plants a seed".....
every theology relies on symbology, i think you would agree to that. oftentimes complex ideas are most easily taught to others through the use of symbol and parable. and to a large extent symbology can be analyzed down to being totally arbitrary. (much like language and every other thing we hold dear in culture)

the point of the discussion i think was to show that the father/son/etc symbology is consistent within the context of the times in which it was formulated. a reader today will certainly have conflicts with certain cultural aspects of any book written so long ago.

the more one gives one's life over to a certain tradition and the deeper the connection with the church, the more important the church doctrine and symbology. an outsider looking in will see women haters and discrimination simply because he is looking from a totally different perspective. the more "christian" one becomes, the more one becomes like those who wrote the bible and the more he/she will relate to the teachings.

one could argue that even though much has changed since the time of christ, little about humans has changed. romans 2000 years ago had many of the same thoughts and concerns as americans have today. therefore, the writers might have some insight into human nature that we do not. the only way a person can determine if the writers of the bible had platos knowledge of human excellence is to live according to its dictates.

in no way was i attempting to downplay the role of women in the process of reproduction. i must admit that i do not have requisite experience to teach from experience regarding marriage and a good life lived.

men and women/ farmer and field, gender roles, is it bullshit? maybe, but knowing your role in life can lead to happiness. this is not an exclusive christain concept, the gita speaks of the yoga of devotion......

this is why i said it would be dangerous, because misunderstanding of what is said and meant is easy in such a controversial topic

bonduca

And what would that be?

Deputy42

according to genesis, man came first, in the image of god, then came eve out of the rib of adam. patriarchal, but again that tradition has always been that way.

Deputy42

this inevitably leads to back to greece and plato. i think protagoras deals with this topic. but i would not want to insult anyone's intelligence on this point

bonduca

Of course, as an atheist, I do not believe I am descended from someone who was once a rib-bone.

I am, however, very interested in hearing what you feel woman's role in relation to man is in the modern world. That is, your view, in your own words. Would you care to elaborate?

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

lpetrich

"Man and woman forming one flesh"? That might be called the deep-sea-anglerfish theory of marriage, though with the sexes reversed.

Mageth

I don't think anyone today would defend the position that man is the primary entity in reproduction.

You seemed to be in your earlier post. Your "consistency" seems to be very lacking.

according to genesis, man came first, in the image of god, then came eve out of the rib of adam. patriarchal, but again that tradition has always been that way.

That's according to Genisis 2. Explain, then, Genesis 1:27:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Also note that something being a "tradition" does not make it right.

Your flipflopping on the issues of male/female roles is common among theists I've been around.

From your comments to QoS:

the more "christian" one becomes, the more one becomes like those who wrote the bible and the more he/she will relate to the teachings.

Right, you'll support the supression of women, slavery, slaughter of innocent women and children, etc. Thank the IPU I escaped that worldview - I have no desire to "relate" to such crap.

[ February 14, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

bonduca

Would not wish to be stupid old man with scroll. Wish to be staggeringly attractive person with sports car.