A message to all militant aethiest

Science is not a matter of belief. Belief is faith in something with no proof.

Science has plenty of evidence which makes it different than belief.

People can argue beliefs all day long and neither has precedence over the other in many cases, but science is fact and therefore is not a belief system.

Scientifically minded atheists are not arrogant, they are correct. They are the only camp in this argument that has any evidence whatsoever.

A lot of science is based on theory though, until it's proven as fact.

Doesn't that boil down to having faith in the theory until it's proven?

Originally posted by Valdimer
A lot of science is based on theory though, until it's proven as fact.

Doesn't that boil down to having faith in the theory until it's proven?

no, that's not how it works. theories are facts. cell theory is still just a theory, but it's fact.

things are only theories if they can be proven. if they have no supporting evidence they're simply known as a hypothesis

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by darkheartrising
why all the anger against the true believers?

because their ranks include those like bin laden, pat robertson, various islamic extremist preachers and various christian extremist preachers...
secondly, religion is dangerous... blah blah blah...

Do NOT, equate us with people that you know are nothing like us. Do NOT, group us with terrorists, extremists, murderers, and frauds. Since when are people responsible for the actions of their forefathers of generations past? You know that its bull to pull that kind of move, a trick to make devout believers feel guilty for something they were never a part of.
I'm tired of it, madness, and this is where it ends.


------ pause for dramatic effect ------

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
ok, tangent time.

... even the mild "respectable" faith can be seen as abusive. just think of teaching kids about hell, that's a form of mild psychological abuse.

Show me a respectable source where it says that learning about hell is psychological abuse. You'll be surprised to know this, but hell is barely ever mentioned in the new testament, I think its mentioned twice. Jesus never preached with the threat of fire and brimstone, he always preached with parables of faith and love, and showed compassion to the poor and destitute of his day. Furthermore, Jesus' death meant a release from sin, blood atonement, all who believe in him will be free from judgement (John 3:15-18).
And besides, of all the years that I've been to church, I've never heard a single sermon with the focus on hell. But, I would never expect you to know this since you get your ideas of religion come from Atheist websites and reruns of South Park.

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Do NOT, equate us with people that you know are nothing like us. Do NOT, group us with terrorists, extremists, murderers, and frauds. Since when are people responsible for the actions of their forefathers of generations past? You know that its bull to pull that kind of move, a trick to make devout believers feel guilty for something they were never a part of.
I'm tired of it, madness, and this is where it ends.

the devout are the ones that make it possible for the... dangerous devout... to have their practices and beliefs respected for being a product of soul acts. your ranks do include terrorists, extremists, murderers and frauds. it's time you came ot accept that. i'm not telling you're that you're responsible for the acts of your forefathers (notice how the crusades never came up).

those that are the extremists are just as devout as you, the terrorists can justify their beliefs on sound theology as you can, and the murderers can murder in the name of god without it conflicting with your religious book.

Show me a respectable source where it says that learning about hell is psychological abuse.

i shall... once i get my source returned to me as i have loaned it to a friend to read.

You'll be surprised to know this, but hell is barely ever mentioned in the new testament, I think its mentioned twice.

well, i'll have to look over the gospels. i think it's mentioned a few more times.

Jesus never preached with the threat of fire and brimstone, he always preached with parables of faith and love, and showed compassion to the poor and destitute of his day.

the only way to heaven is through him... that sounds like a threat to me...
and jesus INVENTED the threat of fire and brimstone...

Furthermore, Jesus' death meant a release from sin, blood atonement, all who believe in him will be free from judgement (John 3:15-18).

quite betraying of the pagan origins of his solar messianic tradition

And besides, of all the years that I've been to church, I've never heard a single sermon with the focus on hell. But, I would never expect you to know this since you get your ideas of religion come from Atheist websites and reruns of South Park.

wow, someone's being a presumptive... well, i'll stray from namecalling. but you are being quite presumptive. my knowledge of religion comes primarily from first hand experiences, i've been to a congregation of nearly every christian sect for at least one service, i've even observed muslim, jewish, and buddhist ceremonies.

and again, atheist websites tend to actually have quite the accurate information. the fact that a site is not religious doesn't mean it is innaccurate.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the devout are the ones that make it possible for the... dangerous devout... to have their practices and beliefs respected for being a product of soul acts. your ranks do include terrorists, extremists, murderers and frauds. it's time you came ot accept that. i'm not telling you're that you're responsible for the acts of your forefathers (notice how the crusades never came up).

Ahh yes, the devout ones make it possible for terrorism. Not guns, not bombs, not brainwashing elitists, but that guy across the street that gives grace before eating and attends church every weekend. That bastard...

And no, I won't come to accept what you tell me to accept. Terrorists, murderers, and frauds are in my ranks? Depends on who's doing the ranking. Because I know that neither I nor my church convert people at sword-point or plant IED's on street corners for fun. Surprise surprise. And about the crusades... my parents are from Hong Kong, China. They moved here when they were 14. The first time my family stepped foot in a church was 6 years ago. I was baptized 2 Aprils ago. Now, my memory may be a bit foggy but I don't remember being part of a series of medieval military sieges in Western Europe. Sorry mate.

I'm not buying it though, and on a side-note, what's a "soul act"? Are you just making up religious doctrine now to make fun of?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
those that are the extremists are just as devout as you, the terrorists can justify their beliefs on sound theology as you can, and the murderers can murder in the name of god without it conflicting with your religious book.

Ahh finally, we have common ground. I don't agree with many parts of the Old Testament, mainly the five books of Moses and some of the more militaristic books of the bible. This is not because of my personal opinion, rather its because of evolutionary, historical, archaeological evidence. Some of the stories are still amazingly deep, such as the story of Joshua in Genesis. As for the New Testament, I consider that poetic drama in its finest form. I love the 27 books of the New Testament, deeply.

Now, consider a man who slaughters an entire village in the name of Jesus Christ. If he were judged by the Old Testament, would he be righteous? Perhaps, and that's why I despise it so much. But if he were judged by the standards of the New Testament, he'd be considered far from righteous. Hence, your argument that murderers can murder in the name of God and not conflict with my religious book is sadly flawed.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
wow, someone's being a presumptive... well, i'll stray from namecalling. but you are being quite presumptive. my knowledge of religion comes primarily from first hand experiences, i've been to a congregation of nearly every christian sect for at least one service, i've even observed muslim, jewish, and buddhist ceremonies.

It doesn't matter if you've been to a thousand different churches across the world. If you don't put your heart, mind, and soul into it, nothing will come to you. And before you say that you have, explain why that I have only been to ONE church in my life and am now a Christian, while you've searched dozens and in the end have turned into an Atheist bent on discouraging other people's faith.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and again, atheist websites tend to actually have quite the accurate information. the fact that a site is not religious doesn't mean it is innaccurate.

I've never actually been to a religious website.... I never felt the need to be told what to believe in. Now I realize that Atheist websites have accurate information, in the same way that Fox News has accurate information, but in the end both programs have AGENDAS. Fox News may be serving accurate information, but they spin it, withhold crucial info, and emphasize certain points in order to SERVE THEIR AGENDA. Now what could an Atheist website's agenda possibly be.....

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Ahh yes, the devout ones make it possible for terrorism. Not guns, not bombs, not brainwashing elitists, but that guy across the street that gives grace before eating and attends church every weekend. That bastard...

the respect i need to give to his beliefs that lack reason is PART of the problem. i'm not saying that socioeconomic factors don't play a part, i'm not saying the proliferation of dangerous tools of destruction doesn't contribute, but i'm saying that the respect given to FAITH is part of it...

and honestly, it takes someone who thinks that they're going to have another life after death to blow themselves up.

And no, I won't come to accept what you tell me to accept. Terrorists, murderers, and frauds are in my ranks? Depends on who's doing the ranking. Because I know that neither I nor my church convert people at sword-point or plant IED's on street corners for fun. Surprise surprise. And about the crusades... my parents are from Hong Kong, China. They moved here when they were 14. The first time my family stepped foot in a church was 6 years ago. I was baptized 2 Aprils ago. Now, my memory may be a bit foggy but I don't remember being part of a series of medieval military sieges in Western Europe. Sorry mate.

last time i check i specifically mentioned that i DIDN'T bring up the crusades.
terrorists are among the ranks of those with faith. you're someone with faith. accept it or keep deluding yourself.

I'm not buying it though, and on a side-note, what's a "soul act"? Are you just making up religious doctrine now to make fun of?

*sole. there, better.

Ahh finally, we have common ground. I don't agree with many parts of the Old Testament, mainly the five books of Moses and some of the more militaristic books of the bible. This is not because of my personal opinion, rather its because of evolutionary, historical, archaeological evidence. Some of the stories are still amazingly deep, such as the story of Joshua in Genesis. As for the New Testament, I consider that poetic drama in its finest form. I love the 27 books of the New Testament, deeply.

and yet the taliban could use the new testament to justify their acts of repression towards women if they were christians instead of muslims.
look closer at those 27 books before you love them. it contains some very misogynistic filth.

Now, consider a man who slaughters an entire village in the name of Jesus Christ. If he were judged by the Old Testament, would he be righteous? Perhaps, and that's why I despise it so much. But if he were judged by the standards of the New Testament, he'd be considered far from righteous. Hence, your argument that murderers can murder in the name of God and not conflict with my religious book is sadly flawed.

depends on which part of the new testament. it depends on how you interpret the parts of the new testament.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It doesn't matter if you've been to a thousand different churches across the world. If you don't put your heart, mind, and soul into it, nothing will come to you. And before you say that you have, explain why that I have only been to ONE church in my life and am now a Christian, while you've searched dozens and in the end have turned into an Atheist bent on discouraging other people's faith.

because i'm the one that's thinking. i put rational thought before irrational thought. i see faith for what it is, something that hurts reason.

I've never actually been to a religious website.... I never felt the need to be told what to believe in. Now I realize that Atheist websites have accurate information, in the same way that Fox News has accurate information, but in the end both programs have AGENDAS.

incorrect, there are quite a few atheist websites that simply compile information and then point things out. a good example is the skeptics annotated bible/quran/book of mormon. it shows the holy books and points out the problems they have.

[quote[
Fox News may be serving accurate information, but they spin it, withhold crucial info, and emphasize certain points in order to SERVE THEIR AGENDA. Now what could an Atheist website's agenda possibly be.....

an atheist website's agenda would be the agenda of all freethinkers, finding the truth through reason. we don't have an agenda against the supernatural just for the hell of it.
and again, atheists tend to be quite ready to point out the good stuff in religious bookss.... another example being the skeptics annotated bible/quran/book of mormon's entire sections devoted to the good stuff in all 3 of the aforementioned holy books.

Ahh yes, the devout ones make it possible for terrorism. Not guns, not bombs, not brainwashing elitists, but that guy across the street that gives grace before eating and attends church every weekend. That bastard...

Guns and bombs don't cause murder or war they only facilitate it. Murderers go to prison not their weapons. And yes the root of religious fanatism is religion.

I don't agree with many parts of the Old Testament, mainly the five books of Moses and some of the more militaristic books of the bible. This is not because of my personal opinion, rather its because of evolutionary, historical, archaeological evidence.

...Perhaps, and that's why I despise it so much.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Originally posted by DarkSide
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

That's from the book of Revelations, written by John the Apostle. The quote refers not to the entire Bible, but to the Book of Revelations. When John the Apostle wrote that line, the Bible did not exist yet. >_>"

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
That's from the book of Revelations, written by John the Apostle. The quote refers not to the entire Bible, but to the Book of Revelations. When John the Apostle wrote that line, the Bible did not exist yet. >_>"

soldier, not once did jesus say that the old writings were something to be ignored. he may not have agreed with strict adherence to jewish law, but he did seem to agree with the books of the hebrews.

now the NT does contain some very bad things. soldier, how do you justify the misogyny in the bible?

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
It doesn't matter if you've been to a thousand different churches across the world. If you don't put your heart, mind, and soul into it, nothing will come to you. And before you say that you have, explain why that I have only been to ONE church in my life and am now a Christian, while you've searched dozens and in the end have turned into an Atheist bent on discouraging other people's faith.

Because you are gullible and/or prefer to remain in a state of delusion [for a wide range of possible reasons] while madnessinmysoul rebels against such notions and prefers to base his/her beliefs on scientific evidence, reason and logic.

Does that answer your question?

He's delusional? Because he has a belief system that you don't share? How very non judgemental of you, and the rest of you as well. You all are just as dogmatically stubborn as the most fundementalist believer. Everyone who believes in God is a fundementalist flake, or delusional, or brainwashed or whatever favorite phrase you use.

Originally posted by seagull
He's delusional?

Yes.

Originally posted by seagull
Because he has a belief system that you don't share? How very non judgemental of you, and the rest of you as well.

No, I have no belief system, I don't base my views on faith at all.

Originally posted by seagull
You all are just as dogmatically stubborn as the most fundementalist believer. Everyone who believes in God is a fundementalist flake, or delusional, or brainwashed or whatever favorite phrase you use.

I'm very stubborn, correct. Good observation.

Everyone who believes in the Christian God of the Bible is delusional, yes. I would be careful with generalizing everyone who believes in "god" into the same category, however. Simply because this depends entirely on what the definition of god is. I could define the term “god” as 1+1=2, in which case, my belief in “god” would be entirely rational and justifiable.

REMINDER: Attack the LOGIC -- don't attack the person!

Things are starting to get a little personal, here. Please keep the discussion on topic and not on the topic of your opponent's intelligence, moral perspective, or other foibles.

\

[edit on 14-8-2007 by Byrd]

Now we are bashing the "bashers"will it become more obscure?:shk:

I must oppose to the phrase True Believers.

"Judge not that thou shall not be judged"

This a forum whose main goal is to "DENY IGNORANCE", should there not be room for us all?

WIS

Should we emphasize the Deny Ignorance headline again?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
last time i check i specifically mentioned that i DIDN'T bring up the crusades.
terrorists are among the ranks of those with faith. you're someone with faith. accept it or keep deluding yourself.

And you're someone with arms. Charles Manson has arms. Hence, serial killers are in your ranks. Accept it or keep deluding yourself. Hmm... nope. I don't think your logic works...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and yet the taliban could use the new testament to justify their acts of repression towards women if they were christians instead of muslims.
look closer at those 27 books before you love them. it contains some very misogynistic filth.

Ahh yes, misogynistic filth. Would that be in John 4:1, when Jesus speaks to a woman alone at a well about salvation through living water? Or perhaps you're talking about Matthew 8:14 when Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law who was sick in bed. But certainly there's misogyny in Matthew 5:27 where Jesus says that if you lust for a woman, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. Oh that crazy Jesus, teaching us to respect women and not act like dogs around them!

Yes, the New Testament certainly is full of hatred and fear towards women, like when Jesus healed a bleeding woman and revived Jairus' dead daughter in Luke 8:46-56. And if that doesn't convince you, John 8:1 (one of my favorite parts of the entire bible) surely will! Here, Jesus shows unrestrained misogyny by saving a woman from a crowd of men ready to stone her! "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." I mean, you can definitely feel the hatred and resent in Jesus' voice! And let's not forget when Jesus dies! After he is resurrected, he appears not to his disciples nor any man, he appears to Mary Magdalene first! No doubt to scold her for not washing his good robe. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WIMEN.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
depends on which part of the new testament. it depends on how you interpret the parts of the new testament.

I interpret it like a person with a fully functioning brain. Both right AND left hemisphere. Impressive eh? (not a personal attack, sarcasm mate!)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
incorrect, there are quite a few atheist websites that simply compile information and then point things out. a good example is the skeptics annotated bible/quran/book of mormon. it shows the holy books and points out the problems they have.

Yes, but why do you need to have your bible or koran annotated by skeptics? Make your own opinions and judgments about them, and afterwards you can view other people's opinions. If you're reading a skeptic's viewpoint of the bible the entire length of the way, then guess what? You'll end up being a skeptic too without first establishing your own viewpoints or letting your own brain have a fair say.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
an atheist website's agenda would be the agenda of all freethinkers, finding the truth through reason. we don't have an agenda against the supernatural just for the hell of it.

I don't know... George Carlin seems to have an agenda against God just for the hell of it. Either that or he just wants to sell tickets by being "edgy."

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
And you're someone with arms. Charles Manson has arms. Hence, serial killers are in your ranks. Accept it or keep deluding yourself. Hmm... nope. I don't think your logic works...

you just failed that argument. the people i mentioned do the things they do because they have a religion and they do it in the name of god, charles manson may be crazy, but i doubt he does the things he does because he has arms

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Ahh yes, misogynistic filth. Would that be in John 4:1, when Jesus speaks to a woman alone at a well about salvation through living water?

that doesn't tell you to treat a woman equally.

Or perhaps you're talking about Matthew 8:14 when Jesus heals Peter's mother-in-law who was sick in bed.

again, not telling you to be proper to a woman, jesus just seems to have a fetish for healing people in the gospels (hell, he even heals a slave... oh, and he doesn't condemn the slaves master for slavery...........)

But certainly there's misogyny in Matthew 5:27 where Jesus says that if you lust for a woman, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart.

that's just laying down the foundations for orwellian thoughtcrime...
hm, that's him telling us to not have lust... that's also the foundation for the horrid represiveness of puritan "sexuality"

Oh that crazy Jesus, teaching us to respect women and not act like dogs around them!

oh yes, and let us not forget these parts of the bible:
1 Peter 3:1
1 Peter 3:2-6
1 Peter 3:7
Titus 2:4-5
1 Timothy 2:9
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15
1 Timothy 5:5-6 and 5-9-15 (particularlly distressing to me as i know widows)
Colossians 3:18
Ephesians 5:22-24
Ephesians 5:33
1 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 11:5-6
1 Corinthians 11:7-9
1 Corinthians 11:10
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
John 20:17 (apparently the touch of a woman is corrupting)
Luke 2:23 (jesus says that only male children are holy....)

Yes, the New Testament certainly is full of hatred and fear towards women, like when Jesus healed a bleeding woman and revived Jairus' dead daughter in Luke 8:46-56. And if that doesn't convince you, John 8:1 (one of my favorite parts of the entire bible) surely will! Here, Jesus shows unrestrained misogyny by saving a woman from a crowd of men ready to stone her! "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." I mean, you can definitely feel the hatred and resent in Jesus' voice! And let's not forget when Jesus dies! After he is resurrected, he appears not to his disciples nor any man, he appears to Mary Magdalene first! No doubt to scold her for not washing his good robe. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WIMEN.

hm, but not once does he command a misogynistic culture "treat women equally"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yes, but why do you need to have your bible or koran annotated by skeptics?

because you can then read their annotations and see if you agree or not (there are a few instances where i disagree)

Make your own opinions and judgments about them, and afterwards you can view other people's opinions. If you're reading a skeptic's viewpoint of the bible the entire length of the way, then guess what? You'll end up being a skeptic too without first establishing your own viewpoints or letting your own brain have a fair say.

funny thing is that the first time i read the bible i had annotated it myself (sticky notes) then i did the same the second time, adding things i had left out.... then i discovered the skeptics annotated bible online and i compared the annoatations and found that most of my own annotations matched up with the ones on that site...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I don't know... George Carlin seems to have an agenda against God just for the hell of it. Either that or he just wants to sell tickets by being "edgy."

no, you'd see this if you watched his hilarious "there is no god" routine. he states that he tried believing, that he really wished he could believe, and then he gives reasons why he doesn't believe. there are also various other places where he has laid down his reasoning behind not believing in a deity

Originally posted by LurkerBeast
Because you are gullible and/or prefer to remain in a state of delusion [for a wide range of possible reasons] while madnessinmysoul rebels against such notions and prefers to base his/her beliefs on scientific evidence, reason and logic.

Does that answer your question?

Ouch, was that directed towards me? I've never even met you and yet you assume that I'm gullible and delusional? Trust me, I'm not. I came into Christianity kicking and screaming, but as I dug deeper I knew that God was a living God and that he dwells in my church. I have my evidence (and plenty of it), so don't assume that my faith is blind. Kay Thanks Bye.

Originally posted by LurkerBeast
Does that answer your question?

My question was rhetorical.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
you just failed that argument. the people i mentioned do the things they do because they have a religion and they do it in the name of god, charles manson may be crazy, but i doubt he does the things he does because he has arms

I believe that now it is clear to each and every one of you that Helter Skelter was the principal and main motive for these savage murders. -Closing Argument in the Manson Trial

Helter Skelter is the name of a Beatles song. Charles Manson and his crew interpreted the song as directions to kill and maim people in order to start a race war. So if you or anyone else is a Beatles fan, does that mean that Charles Manson is in your ranks? Does that mean that you are automatically lumped together with Manson and his group of sadistic murderers? Course not. One common opinion among two people does not erase the larger and more important differences between the same two people.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
again, not telling you to be proper to a woman, jesus just seems to have a fetish for healing people in the gospels

First of all, I'm arguing that the New Testament does not contain misogyny, not that Jesus laid out guidelines on how to treat women properly.Second of all, healing a person from illness doesn't count as a proper way to treat people? That is the highest form of love and care that I can think of! My father has a terrible disease and I would give anything in the world to see him walk again. I truly, truly would... As for your comment about Jesus having a fetish for healing people, I don't even know how to respond to that. Do you count medical miracles and healing as pointless and perverted? Every miracle and healing that Jesus did created even more followers and believers, as they said "Surely, God is with this man!"

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
that's just laying down the foundations for orwellian thoughtcrime...
hm, that's him telling us to not have lust... that's also the foundation for the horrid represiveness of puritan "sexuality"

Again you're associating me with people I've never even met. And no, Matthew 5:27 is not telling us not to have lust. It is natural to have sexual desire and lust. The word adultery means "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse." Okay? Got it? Jesus was saying that a married man should not lust after other women because HE'S MARRIED. A MARRIED man should not lust after other women. Jesus didn't mean that people should never have sexual thoughts, or else how would we pro-create? Men and women would gather to pick names out of hats or something?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
oh yes, and let us not forget these parts of the bible:
1 Peter 3:1
1 Peter 3:2-6

You're reading it out of context. Under Roman law, the husband and father had absolute authority over all members of the household, including the wife. And guess what, the audience that Peter was writing to was Roman Churches scattered throughout Rome! Peter was not creating a new law in which wives had to be under their husband's authority, READ THE REST OF THE VERSE. It says that the wife is more virtuous and holy and will influence the husband who refuses to obey God.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Titus 2:4-5
1 Timothy 2:9
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15

None of these are even close to misogyny. And remember, this is Timothy's personal opinions. Notice that each sentence starts with the word "I" and not God or Jesus. These were Timothy's personal opinions. Furthermore, Timothy was writing to the Church at Ephesus to counter their false teachings and idol worship so this letter is a bit harsher that many of the other books in the New Testament. Even so, none of this is even close to the definition of misogyny.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1 Timothy 5:5-6 and 5-9-15 (particularlly distressing to me as i know widows)

Of course, you skip 1 Timothy 5:3-4 where it says that you should take care of any widows that you know if they are alone, and that a widow's children should show godliness and responsibility by taking care of their mothers. Anybody can cherry-pick quotes from a book and establish their own, inaccurate viewpoints, but that kills the original purpose of the book itself.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Paul wrote this letter to Corinthian Churches. In Corinthian culture, women were not allowed to confront men in public, and so Paul was writing to fit the climate of the place and time. Read 1 Corinthians 11:5 and you'll see that Paul encourages women to pray and prophesies.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
John 20:17 (apparently the touch of a woman is corrupting)

I've been researching and writing for nearly an hour now, and I realize that you just don't get it. Everything the New Testament says just flies over your head doesn't it?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Luke 2:23 (jesus says that only male children are holy....)

Your interpretation is so wrong in so many ways. First of all, Jesus didn't say that, as Jesus was 9 days old at that point. Secondly, it does not say that ONLY male children are holy. It says that a Jewish family's first son must be dedicated to the Lord. The other children can still achieve salvation, be holy, and dedicate their lives to the Lord, its just that the first son HAS to be more dedicated.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
hm, but not once does he command a misogynistic culture "treat women equally"

That's an argument from silence, and doesn't hold any weight. And yet we see so many instances of Jesus saving women's lives, healing women, speaking alone with women about salvation, and a woman by the name of Mary Magdalene was the first person Jesus came to when he resurrected.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
no, you'd see this if you watched his hilarious "there is no god" routine. he states that he tried believing, that he really wished he could believe, and then he gives reasons why he doesn't believe. there are also various other places where he has laid down his reasoning behind not believing in a deity

George Carlin is a one trick pony. He's only funny when he's insulting God and Christianity, so he's built his entire career on it. And he still wonders why his prayers aren't answered by God, sheesh.

Originally posted by TheB1ueSoldier
Helter Skelter is the name of a Beatles song. Charles Manson and his crew interpreted the song as directions to kill and maim people in order to start a race war. So if you or anyone else is a Beatles fan, does that mean that Charles Manson is in your ranks?

yes...
actually it does.
wait, did he necessarily enjoy the beatles?
...ok, enough with the humor.

logical fallacy of false comparison. holy books have explicit phrases to go and kill unbelievers, not something that requires anything more than a literal interpretation.
nobody does anything in the name of beatles songs... save charles manson and his group of lunatics, people do things in the name of religion quite often and are considered perfectly sane.

Does that mean that you are automatically lumped together with Manson and his group of sadistic murderers? Course not. One common opinion among two people does not erase the larger and more important differences between the same two people.

but again, only the insane people do things in the name of beatles songs, that's why it is a false comparison

First of all, I'm arguing that the New Testament does not contain misogyny, not that Jesus laid out guidelines on how to treat women properly

then you fail, as it does contain misogyny. you could win on the fact that it has an equal balance of misogyny and equal treatment, but you can't win the argument that the new testament doesn't contain ANY misogyny.

Second of all, healing a person from illness doesn't count as a proper way to treat people? That is the highest form of love and care that I can think of!

when jesus healed a slave, how bad of a scolding did his master get? the thing is that the treatment of an illness is a simple thing that doesn't imply anything else.

My father has a terrible disease and I would give anything in the world to see him walk again. I truly, truly would...

well, that's irrelevent to the discussion of this literature.

As for your comment about Jesus having a fetish for healing people, I don't even know how to respond to that.

it's true. what does jesus constantly do throughout the only books we see him portrayed in? heal people. fetish is a bit of hyperbole, but it just seems to be the character's thing.

Do you count medical miracles and healing as pointless and perverted?

no, they are things that are purely in the realm of delusional fantasy until they are scientifically proven

Every miracle and healing that Jesus did created even more followers and believers, as they said "Surely, God is with this man!"

yes, within the book that's how it went... yet not a single one of them wrote a thing about it

Again you're associating me with people I've never even met.

i associated you with nobody. reread it, i associated the concept laid down with the concepts of orwellian thought crime and puritan repressiveness towards sexuality. you are not mentioned once. stop taking these things personally.

And no, Matthew 5:27 is not telling us not to have lust. It is natural to have sexual desire and lust.

clearly, but you're not addressing the thought crime issue

The word adultery means "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse." Okay? Got it? Jesus was saying that a married man should not lust after other women because HE'S MARRIED.

he doesn't seem to be addressing a married man with the statement, he seems to just be addressing people...

A MARRIED man should not lust after other women. Jesus didn't mean that people should never have sexual thoughts, or else how would we pro-create?

true, he's not the later people that wrote the quite more repressive things about sexual repression, those are more found in the letters.

Men and women would gather to pick names out of hats or something?

...
no

though you never addressed the thought crime issue.

You're reading it out of context. Under Roman law, the husband and father had absolute authority over all members of the household, including the wife. And guess what, the audience that Peter was writing to was Roman Churches scattered throughout Rome! Peter was not creating a new law in which wives had to be under their husband's authority, READ THE REST OF THE VERSE. It says that the wife is more virtuous and holy and will influence the husband who refuses to obey God.

ok, how about i just use the one passage that is most inherently misogynistic to prove this to you, because you can twist the other ones i find misogynistic to suit your own needs if need be

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Titus 2:4-5
1 Timothy 2:9
1 Timothy 2:11-12
1 Timothy 2:14-15

None of these are even close to misogyny.


yes, because forcing a woman to be obedient to her husband isn't misogyny... why the double standard, why not tell men to be obedient to their wives?

And remember, this is Timothy's personal opinions.

then why are they considered canonical words of god?

Notice that each sentence starts with the word "I" and not God or Jesus. These were Timothy's personal opinions. Furthermore, Timothy was writing to the Church at Ephesus to counter their false teachings and idol worship so this letter is a bit harsher that many of the other books in the New Testament. Even so, none of this is even close to the definition of misogyny.

"he was pandering" isn't a justifiable argument.
so restricting what women wear isn't misogynistic?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

that isn't misogynistic? what world do you come from? not being allowed to teach men or usurp authority over them and forcing them to remain in silence... that's actually a spot on definition of misogyny.

and then passing the blame to eve... that's actually the foundation for the majority of modern misogyny...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1 Timothy 5:5-6 and 5-9-15 (particularlly distressing to me as i know widows)

Of course, you skip 1 Timothy 5:3-4 where it says that you should take care of any widows that you know if they are alone, and that a widow's children should show godliness and responsibility by taking care of their mothers. Anybody can cherry-pick quotes from a book and establish their own, inaccurate viewpoints, but that kills the original purpose of the book itself.


those widows are only to be treated as such if they fit the criteria of 9-15...
and it's also stating that widows shouldn't remarry, that's actually a bit misogynistic as it never says a widower shouldn't remarry.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Paul wrote this letter to Corinthian Churches. In Corinthian culture, women were not allowed to confront men in public, and so Paul was writing to fit the climate of the place and time. Read 1 Corinthians 11:5 and you'll see that Paul encourages women to pray and prophesies.

just not with their heads uncovered...

and honestly, if it is the one authority that these guys are speaking for, why must they continue to pander?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
John 20:17 (apparently the touch of a woman is corrupting)

I've been researching and writing for nearly an hour now, and I realize that you just don't get it. Everything the New Testament says just flies over your head doesn't it?


don't get what?
either you have no arguement here or you refuse to explain, both would be shamefull

why can't mary m touch him?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Luke 2:23 (jesus says that only male children are holy....)

Your interpretation is so wrong in so many ways. First of all, Jesus didn't say that, as Jesus was 9 days old at that point. Secondly, it does not say that ONLY male children are holy. It says that a Jewish family's first son must be dedicated to the Lord. The other children can still achieve salvation, be holy, and dedicate their lives to the Lord, its just that the first son HAS to be more dedicated.


actually, jesus has lived his life over multiple times at that point in the book... with varying details. but you're right, i did mistake this passage. i guess my old sticky notes need some updating, my mistake

That's an argument from silence, and doesn't hold any weight. And yet we see so many instances of Jesus saving women's lives, healing women, speaking alone with women about salvation, and a woman by the name of Mary Magdalene was the first person Jesus came to when he resurrected.

well, that last point is only according to one account, and considering jesus spoke some stuff that was quite contradictory to the teachings of the time, why didn't the perfect dude say something that is quite

George Carlin is a one trick pony. He's only funny when he's insulting God and Christianity, so he's built his entire career on it. And he still wonders why his prayers aren't answered by God, sheesh.

....you really aren't familiar with his work at all if you think he's a one trick pony... i mean, he does a whole routine on things he should invent, including a combination tape player/colostomy bag (crapman... with a more profane word instead of crap).

ok... i've run out of room to make my next point, i have too few chacters left... i guess i'll need to make a second post