Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the video presents a wonderful little utopia, and sets up strawman arguments about religious folks.
I disagree that atheists don't "force" atheism on their children. They raise their kids to have the same values they do--or lack thereof.
He sets up the idea that atheists act purely out of objective, true, honest behavior. I'm sorry--I don't believe that w/out a belief in God a person is just happy and nice.
He made the statement that atheists can take science classes w/out trying to "fit it into" their belief....I just don't believe that, either. Evolution, though unproven, is widely accepted by atheists regardless. There is not a lot of free thought there.
While some religions do consider women to be 2nd class...Christianity does not.
Bottom line? I think he's being overly nice to atheism and misrepresenting religion.
Hi kdbrich,
You say Christianity does not consider women to be 2nd class. How do you reconcile the following passage:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Keeping in mind to accept the passage "the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it", as you have implored in another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Convince me. I wish you had the desire to just accept what the text said, and the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it.
Hi kdbrich,
You say Christianity does not consider women to be 2nd class. How do you reconcile the following passage:
1 Timothy 2:11-15 11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Keeping in mind to accept the passage "the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it", as you have implored in another thread:
At the time women were not allowed to speak in a synagogue...many were not allowed religious instruction--instead they were to be taught by their husbands at home.
The fact that Paul is suggesting that they be allowed to learn is a huge step up from what the culture taught.
At the time women were not allowed to speak in a synagogue...many were not allowed religious instruction--instead they were to be taught by their husbands at home.
The fact that Paul is suggesting that they be allowed to learn is a huge step up from what the culture taught.
You are reinterpreting this passage with a cultural context. You have EXPLICITLY implored someone to not do this in another thread. Here is your quote again:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdbrich
Convince me. I wish you had the desire to just accept what the text said, and the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it.
So this is what the passage states:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
The fact that you are trying to put this into a cultural context proves how this passage promotes the idea that women are second class. The thing is, is YOU HAVE TO put it into a cultural context, because if you apply it to life today literally, it is a very backwards idea.
Now what is it kdbrich?
Shouldn't we take theses passages literally as the author wrote it? (The method in which you have explicitly told someone else to look at a passage, when they were trying to put it into cultural context as you have done here)
You are reinterpreting this passage with a cultural context. You have EXPLICITLY implored someone to not do this in another thread. Here is your quote again:
So this is what the passage states:
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
The fact that you are trying to put this into a cultural context proves how this passage promotes the idea that women are second class. The thing is, is YOU HAVE TO put it into a cultural context, because if you apply it to life today literally, it is a very backwards idea.
Now what is it kdbrich?
Shouldn't we take theses passages literally as the author wrote it? (The method in which you have explicitly told someone else to look at a passage, when they were trying to put it into cultural context as you have done here)
Read it in context. That's what I'm saying.I've never suggested not to read it in context. Thi spassage does not indicate Christianity teaching women are 2nd class. The culture did so, but not Christianity.
Read it in context. That's what I'm saying.I've never suggested not to read it in context. Thi spassage does not indicate Christianity teaching women are 2nd class. The culture did so, but not Christianity.
So are you saying that the bible is not Christian, but cultural?
So are you saying that the bible is not Christian, but cultural?
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The Bible is a collection of books compiled to document God's interractions with human beings. That includes pre-Jewish history, Jewish history, and the church age of Christianity. The accepted culture in that city, among the Jewish synagogues at the time was that women were silent, and were not allowed to speak in the synagogue.
Read it in context. That's what I'm saying.I've never suggested not to read it in context. Thi spassage does not indicate Christianity teaching women are 2nd class. The culture did so, but not Christianity.
For the part in bold, please refer to your post you made today, where you wish someone could "just accept what the text said, and the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it." This was in response to someone suggesting taking the biblical verses on homosexuality in their cultural context. Exactly like you have done here with the subjugation of women. Here is that link, so others can see for themselves: http://www.city-data.com/forum/8708705-post189.html
Secondly, how does one decide their morality from the Bible, if it is all cultural? If the morality of the Bible is from ancient culture, what is in fact Christian morality? And what do you base this morality off of?
For the part in bold, please refer to your post you made today, where you wish someone could "just accept what the text said, and the way the author wrote it w/out trying to reinterpret it." This was in response to someone suggesting taking the biblical verses on homosexuality in their cultural context. Exactly like you have done here with the subjugation of women. Here is that link, so others can see for themselves: http://www.city-data.com/forum/8708705-post189.html
Secondly, how does one decide their morality from the Bible, if it is all cultural? If the morality of the Bible is from ancient culture, what is in fact Christian morality? And what do you base this morality off of?
I find that hard to believe anyway, considering that even as a Christian I don't have "religious propaganda" around me all the time. Maybe it's just where you live, and maybe you should move if the persecution is so horrible...
Or maybe people should just mind their own business.
I'm glad I wasn't baptized as a baby. The ideas in religion are ridiculous to me. I think that god doesn't exist. If he does exist, he must be one hell of an di**-head. He won't let you go to heaven if you were a great person but didn't believe in him, but he does allow you to go to heaven if you were a serial killer who prayed for his forgiveness. Religion is also the reason of many deaths in the world. Wars and terrorism can be caused by religion, by what people say "GOD" tells them. Life being religious must be harder in ways like how you can't do certain things and you have to use your sunday mornings going to church, but It's easier in the ways that you have someone to talk to and how god will forgive you for practically anything you do. I think about which people first thought of the ideas of religion. I wonder if they were on crack, I wonder if they wanted money, I wonder if they wanted to help the world be taking away some of its pain, and I wonder if they actually saw a supreme being. I don't know if "GOD" exists, I'm just using the facts and logic for now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
