Arguments against Christianity

dan1123

Registered Senior Member
After reading many agruments against Christianity on this forum, I noticed that most arguments have the underlying assumption that Christianity is false, or at least has no more right to humanity than any other religion.

In this line of thinking, religions that say that there are many ways to God, are hailed as better, primarily because they <i>do not believe they are right themselves.</i> So, naturally, such a religion that didn't really believe in itself would be taken kindly by those who don't believe in that religion anyway. These ideas lead to the notion that Christianity shouldn't believe in itself either. This would be like trying to force an atheist to believe in God, because then all the people who do believe in God would think better of him. It is ludicrous all the way around.

The argument might go like this (agnostic vs. atheist): how can an atheist be so intolerant towards all the people who believe in God? There are many more people who believe in God than atheists. And there are many devout believers in God who believe as strongly in God as an atheist believes that there is no God. Many atheist claims came from people who believe in God. They should be more agnostic so that they can encompass everyone's belief in God or no God (and make us agnostics really happy because then there is one more of us).

My point is, in the same way an atheist believes not because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth--Christians don't believe because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth.
 
*Originally posted by dan1123
And there are many devout believers in God who believe as strongly in God as an atheist believes that there is no God.
*

Those poor guys.
They must be backsliders, or something.

No Christian can believe in God as weakly as atheists believe there is no God.

Atheists wish, hope, "pray," delude themselves that there is no God.
They do not wish to obey God, so they pretend there is no God to obey.

*My point is, in the same way an atheist believes not because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth*

Atheists don't believe in no God.
They believe that saying it will make it so.

You've been sucked in by atheists.

Atheists can't possibly believe they know the truth because they don't know what truth is.
 
Oh Dan, I had begun to think highly of your ability to think more clearly than most, but this post is nearly complete gibberish and shows considerable ignorance on your part.

I’ll ignore your intro since I couldn’t relate to it at all.

There are many more people who believe in God than atheists.
Which god? Are you talking of the Christian god? In which case only 30% of the world is considered Christian. Officially (according the Catholic Encyclopedia) atheists are at 15%, that is just half the number of Christians. Oh and the number of Christians are declining and atheism is increasing. So 70% of the world is non-Christian.

Now how many of those who say they believe in a god do so because that is the tradition of their country, have been indoctrinated by their school education system, or are really frightened of the once dominant and still existent stigma of supporting atheism, that they say they believe in a god to play safe? How many so-called Christians are actually active Christians and understand the issues and doctrines as opposed to those that visit a church only for weddings and funerals because ‘that is the right thing to do’? Or in other words how many believe as fiercely as you? I think these facts will shrink the numbers significantly. I suspect if you discard all those that really have no real thoughts on the matter then it is very unclear how many really believe and how many do not.

And there are many devout believers in God who believe as strongly in God as an atheist believes that there is no God.
I’m not sure that you have seen the threads (there have been many) where this is explained more carefully but atheism isn’t a belief system. It is very rare to find an atheist who BELIEVES there is no god. The majority of atheists have no belief in a god or gods. Most atheists would say that it is just as irrational to believe there is a god as it is to believe that there isn’t a god. Both claims cannot be proved.

Many atheist claims came from people who believe in God.
Huh? What? You will have to describe your reasoning here, but this makes no sense as stated.

They should be more agnostic so that they can encompass everyone's belief in God or no God (and make us agnostics really happy because then there is one more of us).
I really cannot decipher what you had in mind here. Also which type of agnostic do you mean –theistic agnosticism or atheistic agnosticism, or do you mean the less accurate description of agnosticism meaning cannot decide?

My point is, in the same way an atheist believes not because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth—
Whoa! Way off the mark. The typical atheist specifically does not know the truth, he simply does not believe the unproved claims made by theists and does not offer any alternative claims.

Christians don't believe because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth.
Yes this is the essential irrational nature of Christianity. It is a blind belief in an unsupportable and unproven claim and an absolute conviction that this claim is undeniably true.

So at this point I can’t find a point to your thread. Oh Ok – arguments against Christianity. OK that’s fine, my point is made – Christianity is irrational.

Cris
 
Dan,

I appreciate your article and I must say that you have echoed many of the thoughts that I have had through my years. The point that I would like to focus on is:

"In this line of thinking, religions that say that there are many ways to God, are hailed as better, primarily because they do not believe they are right themselves."

Those who hold that there are many paths to God, often do so out of their personal disposition to tolerance. All humans do search for truth in their own way. I believe that it is a virtue to be tolerant of the fact that they are simply looking for a way to understand the universe. We are all groping along together and if we are not looking in the same place there's no call to set up an "us vs. them" mentality that plagues some dogmas.

Therefore, it is the attitude that I admire, rather than the doctrine. Most of your post is built around the assumption that atheists tend to like such doctrines. This is certainly not the case for most atheists, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were the odd one. Of course, an attitude of kindness to those of other faiths is hardly unique to those of such religions. The vast majority of Christians and other religious are thoughtful and tolerant.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that new age thinkers don't think they are right. Look at the size of the fringe medicine market. Their wallets bespeak their conviction. :)

Tony wrote:
--
"Atheists can't possibly believe they know the truth because they don't know what truth is."
--
Tony1,

Anyone capable of belief can believe that they know the truth- this irrespective of how correct they are. I'm sure many aspects of my understanding of epistemology are mistaken but I am still capable of believing that I know how to play hockey. (As a matter of fact, I can't play hockey.) You could personally name many theists who have misunderstandings about what truth is but they clearly have no problem with conviction. Why shouldn't this be the case for atheists?

Really, atheists and theists are not as different as you seem to think.

--
"Atheists wish, hope, "pray," delude themselves that there is no God.
They do not wish to obey God, so they pretend there is no God to obey."
--

You are speaking as if we actually believe in God. This shouldn't be news to you: Atheists, by definition, by the usage of the word and their own words regarding their internal state do not believe in any deity. Yes Tony, as a matter of fact that includes yours. Neither I nor any other atheist hopes, prays and deludes ourselves that _____ isn't waiting to wreak vengeance on us for developing our understanding of the world. The last line applies to Odin, to the Allah, indeed, to any God or Gods you care to name. It does not hold true, however, for those who attempt to force church upon state and vice versa. :D
 
Chris,
It is you who aren't making any sense here, you say:
It is very rare to find an atheist who BELIEVES there is no god. The majority of atheists have no belief in a god or gods.
For someone to have the belief that all religions are made up and their claims are invalid <i>does</i> mean that they have an active belief that there is no God--not just the passive disbelief that you claim.
Now how many of those who say they believe in a god do so because that is the tradition of their country, have been indoctrinated by their school education system
modern school systems preach atheism or at least agnosticism, and the traditions of the country mean bunk to the mass media that does its best to make Christians seem like mean-spirited bigots. Many of the atheists I meet just believe because of something they learned in school, or from a friend or parent--not because they have weighed any facts or looked at any evidence whatsoever.
Many atheist claims came from people who believe in God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? What? You will have to describe your reasoning here, but this makes no sense as stated.
For instance: The scientific method was devised by Christians--the basis of genetics was discovered by a monk. The whole system that atheists use to be sufficient without any deity came from the work of people who believed in God.

synaesthesia,
Those who hold that there are many paths to God, often do so out of their personal disposition to tolerance. All humans do search for truth in their own way. I believe that it is a virtue to be tolerant of the fact that they are simply looking for a way to understand the universe.
Here is what I am saying: To say that there are many paths to God is to really hedge your bets--to realize that you may not be right, or at least that someone else may be just as right as you are. To think such a thing is to not really believe your way is correct at all. If one really believes that his way is correct, then there would be no need to say that others may be just as correct. It appears that for one to say such a thing really means that they're not sure of the answer at all. To try to force this on Christians as many of the objections to Christianity here do, is to try and make a Christian admit that they don't really know if their way is right. This is preposterous--they do know that their way is right, otherwise they would not be Christian.
 
"For instance: The scientific method was devised by Christians--the basis of genetics was discovered by a monk. The whole system that atheists use to be sufficient without any deity came from the work of people who believed in God. "

Really, do we want to get into a "the members of my religion have done more than yours." debate? In western culture, christianity has generally been the dominant religion, obviously a lot of famous people and important thinkers would have belonged to it. Forget the fact that a disproportionate number of atheists have made substantial contributions to science, this is no more to the point than the fact that many celebrities belong to scientology. The scientific method came from humans, first and foremost. Many were christian, many were atheist, but all of them were human. It was not derived through christianity and has flourished in spite of many of it's influences.

"If one really believes that his way is correct, then there would be no need to say that others may be just as correct."

The two are not mututally exclusive. That is one virtue of the new age religions althought it is hardly cause for me to condone them.
 
*Originally posted by Cris
So 70% of the world is non-Christian.
*
I think your number is low.

dan1123:
You'll find that the following quote from Cris bears out what I was saying about the weakness of atheist beliefs....
---It is very rare to find an atheist who BELIEVES there is no god. The majority of atheists have no belief in a god or gods.---

The beliefs of an atheist are so weak that they deny not only God, but also the idea that they believe that.
A Christian with beliefs that weak would require the placement of a mirror under his nose to examine for fog.

The following quote from Cris bears out my statement that atheists do not know the truth...
--The typical atheist specifically does not know the truth, he simply does not believe the unproved claims made by theists and does not offer any alternative claims. ---

Interestingly, the irrational nature of atheism is highlighted by the fact that atheists and Christians are in total agreement when such agreement is hostile to atheism.

Further, atheists and Christians are in total disagreement when agreement would be favorable to the atheist personally.

So, this is the essential irrational nature of atheism. It is a blind belief in an unsupportable and unproven claim and an absolute conviction that this claim is unprovable.

my point is made – atheism is irrational.

*Originally posted by synaesthesia
I believe that it is a virtue to be tolerant of the fact that they are simply looking for a way to understand the universe. We are all groping along together and if we are not looking in the same place there's no call to set up an "us vs. them" mentality that plagues some dogmas.
*
I can shorten that slightly to "If no one has a clue, then we are all clueless."

The problem with that particular world-view is that not everyone is clueless.

*Anyone capable of belief can believe that they know the truth- this irrespective of how correct they are. I'm sure many aspects of my understanding of epistemology are mistaken but I am still capable of believing that I know how to play hockey. (As a matter of fact, I can't play hockey.) *
So, how exactly would you express that capability?
I'm guessing somewhere near the beginning of the exercise, you would need to delude yourself into thinking you could.

*You could personally name many theists who have misunderstandings about what truth is but they clearly have no problem with conviction. Why shouldn't this be the case for atheists? *
In order to have convictions, one has to be convinced of something.
Atheists claim they are not convinced of anything, although under pressure they claim they are convinced there is no God.
This two-facedness, by definition, makes conviction impossible.
It is somewhat like saying you are absolutely convinced that you aren't convinced.

*You are speaking as if we actually believe in God.*
Knowledge of coins, for example, implies that a belief in heads includes a belief in its opposite, i.e. tails.
Thus, in flipping a coin, heads implies not tails.

Similarly, knowledge of the universe implies that a belief in God includes a belief in the opposite, i.e. "no God."
So, in "flipping the universe," God implies not "no God."

Atheists appear to reject this, for some strange reason.
Where good is concerned, it is necessary to have evil, otherwise the concept of good is meaningless.
Somehow, atheists light upon the concept of "no God" and think that it can be meaningful without its opposite, namely, God.

So, you either believe in God, or you are incapable of rational thought, believing in that which is meaningless prima facie.

* This shouldn't be news to you: Atheists, by definition, by the usage of the word and their own words regarding their internal state do not believe in any deity.*
It isn't news that atheists somehow manage to have a unipolar definition for something intrinsically bipolar.
In a lot of ways, an atheist is like an "asane" person who denies the existence of sanity.

On one hand, the concept is ludicrous.
On the other, if the person argues for the absence of their own sanity, why argue?
It is fun to watch the mental contortions atheists put themselves through denying the inverse of what they deny.
 
Dan,

For someone to have the belief that all religions are made up and their claims are invalid does mean that they have an active belief that there is no God--not just the passive disbelief that you claim.
You have made the claim that there is a god so the onus is on you to prove your claim. I feel under no obligation to provide a counter claim, i.e. a proof that there is no god. If I totally disbelieve your attempts to support your claim and/or find them unconvincing then that is a measure of the inadequacies of your arguments and not an indication of a counter belief on my part.

If something so utterly important as the creator of the universe and all that that implies actually exists then the implications for the human race are staggering. So if you are going to convince me then your arguments must provide absolute and undeniable proof. Hearsay from 2000 years ago together with questionable textual translations, combined with evidence of dubious political and authoritarian rulers of the time, do not come anywhere close to a believable story.

Cris
 
Point-by-point, and then some

After reading many agruments against Christianity on this forum, I noticed that most arguments have the underlying assumption that Christianity is false, or at least has no more right to humanity than any other religion.
That's fairly broad. But it's by and large true. Whether the falsehood of Christianity lies in its doctrinal conflicts, or in its living embodiment, I see no little evidence of its benefit in the world. To the doctrinal, it's a matter of faith, and we can only hope that someday Christians will figure out that to simply avoid the question is not necessarily to answer the question. This is most manifest in the idea that one should accept--that is, have faith in the veracity of--the Bible before reading it. Secondly is the lack of unity: if there is one way to God, why do doctrinal disputes result in such diverse Christian society? (We know that Tony1 has already tried elsewhere to blame it on the Devil and the non-Christians, but such an excuse for an answer is insufficient.) It's the essential definition of the scenario I occasionally dread up:

* You are at a festival--say, JesusFair--and as you walk along with your family, you see another group rejoicing in the Spirt. One of them offers a hearty, "Praise Jesus" ... now, does the Jesus they praise reflect the one you do? Rhetorical niceties such as love thy neighbor aside, how do you know that Joe Familyguy over there isn't one of those people who thinks Jesus is leading the path to white supremacy? How do you know he isn't someone who "endorses" gay behavior? Or lets his kids read L'Engle novels? There are people in Christendom for whom not ostracizing gays, or for whom allowing children to read lesbian-communist-witch novels like A Wrinkle in Time is unchristian indeed. It's well and fine to take the Tony1 approach and say that there are so many non-Christians who claim the Bible, but doesn't that detract from the effect the Bible is supposed to have?
In this line of thinking, religions that say that there are many ways to God, are hailed as better, primarily because they do not believe they are right themselves.
This comes from the metaphysical realization that there are more possibilities in the Universe than one can account for. It is not that they disbelieve themselves in the form of left is right and right is left, but that for all the certainty they feel in their hearts, they know that nothing is known, and that all relevant observation could change in less than a heartbeat. The insistence on correctness that Christians have derived from the Bible is odd: whereas other cultures give credit to the unknown, Christianity demands that the unknown be wholly assumed; the literalism of it all I would attribute to undereducation.
So, naturally, such a religion that didn't really believe in itself would be taken kindly by those who don't believe in that religion anyway.
I think you're hopping a step here. Those who aren't offended by such a religion respect the idea that the religion leaves much to mystery, and that its adherents are not compelled to make as many irresponsible assumptions about human nature as the more haughty religions. Many of these religions are harmonious participants in the quest for knowledge; they merely have a different way of looking at things; this is acceptable to most people so long as nobody is forcing untenable theology as Universal fact.
These ideas lead to the notion that Christianity shouldn't believe in itself either.
It would be best said that Christianity takes itself too seriously. It takes itself so seriously, in fact, that it creates conditions counteractive to its positive message by its mere existence. It is this notion of taking itself so seriously that makes it a divisive force among humans.

On the other hand, I know of some who would assert that Christianity does not take itself seriously enough. So goes the argument, if Christians did give fair respect to their faith, they would not be leading the triune circus that they are.
This would be like trying to force an atheist to believe in God, because then all the people who do believe in God would think better of him.
Not quite. But we take your meaning. ;) In the meantime, are these really the same:

* Asking someone to believe an impossible assertion on faith because they owe it to themselves.

* Asking someone to reconsider the impossibilities of assumed faith because they owe it to themselves.

Asking someone to sacrifice their intellect is not the same as asking someone to use their intellect. Nobody asserts that a Christian reconsidering the impossibilities of assumed faith will abandon their faith in the Bible, but they might understand a little more about what they believe, and attain a better capacity for expressing it, so that attempts to sew the seeds of faith don't look so much like a cocaine-fed rendition of the Marx Brothers.
The argument might go like this (agnostic vs. atheist): how can an atheist be so intolerant towards all the people who believe in God?
The translation from the God to the People? Look, do Christians have an obligation to spread the Word? Great, now keep it away from my children; they don't need someone threatening their souls with fiction. How is that intolerant? Yet it never ceases to amaze me how often Christians assume the need to preach. Refusing to accept God on a whim is not intolerance. Refusing to force a Jewish child to say Christian prayers is not intolerant. Refusing to disenfranchise and disempower up to 10% of the population on a religious folly is not intolerant. On what level is one intolerant for not accepting the Word? To the other, the Word, in my experience, breeds intolerance, so excuse me if I roll my eyes :rolleyes:
There are many more people who believe in God than atheists.
Something about undereducation? Superstition arose before knowledge; it was a Fire Spirit before it was rubbing two sticks together for warmth. Religious superstitions often served well in lieu of rational discovery; the twentieth century was a marvelous romp, but the world is not structured yet so that people can fully awaken. Literacy, technology, and opportunity internationally will allow that awakening, and the people will shrug off the religious tatters that whisper to kill, dominate, triumph.
And there are many devout believers in God who believe as strongly in God as an atheist believes that there is no God.
What these devout theists believe is not objectively established. In the case of Christianity, there is the little matter of the Judgement affecting their judgement.
Many atheist claims came from people who believe in God.
Yes, and it's a problem of the a priori. When assuming God exists, one seeks a way to reconcile the paradox within that framework; it's why Catholic theology looks so funny, despite all the effort. When one looks at the established process from a different perspective, though, one sees the shallowness of the argument on behalf of God when it actually serves to demonstrate the paucity of the God attributed. As Jeffrey Burton Russell showed in Lucifer: the Devil in the Middle Ages, the sum effect of all of Christian theology renders the Devil impossible, or a rhetorical nicety at best. Voila, a theologian handing an atheist a concept for consideration, that one half of the Christian balance of good and evil is empty. The only thing amazing about how that works is that the theists rarely see their own points in such a context, and will dismantle even greater portions of their own theology to make it fit.
They should be more agnostic so that they can encompass everyone's belief in God or no God (and make us agnostics really happy because then there is one more of us).
And Christians should believe in compassion and love and all that wonderful stuff Jesus talked about. Why is it that the bulk of Christian rhetoric surrounds, "No man comes to the father but through me," or, "The fool hath said in his heart there is no god," and so forth? Why is it that the bulk of what we see here at Sciforums is about dominion, and how God is no respecter of persons? Strangely, if you talk to pagans and atheists who have left their own Christian history to the past, the dichotomy between compassion and dominion is largely the alienating force. But they owe Christianity better understanding, right?
My point is, in the same way an atheist believes not because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth--Christians don't believe because of other people's beliefs, or whatever other people say--but because he believes he knows the truth.
I simply must oppose this point: the atheist believes and disbelieves based on what can be observed. Knowledge is an historical catalog, and also an empirical breeding ground. A Christian believes because he believes he must. The belief of knowing the truth is a haughty assumption designed to reinforce the sense of necessity in faith.

If an agnostic, on the other hand, is caught merely between Judeo-Christianity and atheism, well, there we see the problem. One can study an entire lifetime, even in opposition to Christianity, and never leave the arena. Crowley and Mathers and Regardie ... all of those magicks have connections to Judeo-Christian history. My own chosen paganism is tied in, too--much of what we must figure out is what is real and what is assigned us by the Christians who would have destroyed us. I always wonder about Hallowe'en witches: do black people dress up once a year and sing Jolson tunes?

A conscience question: One must choose based on priorities--this much we know. But when faced with a ballot decision, we might examine those priorities. In 1992, Christians in Oregon failed to muster enough votes to win a Biblical principle. Based largely on Old Testament scripture, the OCA submitted a ballot measure that would have disempowered homosexuals. Christians were faced with a number of conflicting principles:

* To vote for the measure would reaffirm God's hatred of buggery.
* To vote for the measure would encourage the ostracism and disenfranchisement of 10% of the population.
* This would result in economic disempoerment and therefore hard times.
* A Christian could then help alleviate those hard times with charity.
* Or, a Christian could avoid invoking those hard times against another and trust in God to have His reasons for making homosexuals. What to do about it should become clear through prayer and honest reflection on one's motives. For instance, if one is to vote for the measure because homosexuals are responsible for 95% of child molestations, one should at least bother to make sure the stat is true. (The last time anyone checked, men were molesting little girls more than boys; this functionally rules out homosexual molestation.)

What, now, if that principle is, say, presidential promises?

* To vote for this candidate would be to affirm a promise of a tax rebate
* A tax rebate helps the voter and their family
* But that tax rebate is going to hurt education and poverty relief
* Poverty and undereducation foster crime
* Am I making society more dangerous for a few bucks back in my wallet?

The interaction between one's faith and one's moral decisions seems intrinsic. The real test is whether or not the advertised transcension is taking place. In my life, it looks like an extortion racket, and that's why I choose away from Christianity. The Universe is filled with possibility, and the quickest way I know of to cut myself off from all of that potential is to choose a faith which outlaws challenging ideas. I personally advise agnostics to do away with Judeo-Christianity for a while. Spend time with other philosophies, and don't hold them up against the Christian mirror exclusively. After a while, the religions of Abraham take on the apperance of holding out from the rest of society. This is well and fine, until we go back to the test of whether or not--as, say, in the case of Christianity--the advertised result is apparent.

If, in the end, the old faith still holds firm, then sure, maybe it's the right one for a person. But one must be capable of looking at the rest of the world without the Christian presupposition that these philosophies are wrong.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
bzzzzzzzzt! wrong answer.

I simply must oppose this point: the atheist believes and disbelieves based on what can be observed. Knowledge is an historical catalog, and also an empirical breeding ground. A Christian believes because he believes he must. The belief of knowing the truth is a haughty assumption designed to reinforce the sense of necessity in faith
Are you familiar with the volumes of books written to show through logical argument and historical fact that Christianity is true? The area concerned is called <a href="http://www.crosssearch.com/Science_and_Social_Science/Theology_and_Issues/Apologetics/">apologetics</a>--an entire area of study in Christian theology. No other religion has this vast amount of material devted to intellectual and logical belief.
Asking someone to sacrifice their intellect is not the same as asking someone to use their intellect.
Your dogmatic anti-Christian viewpoint is obvious here. How about posing a real argument instead of simply asserting that you have to sacrifice your intellect to believe in Christianity? I'm sure it couldn't be too hard for you, tiassa. Or do you simply want to spout dogmatic assertions like a pagan version of tony1?
 
It's a place to start

The area concerned is called apologetics--an entire area of study in Christian theology.
I am aware that since the beginning, Christian apologists have relied on slandering their neighbors. To the Romans they said, Our merit is that we're not the Jews. :rolleyes: As for the historical veracity of Christianity, well, it's history and determining the veracity of history is part of the process of learning history. As far as the logical arguments are concerned--and I warn you, if you mention these too much, Tony1 will think you're too Catholic to pay attention to--they all start from the same a priori assumptions; namely, that God exists, and that God exists as described in the collection of writings called the Bible. These two are are never justified except by the derivative arguments that come from them, and that rely on them; rather tenuous. As to the volume--true, for no other religion has been so dedicated to failing to prove its veracity while burning libraries.
Your dogmatic anti-Christian viewpoint is obvious here.
The sacrifice of the intellect comes from Christian philosophers--you know, the logical ones, like Ignatius Loyola?--and is borrowed and exploited by Weber, Jung, myself, and others. It's a Christian term, so can your self-righteous anger, Dan. Just because you signed on for a faith that asks you for your intellect as a donation, don't take it out on me. Look up the phrase in Google; Loyola wrote that the sacrifice of the intellect is pleasing to God.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
The sacrifice of the intellect comes from Christian philosophers--you know, the logical ones, like Ignatius Loyola?--and is borrowed and exploited by Weber, Jung, myself, and others.
I don't care one bit about what any "Christian philosopher" thinks if it contradicts the Bible. I gave quite a few quotes in another thread that shows that the Bible does in fact want people to think and question.

To everything else. You're spewing dogma that assumes that the Bible is false, and then using your own assertions to "prove" that it is. This is a circular argument that I rejected a long time ago.

You'll have to do better than that, tiassa.
 
Aww, Dan

So let me get this straight: the logical work done by Christian philosophers is invalid if you disagree with its interpretations?
1 Now I Paul myself beseech you, by the mildness and modesty of Christ, who in presence indeed am lowly among you, but being absent, am bold toward you.
2 But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present, with that confidence wherewith I am thought to be bold, against some, who reckon us as if we walked according to the flesh.

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels,

5 And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ;

6 And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled.
(2 Corinthians 10.1-6)
Now, just to make the connection for you, from the Catholics (for most of the philosophers in question either were among them, or required the background of that much Catholic work):
(e) But just as the intellect needed a new and special light in order to assent to the supernatural truths of faith, so also the will needs a special grace from God in order that it may tend to that supernatural good which is eternal life. The light of faith, then, illumines the understanding, though the truth still remains obscure, since it is beyond the intellect's grasp; but supernatural grace moves the will, which, having now a supernatural good put before it, moves the intellect to assent to what it does not understand. Hence it is that faith is described as "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (II Cor., x, 5).
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, Faith.

So it seems the sacrifice of the intellect has some Biblical support, however thin you wish to call it; but I'm more intrigued about how you did not write about those you disagree with when you wrote about the logic and the apologetics, and all of that.

The light of faith compels people to believe what they cannot determine is valid. It compels people to accept as valid what cannot be demonstrated. This is forfeiture of the intellectual process, Dan, and it starts with the Bible, so I don't know what you're complaining about.
I gave quite a few quotes in another thread that shows that the Bible does in fact want people to think and question.
You know, it's kind of like Caleb's quest to prove Creationism without showing the creator. Why don't you tell us where the Bible answers the question of how to be sure of God--one cannot call it faith if one is assured, and therein lies the problem of asking the ultimate questions about the existence of God; if it isn't on faith, it isn't anything. Question everything, says God, except Me. :rolleyes:
To everything else. You're spewing dogma that assumes that the Bible is false, and then using your own assertions to "prove" that it is.
Aren't you using your own assertions to "prove" your declarations about logic and apologetics? What is your rejection of this or that philosopher based on, if not upon your assertions of what the Bible means?

Is that better, Dan? Oh, of course not ... I'm not believing in God just because I'm supposed to ... :rolleyes:

It's well and fine that one wants the Bible to be factual, Dan, but why is it that a million Christians with different ideas won't ever reconcile those ideas, and thus end up making Biblical judgements based on personal affinity? You've fallen into the trap of disqualifying anyone who disagrees with you. It's an easy way to create the illusion of having won a debate: there is no legitimate opposition to your opinion, is there? Of course, had you been employing the full power of your intellect, and not enacting at least a partial surrender of the intellect to faith, you might have realized that you were approaching the subject in the same manner as any other sacrificed intellect: You have attempted to make your opinion fact. :rolleyes:

So, Dan ... as one of the seemingly more reasonable advocates of Christian faith, what is it about your lot that y'all can only focus on things like my advocation that people do better than irresponsible spouting of contradictory crap that only complicates the debate unnecessarily and discredits your position? Really, I'm sure I can give you much better ammunition to turn one of my phrases on me, but, like Tony1, you've jumped the gun and used it as soon as possible before realizing that you're limiting the entire issue by sacrificing the objective possibilities of the philosophies in question to your own narrow interpretation of the Bible and what it means.

Keep on mumbling, Dan ... we do, in fact, hear you.

--Tiassa :cool:
 
dim bulb

So let me get this straight: the logical work done by Christian philosophers is invalid if you disagree with its interpretations?
wrong. I said if they disagreed with the Bible, then I don't give a flip what someone who calls himself an expert in Christianity has to say because then they are trying to push their own agenda.

The Bible quote (in a modern translation:)
2 Cor. 10:5
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
So what? Doesn't every good debater want to destroy arguments against him during the debate? Wouldn't anyone want to make sure that a bunch of lies were propagated about them or their beliefs?
one cannot call it faith if one is assured, and therein lies the problem of asking the ultimate questions about the existence of God; if it isn't on faith, it isn't anything.
How are you absolutely sure that you are talking to me? You haven't seen me, you don't know anything about me--not even my real name. What you are looking for is an unreasonable proof because you want to continue the life you live, unhindered by the guilt that would come with the belief in God who would require any change in your behavior. You use circular arguments and straw-man reasoning to hide the fact that you just don't <i>want</i> to believe. People believing slightly different variations of a story as proof that the story never happened? You have got to be kidding me--just try arguing that in a murder case. Saying that you must in the end weigh some difficult evidence and come to a conclusion whether God is there or not is not blind faith--"sacrificing the intellect". Never does God make people believe in Him blindly in the Bible. Faith comes from definite real presence that people choose not to deny. God parted the Red Sea for His chosen people, and kept supernatural protections for them when they were in the desert--He did not just send some messenger to tell them to believe without any evidence. Jesus did miracles--he didn't say that He's just going to sit and wait for people to blindly believe in Him. When Thomas asked for evidence, he got it, down to the last detail. Are we even debating about the same book?
but I'm more intrigued about how you did not write about those you disagree with when you wrote about the logic and the apologetics, and all of that
If you think that, then you missed the point entirely. My point was that studying Christianity through logic, evidence, and history is encouraged within Christianity. This doesn't mean that everyone would get it right. It means that Christianity is unafraid of the questions posed against it.
you might have realized that you were approaching the subject in the same manner as any other sacrificed intellect: You have attempted to make your opinion fact
If I was "sacrificing my intellect" and the evidence is that I "make my opinion fact", then I would suggest you take a good, long, look in the mirror. Maybe then you could come back and realize that Christianity having no redeeming value, or God not existing, or that in order for someone to "use their intellect" must mean that the agree with you, are just opinions--not fact.
 
Opinions

So is Bill Gates actually God? Never mind ... it's just one of those mysterious ways ....

But, to the issue at hand:
I said if they disagreed with the Bible, then I don't give a flip what someone who calls himself an expert in Christianity has to say because then they are trying to push their own agenda.
If it disagrees with the Bible: does that mean there is a specifically correct way to view the Bible? Or is it just that you feel that the philosopher disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible?
Doesn't every good debater want to destroy arguments against him during the debate?
At what cost? A good debater wants to construct a rational argument supporting an assertion, which can withstand an opposing viewpoint and refute the claims of that opposition. A good debater doesn't want to destroy the rules of the debate just to win. Why discredit one's God in order to honor Him?
Wouldn't anyone want to make sure that a bunch of lies were propagated about them or their beliefs?
Lies? Sure. But that's the thing about lies and free-thinking: the modern day has people decrying the opposition as lying simply because the opposition opposes. If something another says seems false, perhaps it is because the circumstances leading that person to their words seems true to them. Therefore, your lie is his truth. This is, at least, a part of where I get my oft-repeated slam about Christian empathy. The inability to recognize that another's perspective might have some merit speaks volumes on empathy.
How are you absolutely sure that you are talking to me? You haven't seen me, you don't know anything about me--not even my real name
As any metaphysician would tell you, even if I was standing face to face with you, I could not be absolutely sure that I was talking to you. But, such niceties aside, might I suggest that if there is some discrepancy between my perception of you and the real you that you start showing those other parts more. All we have to go on is what we see of each other here at Sciforums. You know, it's entirely possible that Tony1 and I would get along face-to-face without any tension, but the track record he's shown at Sciforums indicates that he's a disrespectful brat. If he wants to be regarded differently, he will adjust his behavior in order to give us a different data set to perceive. Until then, however, his unceasing torrent of anemic zingers pretty much sums up what we know of him, and that's hardly a pretty picture.
What you are looking for is an unreasonable proof because you want to continue the life you live, unhindered by the guilt that would come with the belief in God who would require any change in your behavior.
It's a nice assertion, but that's all it is. I don't think it's unreasonable proof to ask that an idea that demands changes in my fundamental self justify itself. :rolleyes:
You use circular arguments and straw-man reasoning to hide the fact that you just don't want to believe.
Circular arguments ... this from a man advocating faith in God? :rolleyes: The only straw here has come away in your desperate grasp. You well may be the first person here to qualify my rejection of Christianity as hidden. What, are we using the same dictionary? :rolleyes:
People believing slightly different variations of a story as proof that the story never happened? You have got to be kidding me--just try arguing that in a murder case.
Yes, let's try.

* Witness 1 says the killer had blue eyes
* Witness 2 says the killer had green eyes
* Witness 3 says the killer had brown eyes
* Witness 1 says the killer was tall
* Witness 2 says the killer was short
* Witness 3 says the killer was fat
* Witness 1 says the killer had red or dark blond hair
* Witness 2 says the killer had bleach-blond hair
* Witness 3 says the killer had straight hair
* Witness 1 says the killer was white
* Witness 2 says the killer was a woman
* Witness 3 says the killer was black

And still, all we know is that someone is dead.
Saying that you must in the end weigh some difficult evidence and come to a conclusion whether God is there or not is not blind faith--"sacrificing the intellect".
I'll call BS if you say Christians weigh all evidence the same. That one is compelled by their faith to believe something not demonstrable is not a matter of intellect. It is a matter of superstition and fear.
Never does God make people believe in Him blindly in the Bible.
So you can disbelieve God and get off free of punishment? That's news. :rolleyes:
Faith comes from definite real presence that people choose not to deny.
You're on: quantify that real presence; what is it and where does it come from, and how does it work, and how should we measure it? Otherwise, you're left with Faith coming from the perception of a presence. Is the empirical suddenly flawless?
God parted the Red Sea for His chosen people, and kept supernatural protections for them when they were in the desert--He did not just send some messenger to tell them to believe without any evidence.
As I recall, the Red Sea bit was kind of necessary; it was a close run, for the pursuing Egyptians were taken by the collapsing waves. It would seem that if God had made his Chosen Ones wait for better evidence, they may have been slaughtered. Of course, I noticed that the Jews waited until after the water parted to make a break for it.
Jesus did miracles--he didn't say that He's just going to sit and wait for people to blindly believe in Him.
It's largely a matter of faith; there are religious people I've known who offered reasonable explanations of certain miracles, and left the rest to faith. But the point is that you're citing a faith point and trying to make it factual.
When Thomas asked for evidence, he got it, down to the last detail.
Are you referring to the Johanine resurrection? If not, please make your citation. Now, here's the deal: I can walk six blocks from the building I'm in right now and meet a half-dozen people claiming to be Jesus, and, yes, one of them will offer to let me stick my fingers in his wounds. Jesus is in Seattle right now, in case any of the faithful wanted to actually meet him; he'll be here until the weather turns, and then he'll mission on down to Lower California. The only problem seems to be the superstition of faith. In fact, I'm currently looking for the news citaton (since my co-worker can't remember to send it to me), but apparently a woman jumped out of a vehicle on the freeway and died in the resulting pileup after she saw twelve people ascending to heaven and Jesus standing on the side of the road. Turns out it was a guy in a toga on the way to a costume party and his twelve "disciples"--sex dolls inflated with helium. (Note: the story doesn't appear yet at UrbanLegends, apparently, but my coworker hasn't sent me the Reuters link. Either way, it's hilarious.)
My point was that studying Christianity through logic, evidence, and history is encouraged within Christianity
And all that nice theological work revolves around two undemonstrable assumptions: A) that God exists, and B) that He exists as described in the Bible. Event he ones who agree with you are working a priori, and with no hope of validating those base assumptions.
It means that Christianity is unafraid of the questions posed against it.
Except for the one at the heart of the matter: Does God exist? It's all a faith game from there on out.
If I was "sacrificing my intellect" and the evidence is that I "make my opinion fact", then I would suggest you take a good, long, look in the mirror.
Again, Dan, are you suggesting that there is a correct way to view the Bible? Are you suggesting that you know exactly what it is? I would suggest, then, sir, that the result of your attitude toward others would be a little different if you had the full benefit of God's enlightenment. Quit whining: it's your opinion, end of story.
Maybe then you could come back and realize that Christianity having no redeeming value, or God not existing, or that in order for someone to "use their intellect" must mean that the agree with you, are just opinions--not fact.
Certainly it's my opinion that Christians forfeit their intellect; one is, after all, accepting that something is true without ever having a hope of validating the assertion. It's taken on faith: predetermined by someone else. This is not using your intellect. This is just being lazy. But at least those who are looking at the issues critically are doing so. It seems to me that the last time a large majority of the population accepted Jesus without cause, lots of people died irresponsibly. And that's just the point: my opinion of Christianity is built of observations of history and my own empirical experience. Nobody who agrees with me is obliged to do so; one cannot say this about Christianity. One cannot reject God without punishment, can they? Or is eternal salvation a "reward" beyond the natural state? Something to be pursued and recognized as a motivating goal?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You're on: quantify that real presence; what is it and where does it come from, and how does it work, and how should we measure it?
You should realize that it is a lot harder to prove that something as organized and complex as the universe takes an intellect to design--one that is greater than every aspect of whatever exists including us. To be able to debate like this, we must agree on standards of right and wrong at some underlying level--otherwise what we say is meaningless. For one to be "right" and another to be "wrong" implies there is something that has a right to us and the universe who chose all these underlying rights and wrongs--and that this thing must have valid ownership over the universe, and whatever is considered wrong is something that "trespasses" into it after the fact, if you will. Then if you have a real person out there who created us, He probably would want to reveal Himself in some way, and correct the wrongs--but if it is a document, then it must go back to the beginning traditions of humanity and must have an unnaturally accurate description of how all of this was created--all of which, the Bible includes.
You well may be the first person here to qualify my rejection of Christianity as hidden. What, are we using the same dictionary?
My assertion was that you hide the fact that your disbelief is just an arbitrary choice that you made by trying to back it up with some ungrounded arguments.
Again, Dan, are you suggesting that there is a correct way to view the Bible? Are you suggesting that you know exactly what it is?
The Bible isn't some mystical, unfathomable document that you have to work really hard in order to understand what it says. It makes its claims plainly. People who read radically different messages when they read the Bible have their own agenda (or have just read a couple sentences from the middle out of context)
 
dan

How are you absolutely sure that you are talking to me? You haven't seen me, you don't know anything about me--not even my real name. What you are looking for is an unreasonable proof because you want to continue the life you live, unhindered by the guilt that would come with the belief in God

your ip is logged don't you know it?!?

thy shall not carry my name in vain


The Bible isn't some mystical, unfathomable document that you have to work really hard in order to understand what it says. It makes its claims plainly. People who read radically different messages when they read the Bible have their own agenda (or have just read a couple sentences from the middle out of context)

hmm and you say this while reading the bible translated as what the translator/s thought was a right translation?
 
The continuing saga

Dan--

Some three attempts later...
You should realize that it is a lot harder to prove that something as organized and complex as the universe takes an intellect to design--one that is greater than every aspect of whatever exists including us.
Indeed. That's part of the point. You have, however, claimed that Faith comes from definite real presence that people choose not to deny. I'm simply making a point of the words definite real presence. Faith may come from the perception of a real presence, but this is deliberately taught at worst, and rooted in instinctive fear at its most natural. To claim a real presence, one must establish that presence. To quantify it, one must first start with the nature of thought and perception, and then establish what is so unique about this process compared to other processes of the brain. Once the event is established as unique, we must consider in what way it is unique, and whether or not other mundane brain functions meet this standard of unique and thereby render the whole mess mundane. There is talk of a God-spot in the brain, where religious experiences seem to be centered; there is also a vision spot where sight seems to be centered, a sound spot where hearing seems to be centered .... Definite real presence--it doesn't matter how hard it is to prove something if one cannot prove it. It's a possibility, and until it is proven, we operate based on the proportion of valid evidence available to address all applicable possibilities.

We don't necessarily need Tony1's input to remind us that drugs can create false sensations in the brain; nor do we need Sir Loone to remind us that one needs not use drugs to operate amid a torrent of false sensation. Point being: perception is still empirical, and the empirical is limited to the person experiencing it. I can tell you the reality of any number of my mystical adventures, but that reality is sheerly mine, and does not necessarily relate alongside the recap of events. It's like the ghost that picked my pocket; most likely, my friends and I merely scared the hell out of ourselves, and I dropped my keys in the tall grass scrambling back to the car.
To be able to debate like this, we must agree on standards of right and wrong at some underlying level--otherwise what we say is meaningless. For one to be "right" and another to be "wrong" implies there is something that has a right to us and the universe who chose all these underlying rights and wrongs--and that this thing must have valid ownership over the universe, and whatever is considered wrong is something that "trespasses" into it after the fact, if you will.
I assert that moral right and wrong are luxuries of economy. When we wandered the plains, hunting and gathering, we did not have the time of marriage; this does not automatically render human reproduction immoral--considerations of marriage and morality require both marriage and an enforced moral presupposition. Furthermore, if we apply God's creation of the world, we would see a need for marital morality much earlier than we did; after all, rumors of Lilith aside, the question still remains as to how Adam spread his seed. Even if we say that God created a starting population, we still see the need for monogamy heightened by the diminutive gene-pool. Or perhaps that's the thing: too many of Adam's sons bred with too many of his daughters, and wrecked the gene pool. Even then, however, we can't blame morality; we must instead look to the, uh, Designer, who failed to account for the necessity of diversity.
Then if you have a real person out there who created us, He probably would want to reveal Himself in some way, and correct the wrongs--but if it is a document, then it must go back to the beginning traditions of humanity and must have an unnaturally accurate description of how all of this was created--all of which, the Bible includes.
That argument might stand if the Bible were a contiguous creation, a whole unit, as opposed to assembled bits and pieces from here and there. Enuma Elish predates Genesis; the only original idea in Genesis seems to be creation ex nihilo, which was justified at Nicaea by the employment of a standard that would later be deemed heretical--we should notice, though, that nobody has exscinded the effects of that heresy. But it's true that Athanasius, who solidified ex nihilo denied that Jesus was fully human, a heresy that would become known as Docetism. The cornerstone of ex nihilo, then, is either false or an affront to the theology of Christ. And then there are the borrowed stories, such as Noah's ark; and any number of Messiah ideas from the Orient, which may have reached the Hebrews via Egypt. The tale of Inanna and Ereshkigal recounts how Ereshkigal stripped her sister of glory and hung her from a stake for 3 days, whereupon she died and eventually returned to her heavenly abode ... as an anthology, the Bible does have a lot of the traditions in it, but as evidence of God it's merely a political document.
My assertion was that you hide the fact that your disbelief is just an arbitrary choice that you made by trying to back it up with some ungrounded arguments.
And that's where you miss completely. My choice to disbelieve the Bible is based on the fact that its efficacy is false, and that it inspires its adherents to create a less godly world around them. It really does seem that Christians work toward creating as much sin as they can possibly rebuke in their pride, and then some. There are also the questions of its legitimacy: borrowed stories bother me almost none, until one claims the book genuine and original; the politics of the canon bother me much more.
The Bible isn't some mystical, unfathomable document that you have to work really hard in order to understand what it says. It makes its claims plainly. People who read radically different messages when they read the Bible have their own agenda (or have just read a couple sentences from the middle out of context)
That's a poor excuse. As we see at Sciforums, there are contradictions in the Bible; reconciling those must be as easy as choosing the one that is easiest for the individual to accept. It seems to me that if there is a Way which leads to God, it can have as many inroads as possible, but if it's a single path, a million people can't follow the path if they choose a million different routes. If there is but one way to the Father, then it would stand to reason that there is one meaning to the guidebook.

To claim that people have an "agenda" is further evidence of the distrust fostered by Biblical faith; something about loving thy neighbor? Rather, I would assert that since we are all different people with different experiences, the words of the Bible mean something different to each person. This, however, serves people little when we consider that there is one path to the father and a myriad of paths chosen by the adherents that range to extremities that are polar to each other.

Now, to the issue at hand with this particular response of mine to yours to mine: You wrote If I was "sacrificing my intellect" and the evidence is that I "make my opinion fact", then I would suggest you take a good, long, look in the mirror.

Now, given the number of interpretations, if your interpretation is factually true, then it is logical to conclude that all the other interpretations are wrong; there is, after all, but one way to the father. Hence, if you argue that the Bible as you read it is factual, then you are arguing that your interpretaiton is factually correct, and hence asserting your opinion (of what the Bible says--e.g. your interpretation of the Bible) as fact.

Perhaps, also, as one who defends the faith of Christ, you really ought to do away with the idea that one must compare themselves to those who they find inferior for lack of faith. After all, if you're equal to the savages, what have you gained except the promise of salvation for your savagery? And we know this isn't the point, to behave as poorly as the savages.

As to my opinion and fact, I'll put it as shortly as possible for all of our sakes: If I look through the historical record and find, say, a consistent correllation between education and economic empowerment, and between economic empowerment and crimes against property and people, then why would I believe it when someone or another tells me it is beneficial to my community to reduce the effort to educate? Certainly it is my opinion that reduced education is bad, but I do, at least, have the consistency of history to fuel it, as opposed to a book telling me I have to believe it. Furthermore, to avoid a Tony1-sounding repetition of our disagreements, I do feel that redemptive religions bribe at best, extort at worst. Christian compliance gives the appearance of chasing a reward or escaping punishment, and to be honest, I wonder why two millennia of "progress" haven't done away with such a silly superstition. Perhaps because it's politically effective? (But that's just my opinion, so don't sweat it.)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
how do you have time to write so much?

Point being: perception is still empirical, and the empirical is limited to the person experiencing it.
Maybe a <a href="http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v159n19/abs/ioi90043.html">study</a> would show empirical evidence that God does work through prayer. Such a study would have to be large (close to a thousand people maybe?), double blind, and give so little information that the only way for the right person to be healed would be for some supernatural knowledge. And it would be a plus if it were done by a unbiased organization like the American Medical Association.
That argument might stand if the Bible were a contiguous creation, a whole unit, as opposed to assembled bits and pieces from here and there. Enuma Elish predates Genesis;
If the events really happened, there would be no question that other accounts would be in circulation. And the Bible is contiguous in its moral and ethical consistency, and its foreshadowing from the beginning to the end.
...that it inspires its adherents to create a less godly world around them.
By your definition of godly or the Bible's definition of godly? If someone doesn't go by your definition, but is consistent within his own beliefs, there isn't really any way you can judge him to be less godly. Without some higher form of morality, how could you judge a Nazi who commits suicide when he finds out that he is a Jew? If, however, he is inconsistent within his own beliefs then he should be called on it. This needs to be a real inconsistency, and not one where he admits that he was wrong to do whatever inconsistency, because to admit such a thing would restore consistency.
To claim that people have an "agenda" is further evidence of the distrust fostered by Biblical faith
I have read feminist critiques of the Bible that go so far as to say that the Bible extols David <i>because</i> of his affair with Bathsheba (and hence accuse the Bible of supporting male domination) and not in spite of it--totally ignoring what the Bible states later that David was called on it and had to repent and fast to restore his relationship with God afterwards. If this isn't a purposeful misrepresentation based on an agenda, then what is?
 
Institute of Noetic Sciences

Dan--

IoNS can corroborate the AMA study: http://www.noetic.org/ions/research/aids.asp

And here we now find a specific issue: What does this imply? Well, it implies a whole lot about unseen forces, but it says nothing about God. End of story.

Unless, of course, we look in terms of the sacrifice of the intellect, or as 2 Corinthians has it: bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ
If the events really happened, there would be no question that other accounts would be in circulation. And the Bible is contiguous in its moral and ethical consistency, and its foreshadowing from the beginning to the end.
But the Bible was not written as a contiguous volume. Heck, with enough source material and a college of bishops, even I could plot out an anthology as compelling as the Bible. :rolleyes:
By your definition of godly or the Bible's definition of godly?
I mean that if as many people walked in the manner of Christ as claim the Bible as their God-given faith, the society would reflect a greater proportion of Christian values. But given the political concerns of Christianity, we're not surprised that it's stuck in the same old rut as the heathens.
I have read feminist critiques of the Bible that go so far as to say that the Bible extols David because of his affair with Bathsheba (and hence accuse the Bible of supporting male domination) and not in spite of it--totally ignoring what the Bible states later that David was called on it and had to repent and fast to restore his relationship with God afterwards. If this isn't a purposeful misrepresentation based on an agenda, then what is?
A) Approach feminist social critiques very, very carefully. B) The Bible is misogynist. C) So what?

What really cheeses me is that, from reading 2 Samuel, David repents to the Lord for what is tantamount to a property offense. A wife is the equivalent of livestock.

:rolleyes: Seems the feminists might have a point, eh? Or is it too tough for anyone to recognize that this is the way that this god likes it? He's got a thing against women from the word Go ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Back
Top