Women In 1 Corinthians

That is bigotry and bullshit.There's plenty of reasons to not reply: don't care, no time, didn't see it, don't think it deserves one, etc.You're just trying to smear christians.How about this one:If atheists don't reply to you and call out your bigotry, then that means that all atheists are bigots

In the book of John, who was the first person that Jesus revealed himself too after he was resurrected?Hint: Her name was Mary.Just sayin'...

You were being an ass and trying to smear people. Silence does not necessarily imply agreement. But you're mistaken. Well, you're wrong. I don't care that he's christian and your not. Your method of "calling out" was bullshit straight from an asshole. Not at all. I'm trying to tell you that you're totally wrong about this whole "Christian's silence = agreement" thing. There's plenty of reasons to not post. You are just choosing the reason that you like best that fits into your goal of smearing christians and chrsitanity.

I've seen you bring it up and I have ignored you. That's because its bullshit.Oh but wait, sense I didn't respond to you and say that I disagreed, then I must have agreed with you, right?Well I don't agree with you and I didn't reply, so not replying must not mean agreeing. Here is what you said in Message 47:

quote:

---

If in 3 days time I don't see any christian reacting or responding to johnfolton's sexist view, I'm going to take your silence as agreeing his view.

---

You're implying that any christian that does not reply is a sexist. That is a smear. All that means is that you care about shit that doesn't matter more than I do. People say wacky things. I don't care to correct everybody. If someone remains uncorrected, that does not mean I agree with them.I can't believe you think it does.If you don't have time to reply to a post, then that means that you agree with it!?Can I go dig up a thread from years ago where an atheist said something wacky, and then take your lack of reply as agreement? Its because I don't give a shit about him or what he writes. He could write that the sky is green and the grass is blue and I won't feel compelled to correct him. I just don't care. Yeah, except when its not Thats because its a non-issue. Its just an illogical attempt to smear christianity. No need to dignify it with a response. Yes, it was because of the ad hominem that included me. You can't tell people what they believe if they don't do X. How many times do I have to say: "No, its not."?

So its relative then.How can you use your group's relative morals to criticize another group's relative morals?Without some authority, you're just expressing your opinion.How is your opinion any more valid than theirs?For example, if a group wants women to STFU in church, how can you use your groups social requirements to say that their social requirements are wrong?

---

Or are you saying that it is based on one set of social requirements that all people living together in groups require?

That's just circular reasoning.You are also assuming that being freer and more humane is better.Another group could believe that thier morality is better and that being free and humane doesn't matter.For them, your morality is worthless.How can you criticize their morality? That's a good point. We could certainly use history as a gague for which group's moralities are the best. But we'd have to qualify what determines betterness.How do we determine if Roman, Egyptian, or American morality is the best one? This assumes that greater peace, contentment, and prosperity for all is a good thing. Another group might not. More circular reasoning, you're just assuming that your group's morality is the best one and then concluding the same.Bringing justice, peace and prosperity to as many people as possible might not be important to another group.How do we qualify the betterness of a group's morality in order to compare multiple ones to determine which is the best morality?

I'm not so sure it can. How do you determine betterness? But another morality that is based on a rational basis could come to a differenct conclusion about what is better. But peace and prosperity can coexist with oppression.If I'm understanding you, you're saying that you can look at history and determine which group's moralities lead to more peace and prosperity, label that as better, and then say that those moralities are better and use that to criticize the moralities of others.Your criticism remains circular.Let me hash it out:

quote:

---

I'm not sure how one Atheist criticizes the theology of another Atheist. I thought you guys didn't have any theology.

---

quote:

---

based on what?

---

quote:

---

How can one relative morality criticize another?

---

You say that it can by looking at history and determining which has been better. But that assessment of betterness is relative, itself, and does not remove the relativity that makes the criticism invalid.

Only if you want it too. Its bullshit.There are plenty of reasons to not reply and for you to assume tacit approval just exposes your bigotry to christians. But the default position is not condoning every post that you don't reply too.You choose to read it that way to feed your bigotry. And that makes you a hypocrite.

Honestly, I didn't even read it.ABE:Okay, I read it. It didn't really make any sense to me.But based on what little sense I could make out, I'll just go ahead and say that I do not agree with his view of women.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE