Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 6:01 PM
23 online now:
AZPaul3, FLRW, JonF, Theodoric (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,999 Year: 5,036/19,786 Month: 1,158/873 Week: 54/460 Day: 54/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Women In 1 Corinthians
Trixie
Member (Idle past 1813 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 76 of 106 (455384)
02-12-2008 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by iano
02-12-2008 9:29 AM


Re: Garbled mess, yes, but.....
But surely it is the responsibility of Christians to point out that arguments of both sorts don't represent them? How else can Christianity counter misrepresentations?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by iano, posted 02-12-2008 9:29 AM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by iano, posted 02-12-2008 9:43 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
iano
Member (Idle past 48 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 77 of 106 (455385)
02-12-2008 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Trixie
02-12-2008 9:33 AM


Re: Garbled mess, yes, but.....
As I've already pointed out, I'd rely on the natural defences of non-Christian EvC-er to deal with jf's representations of Christianity without my having to do so much as lift a finger.

If it smells rotten then it will be discarded surely?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Trixie, posted 02-12-2008 9:33 AM Trixie has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 106 (455392)
02-12-2008 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Taz
02-12-2008 12:17 AM


But after I pointed out your silence implicating you agree with him, you guys piled onto me instead of him.

You were being an ass and trying to smear people. Silence does not necessarily imply agreement.

What you guys just did is exactly what I've been trying to point out for a while now.

But you're mistaken.

It seems like you guys just go along with whatever wacky comments made by fellow christians as long as they're made in the name of christ.

Well, you're wrong.

But god forbids if an atheist like myself jumps in and calls you guys out on it.

I don't care that he's christian and your not. Your method of "calling out" was bullshit straight from an asshole.

CS, are you trying to tell me that you don't care enough about sexism in christianity, especially sexism in the name of christian religion?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 12:17 AM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 11:10 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 106 (455406)
02-12-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by johnfolton
02-11-2008 3:55 PM


Male/Female Out of Context Assertion.
Johnfolton writes:

In Christ there is no male or female

Galations 3:28. Johnfolton, that depends on what scriptural context to which you're referring. There is male and female in Christ all the way from Genesis to his apostles regarding to functions of the church, home, etc. The Galations 3 context is about salvation, baptism and one's relationship to God. Read it beginning with a few verses before verse 28 and to the end of the chapter.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by johnfolton, posted 02-11-2008 3:55 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2008 11:13 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 80 of 106 (455408)
02-12-2008 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
02-12-2008 10:04 AM


CS writes:

You were being an ass and trying to smear people.


No I wasn't. This is an issue that I've brought up many times, but you guys seem to have ignored them in the past. So, this time I used a little more direct language to get your attention. I wasn't trying to smear anyone.

Silence does not necessarily imply agreement.

Yes, it does. If an evolution advocate says something like "man evolved from monkeys", you can be sure that a dozen or so other evolution believers, including myself, would jump on him and correct him right away. If an atheist claims that all atheists believe in Satan, you can be sure that I'd be one of the first to point out right away that atheists also don't believe in Satan.

But everytime a christian says something wacky like johnfolton just did, all we get are some cricket chirpings from your side.

Silence IS another way of telling the world you agree with them.

But you're mistaken.

No, I'm not. Johnfolton's comments are sexist in nature. But all you're worried about is me. Gee, I wonder why. Is it because you agree with him but don't want to admit it?

I don't care that he's christian and your not. Your method of "calling out" was bullshit straight from an asshole.

Fine, then I'll take the name asshole.

Again, I've been bringing this issue up many times now, but you guys have virtually ignored it. I thought I'd use a little more direct language this time, and surely enough you're all hung up on my direct language instead of paying attention to how there are sexist elements in christianity and how these elements are using your precious bible to justify their view.

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.

Well, if it happened just once or twice.. or thrice, then I would agree with you. But this is a pattern that is repeated over and over. As Percy asked in another thread, why don't creationists police themselves? I'm asking a slightly modified question now. Why don't christians police themselves? Isn't it because in both cases they believe in the bullshit but don't want to admit it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2008 10:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-12-2008 11:38 AM Taz has not yet responded
 Message 84 by Rahvin, posted 02-12-2008 3:30 PM Taz has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 106 (455409)
02-12-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Buzsaw
02-12-2008 11:00 AM


Re: Male/Female Out of Context Assertion.
It is noteworthy that it was the same apostle, Paul who wrote both contexts, the one limiting the role of women in the church and leadership and the one saying male and female are alike in Christ.

Edited by Buzsaw, : eliminate word for clarity


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Buzsaw, posted 02-12-2008 11:00 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 106 (455415)
02-12-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taz
02-12-2008 11:10 AM


No I wasn't.

:rolleyes:

This is an issue that I've brought up many times, but you guys seem to have ignored them in the past.

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.

So, this time I used a little more direct language to get your attention. I wasn't trying to smear anyone.

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.

Yes, it does. If an evolution advocate says something like "man evolved from monkeys", you can be sure that a dozen or so other evolution believers, including myself, would jump on him and correct him right away. If an atheist claims that all atheists believe in Satan, you can be sure that I'd be one of the first to point out right away that atheists also don't believe in Satan.

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?

No, I'm not. Johnfolton's comments are sexist in nature. But all you're worried about is me. Gee, I wonder why. Is it because you agree with him but don't want to admit it?

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.

Silence IS another way of telling the world you agree with them.

Yeah, except when its not :rolleyes:

Again, I've been bringing this issue up many times now, but you guys have virtually ignored it.

Thats because its a non-issue. Its just an illogical attempt to smear christianity. No need to dignify it with a response.

I thought I'd use a little more direct language this time, and surely enough you're all hung up on my direct language instead of paying attention to how there are sexist elements in christianity and how these elements are using your precious bible to justify their view.

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.

Isn't it because in both cases they believe in the bullshit but don't want to admit it?

How many times do I have to say: "No, its not."?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 11:10 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Creationista
Inactive Junior Member


Message 83 of 106 (455443)
02-12-2008 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by nator
02-11-2008 5:54 PM


Re: where is your creativity?
Your opinion on the Forum Guidelines, and mine, are clearly different.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by nator, posted 02-11-2008 5:54 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 6:31 PM Creationista has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 84 of 106 (455488)
02-12-2008 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Taz
02-12-2008 11:10 AM


Yes, it does. If an evolution advocate says something like "man evolved from monkeys", you can be sure that a dozen or so other evolution believers, including myself, would jump on him and correct him right away. If an atheist claims that all atheists believe in Satan, you can be sure that I'd be one of the first to point out right away that atheists also don't believe in Satan.

But everytime a christian says something wacky like johnfolton just did, all we get are some cricket chirpings from your side.

Silence IS another way of telling the world you agree with them.

Think of it this way, Taz - most of the Christians around here likely think johnfolton is just as crazy and sexist as you or I do. They certainly don't practice the same specific flavor of Christianity. They likely don't even feel that johnfolton is actually misrepresenting their beliefs, simply because he's so far off the deep end.

Aside from that, the Atheists don't jump on each other en masse, either. A few will point out the error - and that was done in this thread, as well. It was done by female Christian members, but once the point has been made, is a male Christian then obligated to step in and affirm "yes, johnfolton is sexist, and no, this does not represent my beliefs or Christianity as a whole."? It really would just be repetition of previous posts.

Silence, when the point has already been refuted by others, does not constitute agreement, and that leaves out real-life concerns of time and attention to a specific thread as well.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Taz, posted 02-12-2008 11:10 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 85 of 106 (455491)
02-12-2008 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Taz
01-31-2008 10:18 AM


I find it hard to believe that there was already a law of the land in place dictating how people should act or speak inside christian churches.

Perhaps the law of the land at the time was speaking to how women should behave in society in general.

I've been in one or two churches and in every one women were allowed to speak.

I guess in your view the Christian leadership got it all wrong.

My point is that regardless of the past, women today are in fact allowed to speak in most churches and "I" don't see any contradiction in that.

You can see whatever you wish. In my view its a good thing we have this ability to make choices cause. Thanks to free will I'm not stuck with your opinion.


" If a body don't wanna hear what you're sayin it don't matter much how you say it" Some hillbilly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 01-31-2008 10:18 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 86 of 106 (455512)
02-12-2008 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
02-11-2008 7:22 PM


We have morality and ethics.

quote:
I agree but based on what?

All morality is based upon the social requirements of people living together in groups.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 02-11-2008 7:22 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2008 10:31 AM nator has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 87 of 106 (455513)
02-12-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by johnfolton
02-12-2008 12:27 AM


Re: The Purpose of a Woman !!!!!!!
A reply to Message #46 in this thread is desired.

Come on, be a man and address my criticisms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by johnfolton, posted 02-12-2008 12:27 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 88 of 106 (455514)
02-12-2008 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Creationista
02-12-2008 1:08 PM


Re: where is your creativity?
quote:
Your opinion on the Forum Guidelines, and mine, are clearly different.

Apparently.

Of course, I used to be a Moderator before Percy's Police State was instated, and I have also been a member here for a very, very long time, so take from that what you will.

Perhaps you can point out the parts of my post which you believe violate the forum guidelines.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Creationista, posted 02-12-2008 1:08 PM Creationista has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Creationista, posted 02-12-2008 7:18 PM nator has responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3698 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 89 of 106 (455515)
02-12-2008 6:31 PM


Just maybe Paul was trying to protect the woman folk from becoming a gossip?

http://www.willowspringchurch.org/site/dbpage.asp?page_id=4184&sec_id=2834

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


  
Creationista
Inactive Junior Member


Message 90 of 106 (455524)
02-12-2008 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by nator
02-12-2008 6:31 PM


Re: where is your creativity?
It's not a violation so much as a difference of opinion. Different people have different levels of "inflammatory" and "arguing the person".
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 6:31 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 02-12-2008 11:13 PM Creationista has responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019