|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 31, 2010 15:58:55 GMT -5
snip... Some of what you are hearing in this thread, is the resentment theists feel when non-theist materialists treat them as though there can be no rational warrant for theism-- i.e., that they are not using their intelligence, education or power of thought. I'm hoping that by explaining this, we can all understand one another better and be at peace here, because when it comes to the way certain forms of religion treat women, we are all on the same page and fighting for the same justice. Obviously I was not stating my main concern clearly enough and it was buried in the extraneous bits. I will try to set it out more clearly. 1. The extraneous bits: In the strictest possible sense of the terms, theism is non-rational. It relies on faith and belief, and is therefore not available to strict rational critique. This is not to say that it is irrational any more than an appreciation for Mozart or the love you feel for your children is irrational. These are personally-held positions that are not rationally debatable but they are completely real. My comment was to express my astonishment that, after all the patriarchal system had put many of you through that you were willing to devote considerable time, energy and intelligence to find ways to make it less hurtful. It's something I will never "get" just as you don't "get" how I can simply not believe. It is my opinion only, and since it seems to create so much uproar, I will refrain from stating it again. 2. My actual point: I have a real concern that people like you, who are working so diligently to understand your beliefs in ways that are not meddling and hurtful are providing shelter for the extremists who would like to impose their version of these beliefs on everyone, believer or not. Dr. Tiller was murdered. There are laws that allow believers, as my earlier example cited, to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions if it is against their religion. Religious organizations raised millions of dollars to prevent same sex marriage in California. These are examples of a particular ideology being imposed on people who do not share it. You choose to be part of a religious community (in the largest sense). I and many others do not, but there is a sense that unbelivers or other-believers are not allowed that choice. If I could reasonably believe that the extremists would come to share your point of view I would not give any of the scriptural analysis any more thought than I currently do the the mating habits of the narwhal. It just doesn't matter in my life. However, you know that the extremists (Dobson, Buchann etc) are ones with the money and influence at present. Within living memory, Iran and Afghanistan were secular societies. If a large enough crisis occurs, is it impossible that an extremist religious system could be imposed on the US? There is so much fear- and hate-mongering going on would there be enough people frightened enough to accept "going back to basics"? Nothing would make me happier than to discover I'm just being paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by philosophia on Jan 31, 2010 16:21:15 GMT -5
Sabertruth,
The problem I have with your posts is the tone. NLQ members usually have the desire to understand one another, not a desire to tear apart the other poster's statements.
Please reply with that in mind. There are people here with many different beliefs, and they are respected.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 31, 2010 18:38:26 GMT -5
The atheist vs. Christian debate leaves me tired. I'm with philosophia. There is a thoughtful and interesting way to have these conversations, and then there is an attackish sort of way. The first is fascinating and often extremely beneficial to all participating and lurking. The second...? Yuck. As to the initial comment, I am almost dumbfounded by this discussion. Intelligent, thoughtful, educated women are picking the tiniest of nits in order to continue to support a belief system that has denigrated their bodies, intelligences, their lives based on what a collection of 2-millennia-old incomplete texts may have said. I mean to include this in my previous comment on this thread, because I wanted to say that something happened to me this past year that just sort of....clicked....that thing where the fog went away or something, I don't really know, but I wanted to say, "YES," to much of this comment. I couldn't see it before....I was lost in the minutae (sp) of careful research. Which is not to say that careful research isn't a good thing, but more to say that it can become a "missing the forest for the trees" sort of thing. I lost years of my life because of human teaching and interpretation (and psychosis-born 'words from God' from my 'leader') all based on a collection of "2-millenia old incomplete texts." Now, it seems so ridiculous. When I first left, it didn't seem ridiculous at all. I had to carefully study and research my way out, to make sure it was truly justified. I literally believed that if it was NOT truly justified, I both would and must stay in an increasinly bizarre and abusive situation. The more removed I get from that situation, the more shocked I am that I had to get permission to have my very own life to live from a collection of 2-millenia incomplete texts. It just floors me. So, from that angle, I understand and nod my head to the comment quoted above. That anyone would feel women are equals, capable of leading and visioneering, worth being treated with dignity and respect... only if a collection of ancient letters says they are? In that sense, I don't care what the collection of letters says. If it says that women are not equal, not capable of leading, not to be treated as co-heirs and co-image bearers, or if it emphatically does, that still doesn't change what is true and right and good. (Personally, I'm glad I can see a redemptive track running through the Scriptures, where patriarchy came as a result of the Fall, NOT through God's inherent design.......that was something I could not see when in the patriarchy camp, of course.......BUT, if the Bible did emphatically support the kind of patriarchy that Vision Forum and Gabrial Anast and Douglas Wilson supports, it wouldn't matter to me now....I could not follow it, because it is not good). There is one more thought I had regarding the original comment.... Whether Paul was subversively fighting for egalitarian beliefs or not, we in the Christian camp still have to deal with the fact that church history is full of the kind of patriarchy that generally denied women "full personhood" as compared to men. So the comment quoted above isn't, I don't think, necessarily a slam or an attack against Christianity, but is simply a view from the outside of the paradigm, and I think it's a view that is valid in a great deal of ways. I think it would seem incredibly hard to understand.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Jan 31, 2010 18:39:47 GMT -5
Ambrosia, I do not believe that belief in God is part and parcel with the patriarchal system. I don't believe that following Christ is part and parcel with the patriarchal system. And I am fighting tooth and nail against the fundamentalists' way of wedding their religion to politics and imposing their theocratic beliefs on the rest of us.
My analysis of scripture is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Just because some people want to eradicate religion entirely, doesn't mean it's going to go away-- but more balanced versions can be presented that are attractive to many, especially those who have been harmed by the extremes but still find they want to believe in God.
Journey, I hear what you are saying. Quite frankly, if the Bible did clearly teach-- if Jesus clearly taught-- that women were created and designed to be under male authority, or that God designed and endorsed slavery as God's approved system, I would have to abandon both the Bible and the God it spoke of, in favor of the true God whom I would believe would still be out there somewhere. It's not "Right or wrong, true or false, I will still cling to Christianity." It's that Christianity at its core, appears to me to be right and true-- regardless of what has been added to it over time.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Jan 31, 2010 19:09:05 GMT -5
Journey, I hear what you are saying. Quite frankly, if the Bible did clearly teach-- if Jesus clearly taught-- that women were created and designed to be under male authority, or that God designed and endorsed slavery as God's approved system, I would have to abandon both the Bible and the God it spoke of, in favor of the true God whom I would believe would still be out there somewhere. It's not "Right or wrong, true or false, I will still cling to Christianity." It's that Christianity at its core, appears to me to be right and true-- regardless of what has been added to it over time. Me, too.
|
|
mara
New Member
Posts: 27
|
Post by mara on Jan 31, 2010 19:58:12 GMT -5
ambrosia: " Not speaking for all atheists (a notably cantankerous lot), that is the way it seems to me. There are so many gods/critters/beings not to believe in that it is hard to distinguish any way in which "god" might be different from them." You made me smile, on two fronts with that one. ;D 1.) Atheists don't have a corner on the market on cantankerous. (Modern day defenders of patriarchy get the actual prize. And yes, I have personal experience trying to talk to them.) 2.) But you are right. I've left NLQ more than once because I simply didn't couldn't communicate with Atheists. I kept saying the wrong things, never meaning to. Felt like I was walking on eggshells. So I appreciate your extending the olive branch and helping me learn how to communicate better. Anyway, don't have much time but wanted to point out one reason I believe. As a child I was full of fear. There really wasn't any reason. My parents were intellectual and not abusive. (Dad-engineer, Mom-teacher) From my point-of-view (pov) it seems that I was extremely sensitive to what either was or wasn't the supernatural. Looking back, if I hadn't change course and sought out Christianity I would have probably ended up like the character Bonnie Hunt played on Jumanji, you know, reading tarot cards and people's palms. (no offense to anyone here who does that. It's just not for me.) I simply could not, nor can I still deny the supernatural. I'm extremely aware of it. Again, can't explain it, don't really expect you to understand, just me trying to explain a bit to you, the beginning of how I got here. Anyway, many years have passed and I've had time to analyze and reanalyze Christianity and compare and contrast it to other religions and I keep coming back to it. Now I can start laying out places in the Bible that describe the Christian God and try to explain why I pick Him over the others, but the last thing I want to do is make you feel preached at or like I'm going to give an alter call at the end. It's just I want to point out a few things that go against the, How many angels can dance on the head of a pin or, how many slices of camel does it take to actually get it through the eye of a needle crap that the history of the church has spit out at us. Anyway, gotta get off here but wanted to check in and see where you were at in this.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jan 31, 2010 20:42:20 GMT -5
Sabertruth, you are so full of misconceptions about atheists when you insist that you know what we "really believe" that it's become offensive. You said you've never seen a good philosophical rebuttal to the First Cause argument. Please consider the following regarding the Kalam argument. The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence, but the rules of causality are a property of space-time, and the beginning of the universe occurred outside of space-time. In a debate with William Lane Craig, Wes Morriston says that “creation out of nothing at all is at least as counterintuitive as is [the idea of] begging to exist without a cause…. If someone insists it is just ‘obvious’ that God could create a world without any pre-existing material stuff to work with, on the ground that there is no logical contradiction in the idea of such a feat, then the proper reply is that there is also no logical contradiction in the idea of the universe beginning without a cause”. What allows us to define “god” as an eternally existing being without a cause? It is equally possible to define an impersonal cause for the universe as having existed eternally. How can we determine whether there can be a being that did not “have a beginning”? I take the following argument from Dan Barker: The first statement of the argument implies that things can be divided between items that begin to exist and those that do not. If the set of items that do not begin to exist only contain one item, it is a synonym for god, and therefore is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause”. This begs the question of god’s existence by making god the definition of the premise of the argument. The cosmological argument succeeds if it can be shown that the set of items that do not begin to exist contains exactly one item from a set of candidates greater than one. If the only candidate for the set is god, then the second statement is equivalent to “the universe is not god”. Therefore, if the set is items that do not begin to exist is synonymous with god, the argument becomes: “Everything except God has a cause. The universe is not God. Therefore, the universe has a cause.” This is logical, but circular. However, if it is theoretically possible that there are multiple items that did not begin to exist, then it must also remain a possibility that there could be other explanations for the origin of the universe. In fact, within our universe we already know of one thing that is observable and quantifiable that can neither be created nor destroyed. If our main choices for the cause of the universe are between energy and a deity, exactly one of those things has already been shown to be "eternal" from the perspective of our universe. ********* I believe Jesus rose from the dead because I accept the testimony of hostile and friendly eyewitnesses as reasonable. My faith rests in a legally verifiable event in history. And of course I say 'legal' because scientific is not the only evidence in existence. I'm confident that you yourself accept non-scientific evidence for historical claims. Ok, if you believe that the resurrection is a legally verifiable event in history, show us what non-Biblical (ie. non-biased) eyewitnesses have written about the event. Show us what just one non-Biblical contemporary of Jesus had to say about the resurrection. Note that the gospels were written by religious people who had a vested interest in deifying their leader, and also note that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetoneus, etc. were writing about the historical beliefs of the Jews and not about a historical resurrection. ********* Journey, I hear what you are saying. Quite frankly, if the Bible did clearly teach-- if Jesus clearly taught-- that women were created and designed to be under male authority, or that God designed and endorsed slavery as God's approved system, I would have to abandon both the Bible and the God it spoke of, in favor of the true God whom I would believe would still be out there somewhere. It's not "Right or wrong, true or false, I will still cling to Christianity." It's that Christianity at its core, appears to me to be right and true-- regardless of what has been added to it over time. KR, the main problem that I have with the cultural conditions argument is that in other places in the Bible, god has no problem with totally upsetting the existing order of things to demand that new laws be followed. God gives very specific instructions in the Old Testament law (the law that Jesus came not to abolish but fulfill) about how the Israelites are supposed to conduct themselves in all manners of personal life. When so many other things are specified in how their society is to be set up, there does not seem to be a good reason that god would decide about women and slavery that "that's just how their society is set up, so I'm going to work within that framework instead of changing it". In other places in the Bible, people are told to be willing to give up their lives to follow Jesus, that they're blessed if they're persecuted for righteousness, if someone sues them for their tunic, to give away their cloak as well... in that context, would it have been so impossible in the culture of their time for Paul to have told Philemon - when Onesimus returns to you, set him free and own no more slaves? It doesn't seem that god has any problem working outside the cultural boundaries in his laws in other areas.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Jan 31, 2010 20:45:24 GMT -5
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god, which is a completely different concept than a belief that god does not exist. I disbelieve in the existence of zeus as well, but I can't prove that he doesn't exist. Ok so I'm a scientist and I totally don't understand this semantical difference and am very curious about it. How is not believing that god exists different from believing he does not exist? Seems like it's saying exactly the same thing to me.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Jan 31, 2010 20:53:48 GMT -5
2.) But you are right. I've left NLQ more than once because I simply didn't couldn't communicate with Atheists. I kept saying the wrong things, never meaning to. Felt like I was walking on eggshells. It's funny that you say that, because I've taken breaks from NLQ because I've felt that too many Christians were basically saying "well if you just interpret the Bible the same way that I do, then you'd see that Christianity actually makes perfect sense". I'm not disrespecting that it makes sense to other people, but conversations synchronizing the Bible with egalitarianism simply hold no interest for me, particularly since patriarchy was not the main reason that I left Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Jan 31, 2010 20:57:20 GMT -5
What you see as a bad "tone" or "tearing apart statements", I see as normal, reasonable debate. I honestly don't see how my "tone" is even as bad as those I've been discussing things with. Point by point analysis is not an emotional response at all, but an orderly one.
I see two possible reasons for your opinion of my "tone": it isn't my words but my arguments, or it's that I don't beat around the bush but focus on underlying causes and logical fallacies. If this is not considered polite, then just tell me and I'll stay out. All I ask is a level playing field.
Also, others here keep wanting to turn this into a debate on atheism or evolution, in spite of the fact that I keep pointing to the opening post which asked why or how intelligent women can bother defending scripture. They got vulger and emotional about it, so I offered to shut up, but they keep addressing me.
But again, if it's standard informal debate that sounds offensive, I need to stay out, especially when the Christians don't like it either. I didn't know that would be so offensive, but I'm analytical. If I don't belong, I don't belong, and that's okay.
And FWIW, the only reason I even mentioned problems with atheism and evolutionism is to show how charges made against theism can be made as easily against atheism. That's all.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Jan 31, 2010 21:41:29 GMT -5
Ambrosia is Right, and since I already have bad karma here and speak what I believe and not what is P.C. in Any camp, I'll risk posting on this. I think that what she has to say, holds a lot of weight that we should all, Regardless of faith or non faith, should take heed to. You see this is where I got slammed for mentioning Islam but the women [Muslims and Ex Muslims] are having the Same issues that many in the Christian circles are having when it comes to confronting and ending patriarchy, honor killings, stonings, FGMs, state sanctioned raped and sanctioned rape [in prisons in Iran, what is going on in Sudan, etc], lashings for the trivial of offenses, forced marriages [at ages as young as 9, 6 recently via Hamas, over 400 young brides, FACT, women stoned/imprisoned for Being raped, Pakistan, Saudi, etc., YET dealing with texts, history and current, that is not only Extremely misogynist, but that is Political and that rules/dictates over women in the personal. I brought into another discussion that Other ideologies have done this as well, though I got slammed for it, so be it. So, taking a Secular view, apart from faith, here's what IS, fact, thousands of women have been butchered, raped, gang raped, maimed horribly, tortured, burned, enslaved, emotionally destroyed, forced to commit suicide or driven to it, beaten, all under the Sanction of Religion, not just Christianity either--also in non-faith Ideologies [here comes the slam, but oh well] that are not even faith oriented but that are authoritarian, under male 'polemics' and ideas--good reading on this in Any feminist anarcho-material, anarcho for anarchist. So, yea, Ambrosia you are right, Why then, can Any woman, attempt to defend or like many of my Muslim/Ex-Muslim friends try to REFORM a religion that has been the CORE of so much misogyny [and blatant at that] and abuse of women? That's a good question that deserves to be seriously inquired into because its NOT just good enough, to hear, oh there are reformists and women who are fighting because FACT is, those religions, especially when mixed with Political Systems, will and Do rule, over ALL women, whether they are of that religion OR not. That is FACT. Why, well, Ambrosia you mentioned rationale and faith, but I'd like to bring up something else, the fact that, even if the proof, lets say that these faiths in of themselves are not Misogynist and women prove that, the fact is, they are Ruled by, MEN and have been for centuries, AND they are weaved in Politics. Whether we like it or not, that is fact. Do we Really believe that MEN and a few women who benefit and polemics will change just because we 'prove' them wrong? Without some kind of force? [will it take revolt and violence or secular force? I tend to go back and forth on this one, where I still agree some with the far left on this, though just not their social engineering, too much to get into here] This is why, though I do have my faith [though I do Struggle with this very thing, how to believe when there is clearly so much abuse] . I see a LOT of similarities between those of us who are confronting patriarchy in Christianity to those confronting misogyny in Islam. Here's the gist of it, from what I know from those I work in solidarity with, its almost like one would have to literally CHANGE THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS, to actually PROVE that their point is right, where women's rights are concerned. And some texts are far worse than others but that really doesn't matter, a little injustice sanctioned does its harm and killing. AND to do That, you would need really, a Revolution or a Mass army of believers to adhere to the reform, and That simply isn't going to happen as Long as there is power to be derived from oppression. As long as that power, benefits economy [and in Both Christianity and Islam it does, sanctions slavery/cheap wage slavery-fact, Elitism, fact, oppression of women, fact, oppression of children, fact, war, fact, nationalism, fact, I mean, you name it, you can justify all these in the use of Religion. Marx here was Absolutely right, Religion IS an opiate, regardless of what one believes, it is THE TOOL for the power apparatus to enforce and terrorize and keep the masses in control. To think, we can find true Freedom from, within that framework, well, is kind of an oxymoron. ON that Ambrosia, I totally concur with you. ON the other hand however, because I have worked for years within the materialist [non faith] groups I found the same 'justifications' for lording it over women, but using different reasonings, such as 'what is good for the state' at the price of women's rights. Women's human rights Always takes a back seat, to anti-war, fact, to nationalism, fact, to labor, fact, and so forth. And That was what I was trying to get across, earlier, but I got slammed for it, maybe I didn't write it well, because I was trying to NOT offend, maybe I should have just wrote from my heart like I normally do. I do think though, that any attempt to try and force a non-faith will blow up in the face Because, and I got into this debate with many Marxists, to do that, is kind of like playing God. Not only that, it actually works to Serve more adherence to 'religion' especially if nationalism is involved. BUT--that aside, here's the deal, and may I share with you, why I have the views I do, and why I did bring into the other discussions what I did, and why I believe, that 'reform' within religion is not enough. When I was in the far left , anyhow,
that was the root of contention, women's Human rights were being thrown over [and I would find this was not the first time] for the goals of revolution, so they said. But what I also found, is that due to there being no absolutes, that 'moral' norms, were not to be given a lot of weight, let me be blunt here, when there was a convention on prostitution and pedophilia there was a Huge group of MEN and shockingly, some women, who were all in support of the anything goes, I actually had one woman tell me that children actually like being molested.
For one who is a survivor of such, let me tell you, I was not pleased. When confronting such blatant Disregard for women's feelings [the belief is that constructs are mere learned from religion, etc] I realized that there were other areas that were just as misogynist and ironically, patriarchal but in a State way, just like it is in the Church. Different means, different ideologies, but the Ends are the exact same.
Women have no personal 'or group' autonomy outside of the central belief, no personal autonomy over THEIR BODY, be it for having children or not, for having sex or not, etc., and their roles were Always defined by the majority of MEN in the party. Now, whether that is transference of patriarchal ideas, is debatable, I tend to concur that its more than simply a 'transfer' or an oversight.
And what I saw was this, MEN will join up with other MEN if they can reinforce their misogynist beliefs, and behaviors. Like, many men in the party, were joining with other patriarchal groups, be it nationalist or religious, or 'hedonist' because that gave them License, some kind of moral License,
to force marriage, to rape [yes], to molest, and be still accepted and be in that whole males as rulers and women as passive receipiants {sic} To that rule.
One feminist [whom I admire a lot] once said, the problem isn't just religion or politics, its the belief that MEN have entitlement to the woman's body for sex, period.
And she is absolutely right. AS long as that belief, is out there, we can rid the world of religion and we will Still have oppression of women, we can rid the world of marriage and we will Still have oppression over women.
Yes, religion sanctions and gives the FORCE, some more than others, to the male entitlement belief, however, removing religion alone, will not remove those belief systems.
One of the first betrayals in the former Soviet to women was when the Bolsheviks took power [and I believe they had a lot of good, but they were Still, under Lenin, very patriarchal], the MEN claimed that women were the property of the state and that religious ideals of purity were Bourgousie and therefore, women had the DUTY to perform for any man who demanded them to do so, sexually, and women who did not, were raped. I'm not talking non-communist women here, but Communist women. Who were Atheist. When word got out to Moscow [it was two main provinces this occurred] of course they put a stop to it, but it took a long time for that to go through,
we see the same issue again in the former Yugoslavia, under Stalin [who said, so what if the men raped the Yugoslavian women, its after all, their right to booty] and
we see it Today, in Columbia [and they also force these 13 year old girls/combatants to abort, those girls DO NOT HAVE CHOICE OR AUTONOMY, they are property of the FARC-Maoists, who are ATHEISTS, fact, sorry if many don't want to hear this but it is FACT, Same with other countries, where girls are forced to be combatants, so forth, also girls/women sold in sex slavery to pay for arms, women's Bodies are nothing more than a Commodity.
Be it religion or in state-politics.
And women play and Support, via their silence, or their willful acts, in Both. You can attack religion [any] and do away with one, you will Still have horrible oppression and abuse and control over women. AND, not only that, WOMEN WILL ASSIST IN OTHER'S OPPRESSION,
and why? Because they benefit in some form, form it, they may get a bit more power, or they can be liberated in some small way, but the fact remains, WOMEN AS A CLASS, ARE OPPRESSED, AS A GENDER. We cannot get away from that FACT. Some, more than others, depending on WHERE they are in the hierarchal (sic) ladder. FACT.
So, yes, women feed into other women's oppression by supporting religion, but also, by supporting other areas and then you get into, well do we ban marriage, do we ban birth, do we ban this, that,
because whether many Realize this or not, what is Freedom for one woman, is hell to another.
I hope, maybe this makes a bit more sense, where I'm coming from. It is for this reason, that I believe that the issue isn't just about religion, or 'constructs' but Human Rights, of Women, Period.
WE need Human Right laws, that are across the board for ALL WOMEN, and that are ENFORCED BY THE LAW.
And to do THAT, we will have to look a lot more into what is defined as oppression of women, because many women, support men who rape and abuse other women, many women support their own oppression/submission, etc., many women support ethnic cleansing and war,
so, what do we Do then?
And THAT, that I believe, is really, at the Heart of the matter. Not about, religion verses non-religion, but seeing our Oppression, as a Class, a Gender Class,
and to Stop, pandering to cultural and political and moral relativists, who have one thing in common more than anything
Their right [so they believe] to control and to have entitlement to women' bodies, lives, personhood and space and yes, beliefs.
Otherwise, all we are doing, is bashing religion, usually one or what have you, and Ignoring all the other horrible abuses and if you rid of one, the MEN will just glue themselves to another,
because its always Been men, who have [though Yes women have been contributing to inventions and so forth, I know that, I"m not stupid] but MEN have, been the dominant ones globally in religion, politics, economics and in militarization. WE cannot end exploitation and abuses in one sect or social setting
while ignoring or making excuses for tolerating them, in all the others.
Bottom line, that's the gist of it.
OK, now slam away...
Jane
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Jan 31, 2010 21:50:29 GMT -5
oh, btw, I do know there are many misspelled words--I have about ten keys missing from this laptop--and in middle of dealing with kids,
sorry about that.
Jane
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 31, 2010 21:53:00 GMT -5
Well, it's happened again ~ seems like whenever I'm away from the computer, you all go crazy with posting ~ LOL! I'd have loved to jump in on all this most interesting discussion going on ~ except that I haven't felt so good the past couple of days, so have been mostly just resting and relaxing. John read an entire book to me this weekend: Stardust by I-forget-who ~ a most enjoyable story. Anyway ~ I still have a sore throat and so, as much as I'd like to comment on all the comments ~ I'm going to bed early and hope that I feel better in the morning. 'Til then ~ night all. TTYL
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Jan 31, 2010 22:33:21 GMT -5
Janedoe,
Your post, which nicely summarizes many of the horrors I've studied over the years, is one of the reasons I flinch when people, mostly male people, bemoan modern society and talk about agrarian utopias. The way forward is not the way back. I don't want to go back. Not ever.
At least here, in this place and time, I can be educated, literate, employed and independent.
I hope you're feeling better, Vyckie.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Jan 31, 2010 22:46:37 GMT -5
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in the existence of god, which is a completely different concept than a belief that god does not exist. I disbelieve in the existence of zeus as well, but I can't prove that he doesn't exist. Ok so I'm a scientist and I totally don't understand this semantical difference and am very curious about it. How is not believing that god exists different from believing he does not exist? Seems like it's saying exactly the same thing to me. To not believe something is not a positive/affirmative statement. It basically says that there is no evidence that indicates that X is true. To believe that something does not exist is a positive statement about the existence/nonexistence of something. It basically says that I believe that X does not exist despite there being no evidence to determine the truth of this. One of these things is not like the other. As a scientist, I assume you can tell the difference.
|
|
|
Post by Kaderin on Jan 31, 2010 23:18:15 GMT -5
Vyckie Stardust by Neil Gaiman? Oooh, that's a great book =D Have you seen the movie? It's lovely <3 sabertruth What's the difference between "there might or might not be a god" and the atheist who doesn't actively believe in no gods? An atheist doesn't go about hir life affirming to hirself that there is no God. S/he leaves open the possibility, but is not compelled to believe it, barring extra-ordinary evidence. It's sort of like you may view unicorns: You don't actively believe in their non-existence, you just are not compelled to believe that they exist, due to lack of evidence. An agnostic is a True Neutral: They neither believe nor disbelieve, thinking there's just no way to know. That's my point: the First Cause cannot be physical, hence it must be supernatural. Can you account for the existence of anything physical without infinite regression, which is no answer at all? And "A wizard did it" is. /snark For Christ's sake, stop telling Christians what they should believe. Or discuss. We just might know our own ideas of our faith better than you do. ...? What. I must have missed the part where I did that.
Then patriarchy doesn't reflect badly on the Bible. You can't have it both ways. The Bible does NOT teach what the patriarchalists say, which is why, per the original question, we study the scriptures and do all that "nitpicking" we were told is such a waste of time.
[...]
Also, others here keep wanting to turn this into a debate on atheism or evolution, in spite of the fact that I keep pointing to the opening post which asked why or how intelligent women can bother defending scripture. They got vulger and emotional about it, so I offered to shut up, but they keep addressing me.
[...]
And FWIW, the only reason I even mentioned problems with atheism and evolutionism is to show how charges made against theism can be made as easily against atheism. That's all.
Okay, here's the thing: a discussion is a fluid thing that moves and shifts its focus. My original rebuttal was not about "the original question" (which, incidentally, was neither the original question nor in the opening post - way to define this thread by what you consider important!) It was specifically about evolution being made responsible for Hitler's actions. Also, whining about how the discussion got derailed when you're the one who derailed it, is just... You cannot just throw statements like "evolution caused HITLER" or "atheism takes just as much faith as theism" out there as if they are established or self-evident facts, because they're not. If you really want to stay on topic, then don't make controversial statements that require long debates themselves. So. Since you seem genuinely puzzled about what is objectionable about your tone, I've been thinking about what made me snap at you. And it all comes down to this: you are not, as you claim, "communicating". You are having a verbal written sparring match with straw men. You are not willing to engage with the actual, real people not agreeing with you - you presume to know their positions and when their self-professed positions and your preconceptions do not match, you cling to the distorted picture in your mind. Basically, you deny these women's voices, thoughts and experiences. This is incredibly offensive. Maybe you'll see it if I reverse the positions. Imagine an egaliterian Christian who, after a long painful struggle, has emerged from fundamentalist Christianity. Imagine s/he has extensively studied the Scriptures to emerge with a new, kinder and more compassionate form of Christianity. Imagine an atheist who has engaged fundamentalist Christians in debate a few times and has a fair understanding of their mindset and their arguments. Now imagine the two of them in a debate. Imagine the atheist projecting hir picture of a fundie onto our egal Christian, criticising fundie positions that are not positions the Christan holds, and rebutting arguments the Christian isn't even making. Imagine the Christian trying to explain hir actual position. Imagine the atheist not listening, what with being too busy fighting an imaginary opponent. Imagine the Christian getting increasingly angry and louder. Imagine the atheist smirking as he sees how his superior logic and "disturbing questions" are getting to the Christian. Imagine the Christian screaming in frustration and then leaving in a huff. Imagine the Atheist pondering whether it was "[hir] arguments, or [...] [hir] focus on underlying causes and logical fallacies" that drove the Christian off.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 1, 2010 0:14:52 GMT -5
KR, the main problem that I have with the cultural conditions argument is that in other places in the Bible, god has no problem with totally upsetting the existing order of things to demand that new laws be followed. God gives very specific instructions in the Old Testament law (the law that Jesus came not to abolish but fulfill) about how the Israelites are supposed to conduct themselves in all manners of personal life. When so many other things are specified in how their society is to be set up, there does not seem to be a good reason that god would decide about women and slavery that "that's just how their society is set up, so I'm going to work within that framework instead of changing it". In other places in the Bible, people are told to be willing to give up their lives to follow Jesus, that they're blessed if they're persecuted for righteousness, if someone sues them for their tunic, to give away their cloak as well... in that context, would it have been so impossible in the culture of their time for Paul to have told Philemon - when Onesimus returns to you, set him free and own no more slaves? It doesn't seem that god has any problem working outside the cultural boundaries in his laws in other areas. Well, we have seen that the laws set up by Moses resembled in many ways the laws of other, neighboring nations, only with a few changes in focus, such as not worshiping a whole pantheon of gods, and not having laws that favored the rich and powerful over the poor and weak. But to a large extent, the laws were the kind of laws the Israelites would have expected to be given. And Paul does make it pretty clear that he wants Philemon to set Onesimus free-- but he also recognizes the economic realities of the times, and does not require him to free all his slaves. The Romans might very well have decided he was a dangerous radical and executed him on the spot. And Christians were already receiving enough persecution without being accused of undermining the entire economic structure. For myself, not actually living in those cultures, it seems easy to say it would have been feasible to make such and such a change-- but I am really not sure, given the economic and political realities, that it would have been feasible in actuality. What I see throughout the scriptures is God making changes, but always refraining from actually turning a person or people's entire universe inside out or upside down. I suspect God knows better than I do, exactly how much change a given person or people can accept and implement.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 1, 2010 1:28:13 GMT -5
2.) But you are right. I've left NLQ more than once because I simply didn't couldn't communicate with Atheists. I kept saying the wrong things, never meaning to. Felt like I was walking on eggshells. It's funny that you say that, because I've taken breaks from NLQ because I've felt that too many Christians were basically saying "well if you just interpret the Bible the same way that I do, then you'd see that Christianity actually makes perfect sense". I'm not disrespecting that it makes sense to other people, but conversations synchronizing the Bible with egalitarianism simply hold no interest for me, particularly since patriarchy was not the main reason that I left Christianity. I wanted to add to my comment above, that my defense of my views should not be interpreted as an attempt to persuade you to subscribe to them. Yes, I think the way I interpret the Bible is more logical than the way fundies do-- and that when it's interpreted in the historical-context way, it makes more sense. But explaining why I believe something is not the same thing as saying you have to believe it too. The conversation started because someone said, "how can you believe that?" not "why should I believe that?"
|
|
|
Post by sabertruth on Feb 1, 2010 7:16:47 GMT -5
An atheist doesn't go about hir life affirming to hirself that there is no God. S/he leaves open the possibility You must have a different nuance on it than every other atheist I've ever met. They all assert that "there is no God", even when they know they can't prove a negative. They demand proof but also demand that it be naturalistic. They want the impossible, then laugh as reasonable people give up trying to discuss things with them. Meaning you say there's a way to know. What is that? I don't care what you call it, the First Cause cannot be physical. Yet it must exist, because the physical cannot create itself. If you simply move the line in the sand to say that somewhere, out there, the laws of physics don't apply, then you're begging the question. I don't see a philosophical or logical way around it. Check back and see who dropped the F bomb (and yet didn't get called out for their "tone"!). I realize that; I've been in more than I can count. I've also followed that fluidity only to be accused of hijacking the thread. It will happen eventually. Nice tone, which continues below... I knew it would happen! ;D Check again, I did nothing of the kind. ::sigh:: Like people insinuating that Christian women are not being intelligent when they discuss the Bible and defend it against patriarchy? Whether you yourself said that or not, it's a debate spark. At least you recognize that you snapped at me. Progress! That's odd, I thought this was how I would confront you and yours next. Pot, meet kettle. "Maybe you'll see it if I reverse the positions." But at this point I'm sure it wouldn't help. I always try, but I know a brick wall when I see one. I hope someday you can see through your bitterness and rage at patriarchy, and instead of jumping from the frying pan to the fire, get clear off the stove. I honestly pray for that. And since the more I try to explain the worse it gets, I'll stop and leave you to the fate you choose. But please, choose wisely. ADDED: www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-atheist-christ/
|
|
|
Post by margybargy on Feb 1, 2010 8:50:36 GMT -5
Wow! I haven't had time to read through this whole thread yet, but I feel compelled to comment anyway.
I'm an atheist. For me, that means there is no credible evidence to support belief in a god or gods. It is not an assertion that there is no god. It is not up to me to prove anything.
Christians and other religious folk are making the claim that god/gods exist. Therefore, it is up to them to produce evidence to prove their claims. If they can't be bothered trying to convince me, then I think that's great. Live and let live.
The statement that "atheists believe nothing came from nothing". Oh my. That is very silly and insulting. Someone did a great job of dealing with this upthread. Can I go around telling people what they believe, too? Or is Sabretruth the only one who's allowed to do that?
Sabretruth, you leave me with the impression that your foundation in Christianity it very weak. Otherwise, why would you feel the need to attack as you have? There are plenty of people on this forum who are Christians who can be accomodating toward ideas that might be challenging to their faith.
When I read through your some of your comments, I think to myself, "Ah, there's one of those hateful type Christians". And I am probably not the only one.
Hopefully, I'll get a chance to read more later and participate more.
|
|
|
Post by ashmeadskernal on Feb 1, 2010 9:47:06 GMT -5
Here is a graph, perfectly dipacting what all True Christians (TM) believe: 1.bp.blogspot.com/_V452Ll6JHAE/S2XrtcSMjdI/AAAAAAAAAf4/7i5DrLHQFBY/s1600-h/Church-Of-Christ-web.jpg(where's that tongue in cheek emoticon? And commentary: debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-to-debunk-christianity.htmlfive models of revelation, six views of inspiration, five views of the Trinity , three views of “tongues,” four views of the nature of man, three views on original sin, five views of salvation, nine views of the atonement, five views of sanctification, four views on water baptism, four views of the Lord’s Supper, four views of the rapture, four views of the millennium, and so on.
Why on Earth would all True Christians (TM) believe the same thing? For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that all True Atheists (TM) believe the same thing as well, regardless of definitions used. I find all uses of "they all believe" to be, well, not offensive, but a sign of immaturity of thought. Not all Branhamites, Quiverfullers, Patriarchists, Christians, Gothardists, believe or practice the same thing, regardless of how much they try to conform to perfection. And that is where I draw the line. I don't try to conform to perfection, under whatever guise it is found, not even some sort of atheistic conception of "natural law". I have a lot in common with those Christians who have come to the realization that God loves them no matter what they do, so they stop fearing and guilting and stressing. I have a lot in common with those atheists who have come to the realization that there is no permanent judgment of their actions, so they stop fearing and guilting and stressing. I have a lot in common with the Buddhists who have had the experience that (oh dear, this is hard to put into words) they are naked, they are dead already, their "reputation" is all illusion anyway, so they are free to simply exist without fear and guilt and stress, because there is nothing to lose. I don't care how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I don't have to know all truths, indeed there are many that I simply don't have to know, and whether God (which one?) wants this or that just isn't up there on my list right now. But I do have to feed the baby before I have to get the kids up, dressed, fed, and cart the youngest off to preschool, and somehow manage to get by on less than enough sleep, and dinner on the table before my husband gets home. But if I fail, I'm still alive, and the sun still rises and sets, and I am still worthy of making decisions, of the ability to play and enjoy, and succeed where I choose.
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Feb 1, 2010 12:10:15 GMT -5
You must have a different nuance on it than every other atheist I've ever met. They all assert that "there is no God", even when they know they can't prove a negative. They demand proof but also demand that it be naturalistic. They want the impossible, then laugh as reasonable people give up trying to discuss things with them. So present us with your non-naturalistic proof... we're all waiting. You can't imply that atheists are refusing to listen to reasonable proof when you will not present that proof to us, but merely say that we won't listen to it if we hear it. (And in my last post, I gave a logical rebuttal to the cosmological argument. I noticed that while you've replied to other people since then, you did not reply to that after claiming that you've never seen one that made sense before. Before you claim that no one is willing to engage you systematically, I'd like a response to that). Why do you want to apply "philosophy" to the laws of physics? If you think that saying that outside the universe (space-time) the physical laws within the universe do not apply is "moving the line in the sand", then you have an ignorance of cosmology that no amount of "logical" debate can affect. (See The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology, Hawking and Penrose, for a proof of the finite beginning of space-time.) That's not a criticism, no one can be knowledgeable about all subjects. But if you don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "somewhere" where the laws of physics don't apply, don't act like your ignorance is a proof. Just because you can't see a philosophical way around it doesn't mean that there isn't one. Also, please explain that if you accept that the physical cannot create itself, how you rule out a self-necessary universe arising from eternal energy. Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that in regards to god, you're perfectly happy to move your own line in the sand. Is your god outside space-time? Do the laws of physics apply to your god? If so, explain how any acts of such a god on the universe do not break Noether's theorem.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 1, 2010 12:58:13 GMT -5
Just to interject here– I was feeling upset all yesterday without understanding why, but I figured it out. I have been working hard over the last few months, writing scriptural rebuttals of Quiverfull positions, to help women who are wanting to/trying to escape that cultic movement. I, and some others who take these alternate scriptural positions seriously, were discussing some of their ramifications here in the thread related to Journey’s post (which was about one particular Quiverfull position that seriously needs to be rebutted). Vyckie believes that the work I’m doing could have significant impact on a sizable portion of the women Take Heart Project is trying to help. I myself place great value in this alternate way of reading Scripture– and Journey herself has shared how vital such alternate views were to her as she began questioning this movement.
So it was upsetting to me to have someone say that, in effect, all of this was a waste of time and that they couldn’t understand how any intelligent person could be discussing this in the way we were discussing it. Though I understand that no offense was meant, and that Ambrosia was simply voicing her own position, which she is entitled to hold– it is my understanding that in the atheist-materialist view, the only value/meaning anything has, or needs to have, is the value/meaning we humans place upon it. I place a lot of value and meaning on the work that I am doing. It was hard for me to have someone else tell me that it had no value whatsoever– particularly since the viewpoint that says it has no value, also says that one person’s estimate of value ultimately has neither more or less weight than any other person’s estimate of value.
It is true that religious beliefs are non-rational. In my opinion, so is just about everything else that makes life worth living: love, friendship, creative expression, the experience of beauty. . .
As Ambrosia said, non-rational does not mean irrational. I appreciate that. There can be rational reasons behind ideas that in themselves are about something other than, or more than, pure reason. But I want to feel free here at NLQ to discuss what I am doing– my efforts to formulate what I feel are more rational ways of reading the Bible, to present to people who do value the Bible but are reading it in a harmful manner– without feeling like I constantly have to defend what I’m doing as having any legitimacy at all.
Again, no offense was meant, and none was taken. But I did feel upset, and I wanted to explain why.
*hugs all around*
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 1, 2010 14:25:42 GMT -5
But I want to feel free here at NLQ to discuss what I am doing– my efforts to formulate what I feel are more rational ways of reading the Bible, to present to people who do value the Bible but are reading it in a harmful manner– without feeling like I constantly have to defend what I’m doing as having any legitimacy at all. Good point, KR ~ thanks for making it. I, too, start to go a little crazy after a while of listening to all the fine points of bible interpretation ~ which, like Journey, used to be so very important to me and now I couldn't care less. That is normal for any of us who have experienced spiritual abuse based on these bible verses. But ~ I do believe that there is value in the egalitarian approach to the scriptures ~ and for many QF families ~ discovering and understanding this new way of interpreting the bible is a major factor in their transition to healthier relationships. So ~ KR, I'll have endless patience as you continue on with your project here ~ and when I have time, I'll even play "devil's advocate" (LOL) to provide feedback from a QF-perspective just to make sure that your "finished product" (NLQ FAQs) actually makes it past all the various QF defenses. RE: Sabretruth v the NLQ atheists Welcome, Sabretruth ~ I've been reading and enjoying your posts here on the forum ~ though I've been silent so far because I was sick over the weekend so didn't feel like responding to anything. I am feeling much better today ~ but now I'm behind on everything, so still not able to do much commenting. The reason I say that I've been enjoying your comments, Sabretruth, is that a lot of your arguments remind me of all the Christian apologetics material which I scrambled to read when I first started writing to my uncle ~ just in case he decided to challenge me on my belief in God ~ which he didn't. My studying was not for nothing though, as at least it got me to thinking again ~ and that's what led me away from fundamentalism.
|
|
|
Post by Kaderin on Feb 1, 2010 14:35:15 GMT -5
You must have a different nuance on it than every other atheist I've ever met. They all assert that "there is no God", even when they know they can't prove a negative. They demand proof but also demand that it be naturalistic. They want the impossible, then laugh as reasonable people give up trying to discuss things with them. Head, meet desk. My definition of atheism is not the exception, it's the rule. In this very thread there are two other atheists who have said to hold the exact same position! And you told them they were wrong because you "knew" what atheists believe! I'm going to make a wild guess here and say that most of those atheists you have met didn't hold the position you describe. You just weren't listening. I mean, for FSM's sake, Richard Bloody Dawkins, one of the most hardcore atheists who ever hardcored, defines his disbelief this way! Meaning you say there's a way to know. What is that? *sigh* To go back to the earlier example - do you believe that unicorns exist? And if you don't, how do you know? That's how I "know". I don't see a philosophical or logical way around it. And I don't see how "I don't understand, therefore magic" is superior to just not knowing. This is classical God of the Gaps. Check back and see who dropped the F bomb (and yet didn't get called out for their "tone"!). what is this i don't even Saying a naughty word =/= Telling Christians what they should believe, or are allowed to discuss, or in any way, shape or form implying that they don't know best what they themselves believe Again, I ask when and where I did the things you accuse me of.
Like people insinuating that Christian women are not being intelligent when they discuss the Bible and defend it against patriarchy? Whether you yourself said that or not, it's a debate spark.
WTF? Yes, it's a debate spark, and the one who brought it up dealt with the discussion and didn't complain about the direction into which she herself had steered the discussion. That's odd, I thought this was how I would confront you and yours next.
[...]
I hope someday you can see through your bitterness and rage at patriarchy, and instead of jumping from the frying pan to the fire, get clear off the stove And here, I think, we've encapsulated the elusive "tone". Go back and read my posts. Count the times I mentioned the word "patriarchy" or alluded to the concept. You'll come up with Zero. Where was I raging against the patriarchy? I didn't even bloody mention it. For all you know I might be the resident secular complimentarian. You have determined that I must be a bitter person based on nothing whatsoever. Nothing, that is, except that you've put me into your little mental box labeled "atheist". And me and mine are, of course, bitter harpies. Congrats, you have just judged another human being on the basis of literally nothing but your own prejudices. KR I'm very sorry that you felt like your work wasn't being valued. And, for what it's worth, I very much admire your efforts to offer a scriptural basis for egaliterianism, because it's much more likely to truly get through to a QF person than a purely secular approach and help them. *hugs if you want them*
|
|