Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: G0atmaster on April 21, 2008, 01:59:32 am
-
Hey, I know quite a few members on here don't agree with what I believe in, and hear me when I say I don't mean to troll on here. But I recently came across this, and it's probably the best metaphor for what I believe that I've ever read. If you've got a moment, I just wanna ask that you read and think about it.
There was a certain Professor of Religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the western United States.
Dr. Christianson taught the required survey course in Christianity at this particular institution. Every student was required to take this course his freshman year, regardless of his or her major.
Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing but required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously.
This year, Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going on to seminary for the ministry. Steve was popular, he was well liked, and he was an imposing physical specimen. He was now the starting center on the school football team, and was the best student in the professor's class.
One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him. 'How many push-ups can you do?'
Steve said, 'I do about 200 every night.' '200? That's pretty good, Steve, ' Dr. Christianson said. 'Do you think you could do 300?' Steve replied, 'I don't know.... I've never done 300 at a time.' 'Do you think you could?' again asked Dr. Christianson. 'Well, I can try,' said Steve.
'Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I have a class project in mind and I need you to do about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it? I need you to tell me you can do it,' said the professor. Steve said, 'Well... I think I can...yeah, I can do it.' Dr. Christianson said, 'Good! I need you to do this on Friday. Let me explain what I have in mind...'
Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. No, these weren't the normal kinds of donuts, they were the extra fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson's class.
Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, 'Cynthia, do you want to have one of these donuts?'
Cynthia said, 'Yes.' Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?'
'Sure!' Steve jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten. Then Steve again sat in his desk. Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia's desk.
Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, 'Joe, do you want a donut?' Joe said, 'Yes.' Dr. Christianson asked, 'Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut?' Steve did ten push-ups, Joe got a donut. And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten push-ups for every person before they got their donut.
Walking down the second aisle, Dr. Christianson came to Scott. Scott was on the basketball team, and in as good condition as Steve. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship. When the professor asked, 'Scott do you want a donut?' Scott's reply was, 'Well, can I do my own push-ups?' Dr. Christianson said, 'No, Steve has to do them.' Then Scott said, 'Well, I don't want one then.'
Dr. Christianson shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Scott can have a donut he doesn't want?' With perfect obedience Steve started to do ten push-ups. Scott said, 'HEY! I said I didn't want one!' Dr. Christianson said, 'Look!, this is my classroom, my class, my desks, and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don't want it.' And he put a donut on Scott's desk.
Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow.
Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry. Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, 'Jenny, do you want a donut?' Sternly, Jenny said, 'No.' Then Dr. Christianson asked Steve, 'Steve, would you do ten more push-ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn't want?' Steve did ten....Jenny got a donut.
By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students were beginning to say, 'No!' and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks.
Steve also had to really put forth a lot of extra effort to get these push-ups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.
Dr. Christianson asked Robert, who was the most vocal unbeliever in the class, to watch Steve do each push up to make sure he did the full ten push-ups in a set because he couldn't bear to watch all of Steve's work for all of those uneaten donuts. He sent Robert over to where Steve was so Robert could count the set and watch Steve closely.
Dr. Christianson started down the fourth row. During his class, however, some students from other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the radiators that ran down the sides of the room. When the professor realized this, he did a quick count and saw that now there were 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it.
Dr. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set.
Steve asked Dr. Christianson, 'Do I have to make my nose touch on each one?' Dr. Christianson thought for a moment, 'Well, they're your pushups. You are in charge now. You can do them any way that you want.' And Dr. Christianson went on.
A few moments later, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled in one voice, 'NO! Don't come in! Stay out!' Jason didn't know what was going on. Steve picked up his head and said, 'No, let him come.' Professor Christianson said, 'You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten push-ups for him?' Steve said, 'Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut.'
Dr. Christianson said, 'Okay, Steve, I'll let you get Jason's out of the way right now. Jason, do you want a donut?'
Jason, new to the room, hardly knew what was going on. 'Yes,' he said, 'give me a donut.' 'Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut?' Steve did ten push-ups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.
Dr. Christianson finished the fourth row, and then started on those visitors seated by the heaters. Steve's arms were now shaking with each push-up in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. By this time sweat was profusely dropping off of his face, there was no sound except his heavy breathing; there was not a dry eye in the room.
The very last two students in the room were two young women, both cheerleaders, and very popular. Dr. Christianson went to Linda, the second to last, and asked, 'Linda, do you want a donut?' Linda said, very sadly, 'No, thank you.'
Professor Christianson quietly asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Linda can have a donut she doesn't want?' Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow push-ups for Linda.
Then Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. 'Susan, do you want a donut?' Susan, with tears flowing down her face, began to cry. 'Dr. Christianson, why can't I help him?' Dr. Christianson, with tears of his own, said, 'No, Steve has to do it alone; I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not. When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked at my grade book. Steve here is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else has failed a test, skipped class, or offered me inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up he must do push-ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes.' 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut?'
As Steve very slowly finished his last push-up, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 push-ups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.
Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said, 'And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross, plead to the Father, 'Into thy hands I commend my spirit.' With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, He yielded up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten.'
Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile. 'Well done, good and faithful servant,' said the professor, adding, 'Not all sermons are preached in words.'
Turning to his class, the professor said, 'My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He spared not His only Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid.'
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
Thank you for your time in reading this post. God Bless.
-
Been there, done that... (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,28377.msg577694.html#msg577694)
P.S.
I'm actually frightened I remembered a post from that long ago... by Liberator no less.
-
I think that it is well written, aside from a few minor details. Despite this, I think that it fails miserably in attempting to convey its intended message. The problem (in my eyes at any rate) is that many people, myself included, do not like to be indentured to anyone or anything regardless of the circumstance. The message here is that you should feel guilty if you are not grateful for what Christ did, and that sounds merely like a recruitment tool to me. While I don't have any problem with Christians (or people of any other religion), I cannot stand anyone or anything that attempts to gain control of people through the use of unwarranted guilt. Say that the Bible is factual, and I say "I didn't ask for the sacrifice," a Christian would reply "it was given without your asking, you should be grateful". I think that this is a problem that many people have with religion (though I could be wrong); the correct reponse should be "you are entitled to your own beliefs," but instead they continue to preach, and if there is anything that I have found to be true in life, it is that people do not like to be preached to about things that they neither believe in, nor intend to believe in. That's my two cents on the matter, I don't intend to start an argument, or any dispute, but feel free to comment (or not comment) as you please...
P.S.
I also know how people would respond in a real life situation that is similar to this, and I highly doubt that it was what the author had in mind at the piece's conclusion.
-
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
by dying what did jesus actully give us ?
-
Hey, I know quite a few members on here don't agree with what I believe in, and hear me when I say I don't mean to troll on here. But I recently came across this, and it's probably the best metaphor for what I believe that I've ever read. If you've got a moment, I just wanna ask that you read and think about it.
There was a certain Professor of Religion named Dr. Christianson, a studious man who taught at a small college in the western United States.
Dr. Christianson taught the required survey course in Christianity at this particular institution. Every student was required to take this course his freshman year, regardless of his or her major.
Although Dr. Christianson tried hard to communicate the essence of the gospel in his class, he found that most of his students looked upon the course as nothing but required drudgery. Despite his best efforts, most students refused to take Christianity seriously.
This year, Dr. Christianson had a special student named Steve. Steve was only a freshman, but was studying with the intent of going on to seminary for the ministry. Steve was popular, he was well liked, and he was an imposing physical specimen. He was now the starting center on the school football team, and was the best student in the professor's class.
One day, Dr. Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him. 'How many push-ups can you do?'
Steve said, 'I do about 200 every night.' '200? That's pretty good, Steve, ' Dr. Christianson said. 'Do you think you could do 300?' Steve replied, 'I don't know.... I've never done 300 at a time.' 'Do you think you could?' again asked Dr. Christianson. 'Well, I can try,' said Steve.
'Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I have a class project in mind and I need you to do about 300 push-ups in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it? I need you to tell me you can do it,' said the professor. Steve said, 'Well... I think I can...yeah, I can do it.' Dr. Christianson said, 'Good! I need you to do this on Friday. Let me explain what I have in mind...'
Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, the professor pulled out a big box of donuts. No, these weren't the normal kinds of donuts, they were the extra fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend with a party in Dr. Christianson's class.
Dr. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, 'Cynthia, do you want to have one of these donuts?'
Cynthia said, 'Yes.' Dr. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?'
'Sure!' Steve jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten. Then Steve again sat in his desk. Dr. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia's desk.
Dr. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, 'Joe, do you want a donut?' Joe said, 'Yes.' Dr. Christianson asked, 'Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut?' Steve did ten push-ups, Joe got a donut. And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten push-ups for every person before they got their donut.
Walking down the second aisle, Dr. Christianson came to Scott. Scott was on the basketball team, and in as good condition as Steve. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship. When the professor asked, 'Scott do you want a donut?' Scott's reply was, 'Well, can I do my own push-ups?' Dr. Christianson said, 'No, Steve has to do them.' Then Scott said, 'Well, I don't want one then.'
Dr. Christianson shrugged and then turned to Steve and asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Scott can have a donut he doesn't want?' With perfect obedience Steve started to do ten push-ups. Scott said, 'HEY! I said I didn't want one!' Dr. Christianson said, 'Look!, this is my classroom, my class, my desks, and these are my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don't want it.' And he put a donut on Scott's desk.
Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow.
Dr. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry. Dr. Christianson asked Jenny, 'Jenny, do you want a donut?' Sternly, Jenny said, 'No.' Then Dr. Christianson asked Steve, 'Steve, would you do ten more push-ups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn't want?' Steve did ten....Jenny got a donut.
By now, a growing sense of uneasiness filled the room. The students were beginning to say, 'No!' and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks.
Steve also had to really put forth a lot of extra effort to get these push-ups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.
Dr. Christianson asked Robert, who was the most vocal unbeliever in the class, to watch Steve do each push up to make sure he did the full ten push-ups in a set because he couldn't bear to watch all of Steve's work for all of those uneaten donuts. He sent Robert over to where Steve was so Robert could count the set and watch Steve closely.
Dr. Christianson started down the fourth row. During his class, however, some students from other classes had wandered in and sat down on the steps along the radiators that ran down the sides of the room. When the professor realized this, he did a quick count and saw that now there were 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it.
Dr. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set.
Steve asked Dr. Christianson, 'Do I have to make my nose touch on each one?' Dr. Christianson thought for a moment, 'Well, they're your pushups. You are in charge now. You can do them any way that you want.' And Dr. Christianson went on.
A few moments later, Jason, a recent transfer student, came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled in one voice, 'NO! Don't come in! Stay out!' Jason didn't know what was going on. Steve picked up his head and said, 'No, let him come.' Professor Christianson said, 'You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten push-ups for him?' Steve said, 'Yes, let him come in. Give him a donut.'
Dr. Christianson said, 'Okay, Steve, I'll let you get Jason's out of the way right now. Jason, do you want a donut?'
Jason, new to the room, hardly knew what was going on. 'Yes,' he said, 'give me a donut.' 'Steve, will you do ten push-ups so that Jason can have a donut?' Steve did ten push-ups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.
Dr. Christianson finished the fourth row, and then started on those visitors seated by the heaters. Steve's arms were now shaking with each push-up in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. By this time sweat was profusely dropping off of his face, there was no sound except his heavy breathing; there was not a dry eye in the room.
The very last two students in the room were two young women, both cheerleaders, and very popular. Dr. Christianson went to Linda, the second to last, and asked, 'Linda, do you want a donut?' Linda said, very sadly, 'No, thank you.'
Professor Christianson quietly asked, 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Linda can have a donut she doesn't want?' Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow push-ups for Linda.
Then Dr. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. 'Susan, do you want a donut?' Susan, with tears flowing down her face, began to cry. 'Dr. Christianson, why can't I help him?' Dr. Christianson, with tears of his own, said, 'No, Steve has to do it alone; I have given him this task and he is in charge of seeing that everyone has an opportunity for a donut whether they want it or not. When I decided to have a party this last day of class, I looked at my grade book. Steve here is the only student with a perfect grade. Everyone else has failed a test, skipped class, or offered me inferior work. Steve told me that in football practice, when a player messes up he must do push-ups. I told Steve that none of you could come to my party unless he paid the price by doing your push ups. He and I made a deal for your sakes.' 'Steve, would you do ten push-ups so Susan can have a donut?'
As Steve very slowly finished his last push-up, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 push-ups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.
Dr. Christianson turned to the room and said, 'And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, on the cross, plead to the Father, 'Into thy hands I commend my spirit.' With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, He yielded up His life. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten.'
Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile. 'Well done, good and faithful servant,' said the professor, adding, 'Not all sermons are preached in words.'
Turning to his class, the professor said, 'My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He spared not His only Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid.'
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
Thank you for your time in reading this post. God Bless.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/853/tealdeeruz2.gif)
-
Actually it seemed to me that the lesson was more like "don't blindly follow the leader, you will pay for it".
The message here is that you should feel guilty if you are not grateful for what Christ did, and that sounds merely like a recruitment tool to me.
Yeah, pretty much. It's really all about marketing.
but instead they continue to preach
Hallowed are the Ori
-
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
by dying what did jesus actully give us ?
nothing, just an example for some people to live by
oh, and the world's biggest cult of self-retardation
-
GRAB YE TORCH AND PITCHFORKS TO SMITE TEH HEATHEN!111111111111one
-
Regardless what Jesus' original message might or might not have been, for the majority of current christian sects* the metaphor would have been more accurate like this:
You'll all get to have a wonderful time with me in the donut bar if and when you pass this course, if you let Steve do ten push-ups for you.
...like in all bait and switch schemes/cults, the prize for obedience and Right Kind of Thinking/Living is right by the corner (in case of Christianity, after death, which is very hande because no one usually comes back to complain...) so to accurately describe Christianity as a metaphor, the students should have been required something for the prize as well, because christianity sure does... theoretically anyway. For the defense of the Christian overlords it must be said though that they relatively rarely resort to trying to control members who change their way of thinking and want to leave the church. Those days are pretty much in the past for Christianity.
*majority of christian sects has conditions for salvation. Either you need to not do some things (sinners don't get to heaven -model - although the code is more like guidelines anyway for most sects, everythign is more or less negotiable especially if you repent...), do something specific (catholic culture of sacraments), or think something specific (Lutheran mode where you basically just need to believe).
Is there even a sect that believes that no matter what your religious opinions and education and deeds in life, you would be offered a donut after death? I seem to remember Jesus himself implying (or made to imply by the editors of the gospels) that believing in him - that he died for your sins and was/is the son of God thy lord and master - was required for fastpass to heaven, or donut bar. Some sects have additional criteria, to different extent, but I don't think there's any official sect of christianity that requires nothing of no one for them to be offered eternal afterlife, even if you never believed in gods of any kind, or happened to have a wrong religious uprising. If there is, please point me to it.
There's also the very serious question of whether or not anyone in their right mind would want to spend an eternity of quality time with a conceited malevolent bastard (or incredibly incompetent fool) that God of christianity most apparently is - and this opinion is based both on how things are in reality, and especially the scriptures of the Old Testament... Hell, most people wouldn't want to even spend an afternoon with their religions course professor in a donut bar!
...wow, now that I look at this, I realize this might be taken as pretty inflammatory and provocative. That was not originally my intention, so please don't take it as such. Just making the metaphor describe what it was supposed to be a bit better... :nervous:
-
It's a great metaphor. Every atheist reading it is thinking "That Dr. Christianson's a complete wanker to put Steve through that when he could have just given out the donuts."
-
It's a great metaphor. Every atheist reading it is thinking "That Dr. Christianson's a complete wanker to put Steve through that when he could have just given out the donuts."
Seconded!
I understood this principle of Christianity before even reading the metaphor. I think the metaphor fails to address most of the real problems people have with Christianity, which have nothing to do with Christ's sacrifice and a lot to do with the belief that there is no God -- or at least no judgmental God in the Christian sense.
Also, it doesn't seem to indicate to me why I should choose Jesus Christ over, say, Mohammed or Buddha, who have also done interesting and generous things for mankind.
That said, I've got no problem with your faith so long as it doesn't affect the government of my state or my personal situation.
-
Well, I’d say that the metaphor is ineffective because it trivializes the idea of the sacrifice. I think all of us can understand what it means to die for someone else, and comparing it to an afternoon’s discomfort is not going to make us understand it any better or appreciate it any more (or convince those of us who happen to be atheists.)
Quite the opposite, really. The claim is that God offers eternal life – are you saying that’s comparable to a donut? Seems like someone who does believe would be insulted by the comparison, and someone who doesn’t would say that a donut is a much more tangible reward than an afterlife that we won’t know exists until we get there.
Or perhaps that’s the point, and this was written as satire.
-
It's a wonderful example of how religion can be used to divert punishment to the innocent whilst the cruel pretend they are being altruistic.
-
-lots of text
-emotionally manipulative
-lacking on insights
-
nicely done G0atmaster!
you should have known that it wouldn't be welcomed much in this forum :-/
-
I'm afraid you are certainly right about that.
Two students helped Steve up off the floor and to a seat, physically exhausted, but wearing a thin smile. 'Well done, good and faithful servant,'
Yesss... A good servant you have been, there may be cake later if you continue to be a good servant, then of course, there may not be.
-
.... was that a (weak) Portal reference? :wtf:
-
nicely done G0atmaster!
you should have known that it wouldn't be welcomed much in this forum :-/
Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general. (if anyone is insulted by this it's because you recongnize yourself. If not then good for you)
Not that that particular piece of writing was something I would consider posting, especially here. While interesting it really was a unnecessary exhibition.
-
Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general.
Only cause the vocal religious people are in general too dumb to figure it out. :p
-
.... was that a (weak) Portal reference? :wtf:
Not really, though the cake was vaguely Portal-esque in origin.
It is, for me, the very personification of the reason I walked away from religion, whether intentionally or not, it just says to me that the guy in charge needs to be certain that his followers are willing to work themselves to collapse to prove him right without question or even rational thought.
It's not a story about Jesus' suffering, it's a story about 'rites of passage', it's a tribal story to define to children that there will be a reward if they are willing to suffer for their leaders' sake, be it doughnut, cake or heaven.
I understand the imagery it's trying to portray, certainly, but the story used to portray it displays some of the worst aspects of Religious Dogma, that to suffer pain to prove a point is somehow noble or grand. It isn't it's stupid and pointless, especially when there is no cause to do so.
-
I understand the imagery it's trying to portray, certainly, but the story used to portray it displays some of the worst aspects of Religious Dogma, that to suffer pain to prove a point is somehow noble or grand. It isn't it's stupid and pointless, especially when there is no cause to do so.
But that's hardly unique to religion. To suffer for your beliefs, to even show willingness to suffer for them, is viewed as noble (not so much grand) in almost any context. And this is much better than the alternative, is it not?
-
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
Not at all. I for one believe that there is some value and meaning when one person decides to deprive themselves of some luxury in order to honor the suffering of another. If your moral system demands that you reap the rewards bought with another's work then so be it, but don't expect me to find much justice in that.
I find the example given just as manipulative and shady as well. I suppose it's not outright deception and misuse of educational resources since the class in question could be part of a private institution. However, I have a strong dislike of the way that the professor forcibly interprets the situation for the students. My belief is that the point of education is to present the evidence, so to speak, with as little objective interpretation as possible; but to supply the students to come up with their own subjective interpretation.
For the remainder of this post, I'm going to assume that the students are part of a private Christian school, because if it was part of a public school, then something is seriously wrong because the Professor does not respect the idea of separation between church and state at all. Would you feel so comfortable if this example was done with a professor instead preaching Islam or Buddhism?
If the professor had chosen to go through with his example and simply state that what he had done was a direct allegory of Jesus' sacrifice for humanity, and how did that make you feel about being a Christian, I would consider it a very clever example and a way to present a moral quandary that the students would seriously have to consider their beliefs in order to solve. Are you truly comfortable with a religion that demands utter altruism - are you capable of accepting that?
But as the professor twists the situation around in his ending sermon, it becomes not a question of how the students felt about it, but more of a guilt trip on them for not participating in the class. I suppose that you can make some argument that that is also what Christianity is about, a guilt trip to keep people in line by using the emotional impact of Jesus' death, but it is not a very positive one and is likely to alienate people in droves. The professor clearly has an agenda in mind to focus people on his class, and is using all kinds of emotional tools to get to that goal.
I would say that the lesson the students have learned should have been that they have a duty to stand up to a source of authority if what that authority is doing is unquestionably wrong. Whatever happened to the golden rule? Did none of the students in the class think about how they would have felt if they were the one doing push-ups to give other people donuts? Did none of them have the moral fortitude to stand up to the professor and call him out on what he was doing?
As if that wasn't enough, the professor lied about what he told Steve. There isn't any injunction or parable in the Bible against deception, is there?
I suppose the lesson is consistent with Christian moral philosophy in that "The meek shall inherit the earth," and of course "I help those who help themselves." Steve could've easily called a stop to the exercise. Standing up to the professor would've done no good and only made the situation worse, if anything (Another interesting subtext to the lesson, don't stand up to authority figures). But whatever happened to the story of how God selectively chose from the Israelites the most fit, able, brave soldiers at the cost of any numerical superiority? Has that been discarded in favor of mass conversion of anyone who is receptive?
For me, I suppose the story speaks of the kind of injustices that can occur through inaction and from somebody with power thinking that they know better than anyone else. It's the kind of society that I wouldn't want to ever live in, because it forces you to think a certain way or react a certain way, or become so desensitized to the emotional tools that others use in order to ensure your compliance that you would become disconnected from those around you, incapable of basic empathy, and propagate the sort of things that forced you to become so callused in the first place. It's a very unpleasant sort of world to conceive of, where the social and emotional forces are centrifugal for those who do not fit into that codified structure defined by the religion.
I much prefer the freedom that comes with tolerance.
-
Very cool metaphor, and nicely done. Yes Jesus may have suffered for our sins, but what did it gain us? there is no indication that life would have been worse had he not been staked up.
Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general. (if anyone is insulted by this it's because you recongnize yourself. If not then good for you)
Just thank God you're not Scientologist.
-
I should probably leave the satire to Swift but he'd dead and I'm not so here goes.......
Turning to his class, the professor said, 'My wish is that you might understand and fully comprehend all the riches of grace and mercy that have been given to you through the sacrifice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. He spared not His only Begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, for the whole Church, now and forever. Whether or not we choose to accept His gift to us, the price has been paid.'
Wouldn't you be foolish and ungrateful to leave it lying on the desk?
At this point Professor Alan Theist comes in from next door. Theist has seen Christianson's demonstrations before and has noticed some rather large flaws each time. Professor Theist suggests that any of the students who wish to get a head start on the advanced ethics course (which unlike the Freshman course isn't forced on everybody) may wish to come to the lecture hall next door and hear a counterpoint.
At this point some of the students collect their bags immediately and move. Some think about it and decide to go over. Others decide to turn on some loud music in the lecture hall so they party with Christianson and can't possibly hear anything from next door.
In the advanced ethics lecture hall Prof. A. Theist starts his lecture. "The biggest problem I have with Christanson, is that he expects you all to be perfect. Whenever someone fails to be perfect in my class I don't assume that they deserve to be punished. As long as you tried hard that's good enough for me.
Furthermore if pretty much everyone fails I wonder if maybe I might be the problem. I set everything up. If the whole class has disappointed me then maybe it's my fault for doing things in the wrong way. If people are skipping my classes maybe my lecturing style is too boring. If people are failing my tests maybe I shouldn't schedule them the day after the superbowl. Yeah Steve managed not to make any mistakes but we all know that Christianson was helping him more than the rest of you. It's easy to be perfect when you're getting help like that. I certainly wouldn't feel guilty for minor mistakes I might make if I was on my own."
"Let me ask you a question. When you got stuck with Christianson's course how many of you tried to find him and ask for help?"
Quite a few hands go up from those in the class.
"How many of you actually got an answer?"
Only a few hands remain up. The professor points to Fiona, one of the girls who still has a hand in the air. "What answer did you get?"
"Well I went to his office but the door was locked" Fiona says "So I shouted "Dr Christianson? Are you there?" but I didn't get any answer so I said "I've got a problem with my essay" and at that point I'm sure I heard a voice say something that sounded like 4th floor. So I went to the 4th floor of the library and found a book that helped me. So I guess that must have been him in the office"
"Are you sure?" says the professor, "How do you know it wasn't the Janitor or the radio?"
"Well I got the right answer" says Fiona "so it must have been him"
"Okay, in that case let me ask everyone. Did anyone actually definitely see Dr. Christianson when they had a problem? I don't mean maybe hear his voice through a door, I mean actually physically see him."
All the hands in the audience stay down this time.
"So in other words despite his need for you all to pass every test and hand in work of high quality, when you needed him he either wasn't there or gave advice that was hard to understand or interpret? What about his notes? Were they easy to follow?"
There's a general shaking of heads. The professor points at one of the male students. "What was the problem with them, Thomas?"
"The second semester notes completely contradicted the ones from the first, sir. They said that a whole bunch of things weren't ethical but the second semester notes said that they were all fine."
The professor nods. "And the second semester is when Steve took over as Christianson's RA, right? Christianson insists that none of the earlier stuff was wrong, simply that the new stuff he collaborated on with Steve supersedes it. So lets have another show of hands, given all that how many of you still feel that making mistakes was all your own fault?"
Only a few hands go up this time.
"Keeping that in mind, let's move on to Steve's so called sacrifice. Christianson said that the only way you could have an end of term party was to be perfect even though he knew you couldn't be. In fact given the poor quality, incomplete notes he gave you it was a forgone conclusion that many of you would fail tests. But despite the fact that Christianson should know that deep down he is the one to blame for that failure he insists that you shouldn't have failed and decides to attach a ridiculous penalty to that failure.
"But then having decided that maybe you could come to his party after all Christianson decides that Steve can do the penalty instead. Did Christianson decide to allow you to do the penalty? Scott, you tried. What was his response?"
Scott stands up and replies that Christianson wouldn't let him.
"Yeah, funny that." says the professor "He let last years class do the push ups themselves. In fact he had a whole chart up on the board detailing exactly how to do them. In fact, I think it's in your first semester notes somewhere. You'd think he'd offer people the choice rather than obligating them to feel guilty to Steve. I guess he likes them feeling guilty to him and he feels that it's a better system than dropping this entire punishment system and simply giving everyone a donut."
-
Go kara.
-
Very well done.
-
Indeed...most of the internets is the domain of vocal atheists and religion haters in general.
Only cause the vocal religious people are in general too dumb to figure it out. :p
actually i like to think it's more like "The only way they can get people to listen to them, is to get online and find them"
-
What are they complaining about? In the US they have a monopoly on AM radio. :p
-
Hallowed are the Ori
Hallowed are the children of the Ori.
-
Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...
Speaking of which, the whole guilt trip..I find the anegdote rather interesting. Guilt has always been a tool trought human history. Still is. In fact, everyone is using it.
When you say to a religious person that he's a mindelss follower and doesn't think, aren't you actually trying to make him feel guilty about that? When a person kills or brakes a law and you scorn him for that, what's that other than imposing a feeling of guilt?
In fact, it's impossible to go trough life without making somebody feel guilty sometimes, weather you want it or not. It's just the way things are.
Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort. And at the end of the day, trying your best is all you can do...you own words I believe Kara?
But honestly, I don't know why I really bother posting...
-
Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...
Speaking of which, the whole guilt trip..I find the anegdote rather interesting. Guilt has always been a tool trought human history. Still is. In fact, everyone is using it.
When you say to a religious person that he's a mindelss follower and doesn't think, aren't you actually trying to make him feel guilty about that? When a person kills or brakes a law and you scorn him for that, what's that other than imposing a feeling of guilt?
In fact, it's impossible to go trough life without making somebody feel guilty sometimes, weather you want it or not. It's just the way things are.
Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort. And at the end of the day, trying your best is all you can do...you own words I believe Kara?
But honestly, I don't know why I really bother posting...
You know what is full of holes?
That spelling :p
Sorry, I'm guilty of the same crime so no hard feelings?
Really, it looks bad on our position as freethinking Christians in a forum of mostly outspoken atheist.
@G0atmaster - I don't like the metaphor, philosophically speaking it's biased and that turns people off. IMO a more invitational pattern of thought leads to God (it's a gift) although Christianity deals in absolutes and God convicts as such.
Anyway, sorry for not adding much to the conversation :D
-
Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...
And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?
Now, while that hypothetical approach by that teacher is not something I would do, it is still a good effort.
Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.
-
And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?
just because Christians try to make people feel guilty, doesn't mean that God is trying to. why would God need to make anyone feel guilty...
-
Christianity deals in absolutes
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I'm sorry, Anakin jdjtcagle.
-
I'm not saying I don't believe in a God, but my faith in religion in general is absolute Zero, I don't think God intended us to worship Him/Her/It at all, I think that is a purely human piece of manipulation. I don't believe Heaven is like some kind of exclusive nightclub with a Bouncer, making sure everyone wears the right shoes, that, too, is a tool of religions across the world, and metaphors such as these make me certain that the whole 'Christ suffering for our sins' line is one of the most subtle pieces of emotional blackmail ever thought of.
I would say that as poor Steve stumbled from the room exhausted, Christ appeared, put a millstone around Mr Chrstiannson's neck and dropped him in the Ocean, as per Biblical requirements.
It's the whole image of a teacher forcing one set of children to make another child suffer in order to impose his own religious views that annoys me, that's not teaching, that's coercion.
As Stealth says, I don't blame any kind of God for this, but I do indeed blame human insecurity, and the willingness of certain people to use things such as emotional blackmail to dominate children, they say it is about religion, but it isn't it's about control, and the security of being in a group that has the same customs as you do.
-
Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...
And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?
And when did I say that? I said that guilt is an integral part of humanity and is used by everyone (including you).
God may or may not be using it, but if he does I see no problem with it.
Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.
Let me answer that graphicly:
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8076/elephantsbr0.jpg)
-
I'm not saying I don't believe in a God, but my faith in religion in general is absolute Zero, I don't think God intended us to worship Him/Her/It at all, I think that is a purely human piece of manipulation. I don't believe Heaven is like some kind of exclusive nightclub with a Bouncer, making sure everyone wears the right shoes, that, too, is a tool of religions across the world, and metaphors such as these make me certain that the whole 'Christ suffering for our sins' line is one of the most subtle pieces of emotional blackmail ever thought of.
I would say that as poor Steve stumbled from the room exhausted, Christ appeared, put a millstone around Mr Chrstiannson's neck and dropped him in the Ocean, as per Biblical requirements.
It's the whole image of a teacher forcing one set of children to make another child suffer in order to impose his own religious views that annoys me, that's not teaching, that's coercion.
As Stealth says, I don't blame any kind of God for this, but I do indeed blame human insecurity, and the willingness of certain people to use things such as emotional blackmail to dominate children, they say it is about religion, but it isn't it's about control, and the security of being in a group that has the same customs as you do.
I couldn't agree more. I see no problem with belief in a higher being, but quite frankly, religions are made and run by humans. And people (especially in groups with power), are generally manipulative pieces of ****.
-
And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?
just because Christians try to make people feel guilty, doesn't mean that God is trying to. why would God need to make anyone feel guilty...
So people would be reminded of him/her/it every time they saw an act of noble self-sacrifice! I mean, why not have someone else's acts help strengthen your believer's religious conviction? :p
Interesting Kara...alltough filled with holes and flaws more than swiss cheese...
And yet you struggle to find a better one than it's okay for God to drop the guilt bomb on people cause everyone does it?
And when did I say that? I said that guilt is an integral part of humanity and is used by everyone (including you).
God may or may not be using it, but if he does I see no problem with it.
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that a Christian God is supposed to be perfect, and shouldn't even need to use these coercive methods.
-
Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.
Let me answer that graphicly:
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8076/elephantsbr0.jpg)
I don't know, Kara's remark makes sense to me. It takes both sides, doesn't it?
I don't see what you're actually disagreeing with, unless you think atheists don't see it that way...
-
Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.
Let me answer that graphicly:
http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/8076/elephantsbr0.jpg
Your explanation leaves a lot to be desired. Which part is crap? That Christians see it as a good metaphor? That atheists do for different reasons?
Maybe you should take the time to write a proper response rather than going straight to the funny pictures. You know, actually try to participate in an adult discussion rather than trying to reduce it to the juvenile level you're trying to.
-
Christianity deals in absolutes
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I'm sorry, Anakin jdjtcagle.
Mwahahaha... ;7
-
Guys lets take a deep breath...
Everybody needs to know that religion is bad and that God is good. I'm a part of a church (group of people of a related faith) that dedicates it's time to find out what the bible says using the historical / grammatical principals of hermeneutics. I'm very very comfortable that I actually do know the truth and it does make me happy to have such an assurance, although many people may not agree with me.
Now that I told you what I stand for let me say this...
There have been countless horrible things done in the "name" of religion, especially Christianity. God's plan certainly wasn't this. It was however to be set up on this world. That is the spiritual kingdom that those who recieve the gift of the Holy Spirit (the bible way, not by saying the magic words). This kingdom is a relationship with God. One that if you (truly) partake of your entire lifestyle "does" change. The way you dress, talk, walk, and live all changes. Whether or not I'm fooling myself into being happy I whole heartedly don't believe, but I'm happy regardless.
The meaning of this stressful life is to be happy and stop bring others down (yes, even "non-christians")
Treat them as equals because they are... How can somebody that believes they have recieved grace from God say to themselves they are better than anyone else? I hardly doubt that's truly the right attitude.
Religion is a ceremony, church today is entertainment / "fast food" religion. God - never changes and neither does His word.
Just be happy! = to everybody.
If you believe in God, believe with all your heart and do strive to be exactly what the bible says you should be. NOTHING less.
If your not living by the bible then your "Christian lifstyle" is a lie...
That's my take on it and for those who think of me naive about life, I'm sorry that there is know way I could convince you otherwise.
-
Maybe you should take the time to write a proper response rather than going straight to the funny pictures. You know, actually try to participate in an adult discussion rather than trying to reduce it to the juvenile level you're trying to.
I would, but that why bother?
That effort would be lost on you anyway, since apparently you're only interested in shouting to the world how horrible and stupid religious people are (Christians in particular) and how religion is the great evil that opresses.
It's noteworthy to fight for a good cause, but then again such branding have been more than common in history. Communists and capitalists and how they portrayed eachother? Each side sure that the other is the bad guy that needs to be defeated. From all the religious talk on various forums I get that vibe from most atheists - they do really believe that organized religion is evil. Well, kudos to them..whatever rocks their boat. Viva la revolucion and all that jazz. :rolleyes:
-
Maybe you should take the time to write a proper response rather than going straight to the funny pictures. You know, actually try to participate in an adult discussion rather than trying to reduce it to the juvenile level you're trying to.
I would, but that why bother?
That effort would be lost on you anyway, since apparently you're only interested in shouting to the world how horrible and stupid religious people are (Christians in particular) and how religion is the great evil that opresses.
It's noteworthy to fight for a good cause, but then again such branding have been more than common in history. Communists and capitalists and how they portrayed eachother? Each side sure that the other is the bad guy that needs to be defeated. From all the religious talk on various forums I get that vibe from most atheists - they do really believe that organized religion is evil. Well, kudos to them..whatever rocks their boat. Viva la revolucion and all that jazz. :rolleyes:
Since when did mainstream Christianity, and most other popular beliefs, not brand Atheism as "evil?" :p You don't have much of a high horse to sit on with that argument. I would dare say the oppression of Atheists by most organized religions has probably served to change their view of these religions to one of disgust and hate more than their non-belief ever could
-
Since when did mainstream Christianity, and most other popular beliefs, not brand Atheism as "evil?" :p You don't have much of a high horse to sit on with that argument. I would dare say the oppression of Atheists by most organized religions has probably served to change their view of these religions to one of disgust and hate more than their non-belief ever could
Since when is atheism evil? I don't recall ever hearing that from any of the priests I know or the pope, nor do I believe it.
And *I* would dare say that the misguided crusade of many a atheist has probably served to change the view of many religious people about atheism to one of disgust and hate.
-
Since when did mainstream Christianity, and most other popular beliefs, not brand Atheism as "evil?" :p You don't have much of a high horse to sit on with that argument. I would dare say the oppression of Atheists by most organized religions has probably served to change their view of these religions to one of disgust and hate more than their non-belief ever could
Since when is atheism evil? I don't recall ever hearing that from any of the priests I know or the pope, nor do I believe it.
And *I* would dare say that the misguided crusade of many a atheist has probably served to change the view of many religious people about atheism to one of disgust and hate.
Catholics aren't the only Christians you know. :rolleyes:
How would the fact that now, and throughout history, admitted Atheists are called devils, murdered, and generally persecuted not leave an Atheist to feel a bit of distaste for religion? Aside from Atheism when it's attached to political agendas such as Communism, I rarely hear of Atheists seriously calling for the murder, torture, or suppression of religious believers.
Admittedly extremism is bad for both, and usually extremists compose only a small portion of a group, but I believe you'll find many more extremist religious folks than extremist Atheists.
I'll leave you with this note, calling someone's beliefs silly and threatening eternal damnation or murder for saying your beliefs are silly are two very different things.
-
If you believe in the teachings of Christ, believe with all your heart and do strive to be exactly what Christ says you should be. NOTHING less.
If your not living by the life of Christ then your "Christian lifstyle" is a lie...
Since you, like most Christians, are confused about your religion, I have fixed your set of thought for the sake of your own salvation.
EDIT: Directed at everybody, not just to jdjt.
-
Since when did mainstream Christianity, and most other popular beliefs, not brand Atheism as "evil?" :p You don't have much of a high horse to sit on with that argument. I would dare say the oppression of Atheists by most organized religions has probably served to change their view of these religions to one of disgust and hate more than their non-belief ever could
Since when is atheism evil? I don't recall ever hearing that from any of the priests I know or the pope, nor do I believe it.
And *I* would dare say that the misguided crusade of many a atheist has probably served to change the view of many religious people about atheism to one of disgust and hate.
Ah, Trashman, Trashman...
Jumping into a thread with ridiculous generalizations and exaggerations, and then getting self-righteously nitpickety when somebody else responds along the same lines. It's almost like a well-rehearsed method of bait-and-switch.
Speaking of which, the whole guilt trip..I find the anegdote rather interesting. Guilt has always been a tool trought human history. Still is. In fact, everyone is using it.
When you say to a religious person that he's a mindelss follower and doesn't think, aren't you actually trying to make him feel guilty about that? When a person kills or brakes a law and you scorn him for that, what's that other than imposing a feeling of guilt?
Why do you assume that there is any reason to be ashamed of what you are? If you find that being a mindless follower is what you want to do because you hate to make decisions, then go ahead. Sometimes people like that are useful, sometimes there are situations when the best thing you can possibly do is shut up and just go with it.
I would argue that any guilt felt with regards to the justice system is meant to be deserved. A conscience is not a bad thing, nor is imposing a conscience so that society can function, but a conscience must be rooted in something and must be fair and just in order to function properly.
The examples you give here are not the same thing as the situation presented in the original story. On the surface, yes, they may involve questions of guilt, but they are a far cry from invoking undeserved guilt in order to force a certain mode of thinking. I would argue that the Professor's treatment of the students impaired critical thinking, and was wholly unnecessary and counterproductive for the process of learning.
If I were to challenge one of those students on their beliefs, what would they have actually gained out of the exercise? "I worship God, because he forced me into an obligation to accept his gift by causing someone else suffering that they didn't deserve". Maybe they could add a little icing to that description, but that's really the main thrust of what the Professor was demonstrating.
-
That's my take on it and for those who think of me naive about life, I'm sorry that there is know way I could convince you otherwise.
My take on 'religion', in general, is that it's not inherently bad but it is used as an excuse by people to do things which would otherwise be clearly wrong. It doesn't have to be religion for this to happen, either - you might see the same thing happen with a guy or a group of guys trying to impress some girl. Or somebody slapping around somebody else because they don't like them, even though that person has never actually done anything to hurt anyone.
Of course just to complicate things, there are some moral systems and justifications where you can easily justify those things as being the right things to do. Granted, you might get caught up in ends-justify-means reasoning and most people might not agree with you, but anyway...
Both the strength of and the problem with religion is that it links things to a higher meaning. You can't question God. You can question the interpretation of God, sure, but once you say that God meant something, you can't question that. And that can be a good thing - somebody might go through life being happy because they believe that God has a plan for them, and that might get them through rough spots in much better steed than somebody who doesn't have that faith.
But that can also lead to abuse, when somebody says that God is against this. Suddenly, whether something is immoral, whether it forces you to do injustice against your fellow man, doesn't really matter. With the mandate of God on your side, you can do pretty much whatever you want. The ends do justify the means, and no man or mortal can question what you are doing because God automatically supersedes everything material. If you are fighting for a truly righteous cause, then that is your strength. If your understanding is corrupted, the teachings that have been given to you have been perverted, or if you simply use that mandate as a rationalization rather than true purpose, it is a terrible thing and will lead to all sorts of senseless wrong.
And sometimes, religion is just insensitive to other people. Whether that is something simply added in by the human authors of holy works or by the diety that inspired them, it can lead to people going on a crusade against people for no other reason than simply because they believe that it is 'right', because their religion defines their morality and they never go any further than that.
I'm not exactly sure how I can make my point any further other than to say that I think that there is a difference in the type of people that become atheists, and the type of people that follow religion, in terms of how they go about things. Generally, people who follow religion end up getting accused of being sheepies, while atheists end up getting accused of being cold or negative. My suspicion is that atheists tend to value independent critical thinking over group harmony, while religion tends to be the other way around. Those kinds of subtleties are usually lost once a discussion gets heated enough.
It is interesting to note that there are Christian philosophers who attempted to formulate Christian morality, etc. without relying on the bible, though, so it's not like challenging religion is exclusive to atheists. The difference being that I've gotten the impression that religious philosophers start from the premise that religion is true and try to prove it, while atheist philosphers go the other way around, and start from the premises and try to formulate a conclusion.
However that is totally opinion and I've done very little checking on that last bit, but I figured it would be interesting to toss that into the discussion and see what people thought of it.
-
I don't buy the 'other people do it, so why not us?' line, not from something that is supposed to be following a 'higher truth'. If its goals are much more noble than wannabe dictators, tyrants and manipulators, then so should its methods be.
All the church showed me by copying those who they considered unjust was that they were no better than them, and convinced me that they had lost their way a long time ago. Now they are all about influence and control, over everything they see, touch, hear or smell, if they personally don't like a movie, or a show or a book, then all must be denied, regardless of their own personal beliefs, the church doesn't care what you think, it only cares that you treat them as the only route to some post-death paradise, and to do that, you must do what they say, not what they do.
-
I'm not exactly sure how I can make my point any further other than to say that I think that there is a difference in the type of people that become atheists, and the type of people that follow religion, in terms of how they go about things.
I'm not sure about that. Admittedly, I speak only from personal experience, but I've come to see a lot of importance in the distinction between god as an ontological truth and god as a state of thought. As an atheist, I deny the former, but the latter is central to my life. I don't believe in god, but I believe very strongly that I know what it feels like to experience god, and this feeling became so important to me that it's become the center of my studies in musicology. I'm no less of an atheist now than I was as a Nietzsche-quoting adolescent, but I think there is a wealth of personal happiness and fulfillment to be found in embracing spirituality as a sort of extension of our aesthetic selves. In essence, I think the question of whether god exists is less important than the beauty in the idea of god. And since beauty is a personal experience, god is a personal experience as well, which is why I think god has absolutely nothing to do with morality. My feelings of awe in the face of existence are between me and the universe, and have nothing to do with the way I conduct myself in relation to others. Religious experiences can't make me a better or worse person, they can't help those less fortunate than I, and they can't protect me from bouts with existential despair. They are, like art or love, sources of pleasure unto themselves-- simply feelings (however ontologically "false" they may be) of the presence of what the Sufis often called "the Beloved."
-
I would, but that why bother?
The other Christians on this topic have managed to conduct themselves as adults. It would probably be in their interests to not have you bringing the tone down with juvenile nonsense and borderline trolling. You choose of your own volition to enter an adult discussion. You're expected to act with the decorum the rest of us shown.
That effort would be lost on you anyway, since apparently you're only interested in shouting to the world how horrible and stupid religious people are (Christians in particular) and how religion is the great evil that opresses.
Gone straight to the argumentum ad hominem I see. Last refuge of someone unable to actually argue the point.
-
My take on 'religion', in general, is that it's not inherently bad but it is used as an excuse by people to do things which would otherwise be clearly wrong. It doesn't have to be religion for this to happen, either - you might see the same thing happen with a guy or a group of guys trying to impress some girl. Or somebody slapping around somebody else because they don't like them, even though that person has never actually done anything to hurt anyone.
Of course just to complicate things, there are some moral systems and justifications where you can easily justify those things as being the right things to do. Granted, you might get caught up in ends-justify-means reasoning and most people might not agree with you, but anyway...
Both the strength of and the problem with religion is that it links things to a higher meaning. You can't question God. You can question the interpretation of God, sure, but once you say that God meant something, you can't question that. And that can be a good thing - somebody might go through life being happy because they believe that God has a plan for them, and that might get them through rough spots in much better steed than somebody who doesn't have that faith.
I agree with what you had to say here - The question truly comes into play for people like me - "Do you think truth can be known?"
But that can also lead to abuse, when somebody says that God is against this. Suddenly, whether something is immoral, whether it forces you to do injustice against your fellow man, doesn't really matter. With the mandate of God on your side, you can do pretty much whatever you want. The ends do justify the means, and no man or mortal can question what you are doing because God automatically supersedes everything material. If you are fighting for a truly righteous cause, then that is your strength. If your understanding is corrupted, the teachings that have been given to you have been perverted, or if you simply use that mandate as a rationalization rather than true purpose, it is a terrible thing and will lead to all sorts of senseless wrong.
Again your completely right. :)
And sometimes, religion is just insensitive to other people. Whether that is something simply added in by the human authors of holy works or by the diety that inspired them, it can lead to people going on a crusade against people for no other reason than simply because they believe that it is 'right', because their religion defines their morality and they never go any further than that.
One thing I noticed about the scriptures is - They were meant to show us how to live, not for us to force other people how to live. There is a difference. People focus on the "evil" in the world - add the combination of evil in their heart you got a witch hunt. God can obviously make such judgments because He is holy. Jesus sat in the presence of "sinners" - We murder them.
I'm not exactly sure how I can make my point any further other than to say that I think that there is a difference in the type of people that become atheists, and the type of people that follow religion, in terms of how they go about things. Generally, people who follow religion end up getting accused of being sheepies, while atheists end up getting accused of being cold or negative. My suspicion is that atheists tend to value independent critical thinking over group harmony, while religion tends to be the other way around. Those kinds of subtleties are usually lost once a discussion gets heated enough.
While I don't see atheist to be cold - we base our reality on our experiences. My honest beliefs on atheism is that when life comes our way, it's really hard to see a God - so naturally we look to nature or things we can see. The word faith really shows its face in the discussion.
It is interesting to note that there are Christian philosophers who attempted to formulate Christian morality, etc. without relying on the bible, though, so it's not like challenging religion is exclusive to atheists. The difference being that I've gotten the impression that religious philosophers start from the premise that religion is true and try to prove it, while atheist philosphers go the other way around, and start from the premises and try to formulate a conclusion.
We all have biases and pretty much everything can be said about anybody and be true. I see your reasoning for Christian philosophers - I do not believe I do such a thing - There are philosophical reasons for not accepting atheism aside there is very little but I see that as a basis for reality.
I'm not exactly sure how I can make my point any further other than to say that I think that there is a difference in the type of people that become atheists, and the type of people that follow religion, in terms of how they go about things.
I'm not sure about that. Admittedly, I speak only from personal experience, but I've come to see a lot of importance in the distinction between god as an ontological truth and god as a state of thought. As an atheist, I deny the former, but the latter is central to my life. I don't believe in god, but I believe very strongly that I know what it feels like to experience god, and this feeling became so important to me that it's become the center of my studies in musicology. I'm no less of an atheist now than I was as a Nietzsche-quoting adolescent, but I think there is a wealth of personal happiness and fulfillment to be found in embracing spirituality as a sort of extension of our aesthetic selves. In essence, I think the question of whether god exists is less important than the beauty in the idea of god. And since beauty is a personal experience, god is a personal experience as well, which is why I think god has absolutely nothing to do with morality. My feelings of awe in the face of existence are between me and the universe, and have nothing to do with the way I conduct myself in relation to others. Religious experiences can't make me a better or worse person, they can't help those less fortunate than I, and they can't protect me from bouts with existential despair. They are, like art or love, sources of pleasure unto themselves-- simply feelings (however ontologically "false" they may be) of the presence of what the Sufis often called "the Beloved."
I enjoyed your post :)
-
How would the fact that now, and throughout history, admitted Atheists are called devils, murdered, and generally persecuted not leave an Atheist to feel a bit of distaste for religion?
I'm not aware of them being called devils, except by maybe a few extremists...and murdered? Who? When? and most importantly - by whom and why?
Aside from Atheism when it's attached to political agendas such as Communism, I rarely hear of Atheists seriously calling for the murder, torture, or suppression of religious believers.
Some extremists do, but in general, they are more subtle.
Admittedly extremism is bad for both, and usually extremists compose only a small portion of a group, but I believe you'll find many more extremist religious folks than extremist Atheists.
Got any numbers to back that up?
Oh one more thought.. I thought that in todays world it was customary to be innocent until proven guilty... anyone actually got any solid proof that religion (and organized religion) is evil? No?... Thought so.
-
I would, but that why bother?
The other Christians on this topic have managed to conduct themselves as adults. It would probably be in their interests to not have you bringing the tone down with juvenile nonsense and borderline trolling. You choose of your own volition to enter an adult discussion. You're expected to act with the decorum the rest of us shown.
Allow me to laugh at that.
That effort would be lost on you anyway, since apparently you're only interested in shouting to the world how horrible and stupid religious people are (Christians in particular) and how religion is the great evil that opresses.
Gone straight to the argumentum ad hominem I see. Last refuge of someone unable to actually argue the point.
In no discussion do I ever start with ad hominem attacks.. and I generally refrain from them. I'm sorry if you're insulted by that sentance but that's the "vibe" I've been getting from you (and a few other people). I hope I'm wrong on that, I really do.
-
That effort would be lost on you anyway, since apparently you're only interested in shouting to the world how horrible and stupid religious people are (Christians in particular) and how religion is the great evil that opresses.
Gone straight to the argumentum ad hominem I see. Last refuge of someone unable to actually argue the point.
In no discussion do I ever start with ad hominem attacks.. and I generally refrain from them. I'm sorry if you're insulted by that sentance but that's the "vibe" I've been getting from you (and a few other people). I hope I'm wrong on that, I really do.
You started one with that post rather than answer the question I posted and you STILL haven't answered the question and instead made another comment about the vibe you are getting as an excuse not to answer me.
I'll ask again. What part of this statement is crap.
Christians see is as an affirmation of their faith. Atheists see it as a manipulative way of enforcing arbitrary rules. So yes, it's a very good metaphor for Christianity.
-
Admittedly extremism is bad for both, and usually extremists compose only a small portion of a group, but I believe you'll find many more extremist religious folks than extremist Atheists.
Got any numbers to back that up?
It's not a question of 'numbers' it's a question of history, you don't even have to look very hard at history to find that people saying 'my God is better than your God' have created a lot more wars, misery and suffering than people saying 'God doesn't exist.' - at least unless it involves persecution by those who disagree.
As for this:-
Oh one more thought.. I thought that in todays world it was customary to be innocent until proven guilty... anyone actually got any solid proof that religion (and organized religion) is evil? No?... Thought so.
You know, you really shouldn't ask that question if you yourself are going to answer it and consider it closed without bothering to see if there is any reply.
For a start, define 'evil'. Pol Pot did not wake up one morning and think 'I know, I'll be a cold-hearted dictator who murders indiscriminately!', he truly believed what he was doing was for the best. Like the Inquisition, the Witch Hunts, the Crusades, the Catholic/Protestant confrontations in Ireland, everyone believed that what they were doing for 'God's will' at the time. So no, the church as a body is not evil, it did not wake up one morning and think, 'I know, let's go accuse some innocent women of being witches and burn them!', however, intent does not equal act, and what they did, which was go accuse some innocent women of being witches and burning them, was an act of evil, the ends did not, will not and cannot justify the means.
-
why does this always (de)generate into paragraphs upon paragraphs of responses?
i don't want to read a book here. shoot.
is that how atheists work? they need 6 pages to explain their beliefs? (or lack thereof)?
-
*points at first post* :p
-
i don't want to read a book here. shoot.
is that how atheists work? they need 6 pages to explain their beliefs? (or lack thereof)?
How many pages is the Bible? More than six? Indeed it is.
all that stuff Trashman said
Are atheists considered evil?
The atheist says to the Christian, 'you are no more than I: no better, no worse. We are equals.'
The Christian says to the atheist, 'because you don't believe what I believe, you will not be saved. You will burn in hell.'
Do you see the difference? The religious man judges other people on entirely irrational criteria. There is no observable evidence for God. It's as if I one day decided that those who don't act in accordance with their astrological signs will be punished -- except that religion has thousands of years of cultural momentum behind it.
Trashman, here's some reasons I would say religion is evil --
The persecution of Galileo. The death of Joan of Arc. The Children's Crusade (and all the others.) The fact that people who are born homosexuals, genetically different from the straight population, are unable to lead full lives. The use of non-Bayesian logic and superstition to control people. The Catholic Church's refusal to endorse women priests or birth control, thereby perpetuating gender inequality. The American evangelical movement's support for intolerance and war. Intelligent Design's crusade against open and free investigation (one which appears to be failing miserably.)
Most of all, the fact that religion seeks to 'fix' human behavior with guilt and threats dressed up as salvation, rather than through actual solutions.
However, religion definitely does some good things in a community-service sense. I went to church very often in my youth, and we did a lot of giving to charity. If there were more churches like that and fewer yowling evangelical megachurch preachers, Christianity would have a better name.
-
i don't want to read a book here. shoot.
is that how atheists work? they need 6 pages to explain their beliefs? (or lack thereof)?
How many pages is the Bible? More than six? Indeed it is.
all that stuff Trashman said
Are atheists considered evil?
The atheist says to the Christian, 'you are no more than I: no better, no worse. We are equals.'
The Christian says to the atheist, 'because you don't believe what I believe, you will not be saved. You will burn in hell.'
I've said many times before that we are equals :)
Christianity teaches to treat each other as equals...
-
Even fat people :confused:
J/K, it was a bit biased against science (it rhymes wheee) in the olden days but it's one of the less persecutary widespread religions i believe.... :nervous:
-
:p
-
It's not a question of 'numbers' it's a question of history, you don't even have to look very hard at history to find that people saying 'my God is better than your God' have created a lot more wars, misery and suffering than people saying 'God doesn't exist.' - at least unless it involves persecution by those who disagree.
Even with the FAR longer history and number of religious people I'd still challenge that claim.
You know, you really shouldn't ask that question if you yourself are going to answer it and consider it closed without bothering to see if there is any reply.
Why should I wait? It was rethorical. I allready know the answer. :lol:
Are atheists considered evil?
The atheist says to the Christian, 'you are no more than I: no better, no worse. We are equals.'
The Christian says to the atheist, 'because you don't believe what I believe, you will not be saved. You will burn in hell.'
You mean more like:
The atheist says to the Christian, 'you are no more than I: no better, no worse. We are equals. But you are either evil or incredibly stupid to believe. Oh, and I'm gonna look down upon you like you are some redneck pesant....because you are.' :blah:
Trashman, here's some reasons I would say religion is evil --
*snip*
Is that all? Half of those things aren't evil by a longshot, only you consider them evil. Really, if this is all you got then I have nothing to worry about...
-
Is that all? Half of those things aren't evil by a longshot, only you consider them evil.
I don't even know where to begin....
-
NOT evil? You like to hear yourself argue don't you trashman :lol:
-
It's not a question of 'numbers' it's a question of history, you don't even have to look very hard at history to find that people saying 'my God is better than your God' have created a lot more wars, misery and suffering than people saying 'God doesn't exist.' - at least unless it involves persecution by those who disagree.
Even with the FAR longer history and number of religious people I'd still challenge that claim.
Far longer history? Compared to what? Atheism is far older than any modern religion. One might even be tempted to say it's older than religion itself.
-
****, id rather joint the misanthropic luciferian order than read this thread. at least that cult has alot of good bands attached to it.
-
"Everybody knows all the good bands are affiliated with Satan."
-
Far longer history? Compared to what? Atheism is far older than any modern religion. One might even be tempted to say it's older than religion itself.
The absence of belief in god is only salient if belief in god is an understood alternative. It's safe to say my cat holds no belief in god, but I wouldn't call him an atheist. (Objections from the animal intelligence lobby will be disregarded.) I don't expect anyone to pay attention to this, but debating which is older is going to carry the discussion to a level of meaninglessness that exceeds even the time-honored "who killed more people?" exchange.
-
Far longer history? Compared to what? Atheism is far older than any modern religion. One might even be tempted to say it's older than religion itself.
The absence of belief in god is only salient if belief in god is an understood alternative. It's safe to say my cat holds no belief in god, but I wouldn't call him an atheist. (Objections from the animal intelligence lobby will be disregarded.) I don't expect anyone to pay attention to this, but debating which is older is going to carry the discussion to a level of meaninglessness that exceeds even the time-honored "who killed more people?" exchange.
Perhaps, but the lack of concept of god doesn't invalidate non-belief. Unless you define atheism by stating you have no belief in specific gods.
But yes, it may be meaningless to carry such a discussion (hence the tempted bit). The point was that "having a far longer history" is neither a valid excuse or even simply valid.
-
Are atheists considered evil?
The atheist says to the Christian, 'you are no more than I: no better, no worse. We are equals.'
The Christian says to the atheist, 'because you don't believe what I believe, you will not be saved. You will burn in hell.'
Trashman, here's some reasons I would say religion is evil --
*snip*
Is that all? Half of those things aren't evil by a longshot, only you consider them evil. Really, if this is all you got then I have nothing to worry about...
First off, you called me General Butta! How did you manage to do that?
Second, yeah, it's clear from your response that you're just being argumentative. I know you don't honestly believe that half of those things 'aren't really evil.'
I'm content to simply disagree with you, since I see you're pretty much giving up on the argument already.
-
I don't know if I should write here about this thing, but the story in the beginning was quite twisted. At least from my point of view. Sounds like someone trying too hard to teach religion to someone. Eight years ago in college I had a teacher who taught psychology and religion (a faithful person) and you couldn't help but notice all those little nuances of trying to refer psychological behavior theories to religion... But she never asked something like that to be done - it would have been interesting to see what would have happened. One of the possible outcomes could have been carrying that teacher out in a really long sleeved white shirt - to a really well cushioned room. Note that I have read religion since the third grade to the second class in college (mandatory) and I recall nothing of it!
But, everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs also. It is a personal thing. If you want to live as a hermit in a cave you're free to go. Just don't expect everybody to follow.That being said, I'm personally fed up with these vocal preachers belonging to any religious group. Especially after the experiences I have wrote about here before.
I see there are some Christian people here, one thing I have always wondered is that why is it so that I need to believe in Christian God in order to be saved, if heaven existed? Suppose I lead a respectful life helping society in a multitude of ways not established by Church - or more accurately established but in actuality not practised - what is actually my crime to spend the rest of eternity in Hell? Or, what if I hadn't ever heard of Christianity? Would I go to hell no matter what?
[Finnish anti-authority attitude]
My final question is that why is it so that I need to worship some deity if I otherwise lead a life which would closely follow the rules given by this deity, but never think about getting to heaven when facing choices.
[/Finnish anti-authority attitude]
Which one is actually more honest, the person who does good deeds in order to get himself up to heaven, or the one who leads the good life never even thinking about going to heaven? For me, the former is selfish. This is the question that converted me out of any religion, actually.
And yeah, you could read between the lines that there could be a tint of Religion bashing involved. I apologise about that, but at least I recognise the possibility myself and admit it. Besides if I really wanted to slam Christianity or Religion in general, it would be hitting somewhere where I actually know it would hurt, but let's not go there.
Mika
-
At last, a place where I can jump back in!
I see there are some Christian people here, one thing I have always wondered is that why is it so that I need to believe in Christian God in order to be saved, if heaven existed? Suppose I lead a respectful life helping society in a multitude of ways not established by Church - or more accurately established but in actuality not practised - what is actually my crime to spend the rest of eternity in Hell? Or, what if I hadn't ever heard of Christianity? Would I go to hell no matter what?
[Finnish anti-authority attitude]
My final question is that why is it so that I need to worship some deity if I otherwise lead a life which would closely follow the rules given by this deity, but never think about getting to heaven when facing choices.
[/Finnish anti-authority attitude]
This is a very good point. Paul (one of the authors of the books of the Bible) touched on it a lot, in a way. He was speaking to the Jews about how they knew the Laws of God, and yet refused to follow them, whereas the Gentiles (basically all non-Jewish peoples) didn't know the laws, and yet followed them. He was responding to the Jewish belief that because they were "God's chosen people," they were somehow in an advantageous position as far as getting into Heaven, when in fact, the Gentiles were more than them.
However, as it stands, there is not one of us that is completely innocent of some crime that makes us incapable of standing before God. If it were possible for a person to live a life not knowing any form of evil, any form of selfishness, deceit, hatred, etc., then Christ would not be necessary. A person isn't condemned to Hell because they don't believe in Christ. A person is condemned to Hell because they are wicked thieves, liars, etc. etc. etc. If you don't accept the grace of Christ, you are doing the equivalent of turning down a plea bargain in which the charges against you are dropped, yet it is not your refusal of the plea bargain that you are sent to jail for.
Which one is actually more honest, the person who does good deeds in order to get himself up to heaven, or the one who leads the good life never even thinking about going to heaven? For me, the former is selfish. This is the question that converted me out of any religion, actually.
This is another good point. Let me just clear up this misconception: Christianity is not about good deeds. Christianity looks at humanity as being long past the point of being able to climb a ladder that will somehow get us to Heaven. Christianity accepts that humanity is imperfect to the point of death, yet offers us a way out. Christianity (true Christianity) is unique in that, instead of expecting us to reach up to God, God reaches down to us. All that we do from that point on is out of a love for a God that so loves us, He paid for our crimes out-of-pocket.
And yeah, you could read between the lines that there could be a tint of Religion bashing involved. I apologise about that, but at least I recognise the possibility myself and admit it. Besides if I really wanted to slam Christianity or Religion in general, it would be hitting somewhere where I actually know it would hurt, but let's not go there.
Not at all. You have very valid and understandable questions. They ran through my head as well.
And with that, I conclude this post with a link to a video made by a friend of mine:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU
-
i get a kick out of reading some of these responses
-
First off, you called me General Butta! How did you manage to do that?
Second, yeah, it's clear from your response that you're just being argumentative. I know you don't honestly believe that half of those things 'aren't really evil.'
I'm content to simply disagree with you, since I see you're pretty much giving up on the argument already.
Sry, didn't hit the quote bottun, but rather typed it in manually and made a type or two. :p
And, no, I'm not being argumentative. I really don't believe half of those things evil.
For example - women not becoming priests - it's part of tradition, not because the Church thinks women are any less capable of the job or less worth.
Groups and institutions have some rules they set up - it's their rules and they have a right to those rules even if you don't like them. It's no big deal.
-
Difference of beliefs.
I consider any discrimination on the basis of gender to be evil, through and through.
Sometimes people say 'women should not be in these jobs because they aren't physically fit enough', but there are other ways to decide that -- physical fitness exams, in this case. Obviously, the priesthood doesn't fall under these requirements anyway.
I know you think differently. I'm not going to try to convert you.
-
your FACE is evil!!!
-
Scuddie, I ask that you keep unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial comments to yourself. Unless you want me to start posting bumper-sticker-Christianity quotes in all your forum topics.
-
Yes, you're right. The whole of this thread is unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial by itself already.
-
HLP will not tolerate any posts of a racist, sexist or bigoted nature. Nor shall we tolerate any attacks of a personal nature.
Lively and interesting debate is encouraged and welcomed. However we ask that members respect the right of free speech. That is to say that as long as a comment isn't of a racist or sexist nature - a member has a right to say it. If you disagree with something that someone has said then feel free to argue a retort on the sole condition that (in keeping with point 2) it is not a personal or bigoted attack. Argue the point; debate the person.
Be nice. If you don't know how, go watch reruns of Mr. Rodgers' Neighbourhood - he's a wonderful example.
-
Yes, you're right. The whole of this thread is unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial by itself already.
Actually he has a point. Keep the spam out of the thread.
-
Sry, didn't hit the quote bottun, but rather typed it in manually and made a type or two. :p
And, no, I'm not being argumentative. I really don't believe half of those things evil.
For example - women not becoming priests - it's part of tradition, not because the Church thinks women are any less capable of the job or less worth.
Groups and institutions have some rules they set up - it's their rules and they have a right to those rules even if you don't like them. It's no big deal.
I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?
It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.
On a side note, I would be very interested to see how it would change the interpretation of the Bible if somebody went in and interchanged every single gender in the Bible.
-
I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?
If it were me, and I truly believed this thing that a person was telling me I couldn't do was something God had built me for, it would only strengthen my resolve. In the words of a favorite band of mine: "If our God is for us, how can we fail? No surer hope has ever been rested. But for our adversary's worthy, prepare to be tested."
I'm gonna be honest with you. I can't play a guitar to save my life. If someone tells me I can't play a guitar, I'll say he's right.
Now, if someone tells me I can't mix music on a soundboard, I'll prove him wrong, because I feel that's a way I have been called to serve. It's a gift I have. It's one of the ways I fit into God's plan. Playing guitar, not so much.
1 Corinthians 12:12-20:
The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.
It's a biological fact that women, compared to men, have less upper body strength, particularly in the pectoral muscles. This does not make women less than men, they have their strengths and weaknesses. They are suited to different tasks. Just like one individual and the next.
And in case it was missed, that video I posted wasn't specifically about the post it was in. Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU
-
Yes, you're right. The whole of this thread is unnecessarily ridiculous and un-beneficial by itself already.
Actually he has a point. Keep the spam out of the thread.
Fair enough. There are better ways to illustrate the stupidity of a thread than by injecting more stupidity into it. :blah:
I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?
If it were me, and I truly believed this thing that a person was telling me I couldn't do was something God had built me for, it would only strengthen my resolve. In the words of a favorite band of mine: "If our God is for us, how can we fail? No surer hope has ever been rested. But for our adversary's worthy, prepare to be tested."
I'm gonna be honest with you. I can't play a guitar to save my life. If someone tells me I can't play a guitar, I'll say he's right.
Now, if someone tells me I can't mix music on a soundboard, I'll prove him wrong, because I feel that's a way I have been called to serve. It's a gift I have. It's one of the ways I fit into God's plan. Playing guitar, not so much.
I think you missed the point entirely. There's a huge difference between not able, and not allowed. Let's look at it from a different perspective. When was the last time you've ever seen someone who was gay, addicted, or non Christian welcomed to your Church? Or to ANY Church for that matter? I've known many people whom fit that description in one way or another, and not a single one was welcomed to their places of worship. My old pastor (before I decided to never return to Church again) was talking about how the state was forcing equal opportunity on them. At one point he said "I'd rather be thrown behind bars than to accept a gay man playing in my choir."
Well, forgive me for my heresy and blasphemy, but I would think Christ would be very happy knowing that a gay man was singing his praises of love and mercy, rather than not being allowed to. Christ was (or is, depending on how you look at it) the embodiment of love. Love does not discriminate, nor does it blame. It is pure. Can you say the same about Christ? Absolutely. Can you say the same about Christianity? Absolutely not.
And in case it was missed, that video I posted wasn't specifically about the post it was in. Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU
By looking at that video, you have to agree that Christianity should take a long, hard look at itself in how very little it follows the guidelines taught by Christ. Hell, It'd be more accurate to call it anti-christ. Just because we were given the gift of love does not give us the right to keep it to ourselves.
-
Who was it who said "I like your Christ, and I like your Christians. I hope one day to meet one.".
I think it was Sitting Bull?
-
The decliners declined because they didn't want steve to suffer needlessly. If Christianity... apperently... dismisses that as a wrong thing...
-
I don't think you have any standing to say whether it's a big deal or not, given that you're the one who's privileged by the arrangement. Would you be as comfortable with your religion if it told you that you couldn't do certain things just because you were born a certain way? Wouldn't you feel a little offended that God chose to make you in one way, as per His plan, and according to His wishes, and then Man decided to step in and not let you do certain things because of what God made you?
It seems a little contradictory to the religion itself, to me, and I can't see how you would resolve conundrums like that without basically stating that you think that God wants women to be treated differently from men - which is a no-no in today's society, so I can see why you would want to avoid calling attention to something like that.
What are you talking about here? Urgh... I.. I don't know where to begin even.
1. Men and women are created equal, but they are phisicly different. While there's nothing stopping either to do any job, it's obvious some are better suited for some jobs.
2. There is a thing called social upbringing, culture.. women are treated differently because they are different. Boat sinks? Women and children first. Women, being a fearer/waker sex is a fact and society has adopted to that. After all, if you hear in the news "man kills another man" or "man kills woman", you're somehow more appaled at the second, aren't you? If you really want true equality there should be no difference.. EVER how you talk to, what you talk about and how you behave infront women or man...and we simply know it's not natural. All this equality schtick is running amok and descending into hilarity insted of dealing with real issues.
3. Being treated differently and being considered inferior are two different things.
4. Men becoming priests is part of tradition, as all the 12 apostoles were men. Women can still serve in the Church, altough in a different capacity. Weather the Church actually drops that tradition or not, I really don't care. Point is, they have the right to stick to that tradition.
4. If you make your own little club you can make your own rules for that club. I don't have to like them. You club can have a "no parrents allowed" sign..or whatever else..no dogs, natives only, only for people living in this town, only for members of this party...whatever.
As far as todays society goes, it going down hte drain fast...so I'm not really concerned with what it considers a no-no...since todays society is as stupid as it ever was.
-
There's a huge difference between not able, and not allowed. Let's look at it from a different perspective. When was the last time you've ever seen someone who was gay, addicted, or non Christian welcomed to your Church?
The last time? Three days ago... :lol:
-
Who was it who said "I like your Christ, and I like your Christians. I hope one day to meet one.".
I think it was Sitting Bull?
It's in my sig if it's the one I'm thinking about :p
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. --Mohandas Gandhi
-
Well he knew it was a famous Indian. He just picked the wrong continent. :p
-
:lol:
Well, Sitting Bull did come up with some good quotes, one of my personal favourites is -
'I was very sorry when I found out that your intentions were good and not what I supposed they were. '
-
1. Men and women are created equal, but they are phisicly different. While there's nothing stopping either to do any job, it's obvious some are better suited for some jobs.
2. There is a thing called social upbringing, culture.. women are treated differently because they are different. Boat sinks? Women and children first. Women, being a fearer/waker sex is a fact and society has adopted to that. After all, if you hear in the news "man kills another man" or "man kills woman", you're somehow more appaled at the second, aren't you? If you really want true equality there should be no difference.. EVER how you talk to, what you talk about and how you behave infront women or man...and we simply know it's not natural. All this equality schtick is running amok and descending into hilarity insted of dealing with real issues.
3. Being treated differently and being considered inferior are two different things.
4. Men becoming priests is part of tradition, as all the 12 apostoles were men. Women can still serve in the Church, altough in a different capacity. Weather the Church actually drops that tradition or not, I really don't care. Point is, they have the right to stick to that tradition.
No, women are treated differently because the culture says we’re different. The physical and other differences are not significant enough on their own to merit treating us like delicate little flowers.
Any differences among human beings are going to be broadly distributed. Even if women are less physically proficient in some ways on average, there are still plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. You don’t seriously believe that a female professional athlete is going to be weaker than a male couch-surfer, do you? But that’s what you end up saying when you paint with such a broad brush.
If epithets like “weaker” don’t mean to suggest that women are inferior, then I’m very mistaken indeed. The fact is that women were considered inferior through much of history, as they are in some parts of the world today, and the fact that women are still treated differently just shows that we’ve got some progress to make yet.
Besides, physical differences have nothing at all to do with a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. And sorry, but refusing to allow women into the priesthood does not say “we’re adhering to a tradition,” it says “we don’t trust women to do the job.” Tradition alone isn’t enough justification for keeping women out of what some see to be their calling – especially since that tradition emerged in a time and culture when women were still considered property.
If an individual woman is unable to perform a specific role, then chances are she won’t seek it out. Women do not need culture – or thousand-year-old institutions – telling us what we can and can’t do, when we’re perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. Personally, I’d make a lousy priest. That doesn’t mean another woman wouldn’t be an inspiring success, and in some sects they have been. Telling that woman that she can’t serve her beliefs in the best way she can, just because she’s a woman, is wrong.
And I never asked to be first off the boat. Hell, I’d rather swim than see that used as justification for such an archaic viewpoint.
-
I feel better when i'm chivalrous. :p
-
women, being a fearer/waker sex
Trashman, did you actually just say that women are a weaker sex?
I am literally trembling with rage. That is sexist and misogynistic, and I believe it violates the forum code of conduct. What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible.
Rian is right. A female athlete is a hell of a lot stronger than a male couch potato. I believe, in fact, that the strength overlap is something like seventy percent. That's right -- 70% of women are just as strong as comparable men.
Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.
I am nauseated by some of the things the men in this thread are saying.
-
Women can do anything a man can do. Culturally they haven't. The bible's claim to be timeless helps us understand that this was the way things were back then.
This has to do with the doctrine that it was the man's responsibility to watch over the family and it still is a duty. We allow women Elders. The women in my church can be some of the most powerful pastors, evangelist, and leaders and not just for women but the entire church. It is scriptural that there were great women of the bible.
In Ephesians chapter five Paul instructed the Ephesian wives to submit to their authority saying, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:23-24).
To the husbands Paul said:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.... So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.... Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband (Ephesians 5:25, 28-29, 33).
The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," :P let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.
Among the many jobs of a minister his main job is to perfect the saints, bringing them to maturity in Christ. The ultimate end is for the saints to have an established faith and walk with God, growing up in the Head which is Jesus Christ (Ephesians 4:14-15). The job of the minister is to unite the hand of God and the hand of man, then step back once the union is complete. His role becomes one of guidance. The minister does not act as a mediator between God and man. The priesthood is over. We are all individual priests before God (I Peter 2:9).
Think about it this way if a women is called to bring people to Christ, then why would we stop her?
That doesn't really make much sense.
Some ministers make all the spiritual decisions for their saints. This takes the responsibility of working out one's own salvation before God with fear and trembling and gives it to the ministers. This is not Scriptural. Look at what Paul said concerning this in the book of Philippians:
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings (Philippians 2:12-14).
-
The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," :P let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.
Sorry, submission as prescribed social role is always a negative thing. To say otherwise is like saying it’s ok to own slaves so long as you’re nice to them.
Let’s repeat this: Women are not property. To say that they are required to submit – even to a loving husband – is to deny a hundred years or more of human progress.
-
The wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. Before all the men say "amen," :P let us look at the flip-side of the coin. The husband is instructed to love his wife as he loves himself, and even as Christ loved the church. If a husband loves his wife like he is supposed to, she will have no problem submitting to him as she is supposed to. When both elements of love and submission are present in a relationship there will be perfect working order. When proper love is not present, however, submission becomes rather difficult and is viewed negatively rather than positively.
Sorry, submission as prescribed social role is always a negative thing. To say otherwise is like saying it’s ok to own slaves so long as you’re nice to them.
Let’s repeat this: Women are not property. To say that they are required to submit – even to a loving husband – is to deny a hundred years or more of human progress.
Honestly, I respect that :) - but were talking about religion (in other words) in a perfect "Christian" world this is the teaching.
This is not a mandate for slavery against women, but merely a form of conduct made by both man and women to honor Christ. This does NOT include abusive or downright wrong/slave behavior, hence the "perfect world" words I spoke earlier.
-
Trashman, did you actually just say that women are a weaker sex?
I am literally trembling with rage. That is sexist and misogynistic, and I believe it violates the forum code of conduct. What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible.
Rian is right. A female athlete is a hell of a lot stronger than a male couch potato. I believe, in fact, that the strength overlap is something like seventy percent. That's right -- 70% of women are just as strong as comparable men.
Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.
I am nauseated by some of the things the men in this thread are saying.
I completely agree that if a woman is qualified for something she should have both the right and opportunity to do the said thing. However, I think you underestimate the physical disparity between men and women. Though in actuality my last statement is somewhat moot as women are denied many opportunites simply based on their gender. There is of course another side to this, but I won't go into the travesty that is affirmative action...
And of course no one should have to submit, as a person, to another. Chain of command as a professional? Sure. But as an individual, never.
-
Any differences among human beings are going to be broadly distributed. Even if women are less physically proficient in some ways on average, there are still plenty of women who are stronger than plenty of men. You don’t seriously believe that a female professional athlete is going to be weaker than a male couch-surfer, do you? But that’s what you end up saying when you paint with such a broad brush.
It is the common traits that are used to describe a group. Genetics favors man when it comes to strength and endurance. It's true there are very strong women, but no woman can be stronger than a strong man. To explain it in simpler terms, think of it as a RPG. Both males and females start with 10 Strength, but males get a +2 bonus to strength. Trough extensive training they each can increase that strength by 4... and while such a women is stronger than that couch potato male who didn't train, the male who trained kept that +2 onus and remains stronger.
If epithets like “weaker” don’t mean to suggest that women are inferior, then I’m very mistaken indeed. The fact is that women were considered inferior through much of history, as they are in some parts of the world today, and the fact that women are still treated differently just shows that we’ve got some progress to make yet.
It means what it means.."less strong".. or "not as strong". There's nothing inferior in that. But yes, women have been and in some places still are treated as inferiors.
Besides, physical differences have nothing at all to do with a woman’s ability to serve as a priest. And sorry, but refusing to allow women into the priesthood does not say “we’re adhering to a tradition,” it says “we don’t trust women to do the job.” Tradition alone isn’t enough justification for keeping women out of what some see to be their calling – especially since that tradition emerged in a time and culture when women were still considered property.
Did I ever say that strength has any bearing on a priests job?
This is not a issue of trust, but it is tradition. It is as much of a justification as the group wants it to be. For me it's a no-brainer. While you really can get offended by that there never was the intention of offense or implication of inferiority behind that and that's what matters. I can't very well stop you or anyone else from being offended, but then again people can get offended over everything these days.
If an individual woman is unable to perform a specific role, then chances are she won’t seek it out. Women do not need culture – or thousand-year-old institutions – telling us what we can and can’t do, when we’re perfectly capable of deciding for ourselves. Personally, I’d make a lousy priest. That doesn’t mean another woman wouldn’t be an inspiring success, and in some sects they have been. Telling that woman that she can’t serve her beliefs in the best way she can, just because she’s a woman, is wrong.
If you don't like the rules some group has, don't join it.
The Church isn't enforcing those rules on anyone and it probably will change them in the future, but the point is that a group has the right to those rules. If I want to open a male only club tomorrow I can do it.
-
Trashman, did you actually just say that women are a weaker sex?
I am literally trembling with rage. That is sexist and misogynistic, and I believe it violates the forum code of conduct. What's more, it's absolutely reprehensible.
Rian is right. A female athlete is a hell of a lot stronger than a male couch potato. I believe, in fact, that the strength overlap is something like seventy percent. That's right -- 70% of women are just as strong as comparable men.
Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.
I am nauseated by some of the things the men in this thread are saying.
*sigh*
Women are reffered to as a weaker/fairer sex...or are you also insulted by the fairer bit? It's a perfecly legit, common term and you're the first woman I know that actually got insulted by that term. Sorry it if offends you.
As far as jobs go, there are some jobs where you only want only the absolutely best and fittest - like commandos/SEALs/Delta Force. Only the fittest of the fittest and the best of the fest can apply. Now, while a physicly fit woman candidate can be excellent, the male has that initial advantage that I mentioned in the first thread. It doesn't matter if that makes then man 20% stronger or 5% faster, or heck, even with 2% faster reflexes - those 1-2% can mean a difference between life and death. So yea, I would rather have a man in my unit (if I served there) than a woman.
This was an extreeme example, but it just goes to show you - women can do ANY job and can excel in many of them, but there are some in which the very elite will always be male (unless some heavy genetic engineering takes place). I suspect there are some jobs in which females would have the advantage.
-
Wow. So, uh... is this a new low for HLP debates? I think it's in the running.
TrashMan. Seriously - stop digging. Please.
-
Just when you think he's hit bedrock, he breaks out the drill and some dynamite.
-
I think you missed the point entirely. There's a huge difference between not able, and not allowed. Let's look at it from a different perspective. When was the last time you've ever seen someone who was gay, addicted, or non Christian welcomed to your Church? Or to ANY Church for that matter? I've known many people whom fit that description in one way or another, and not a single one was welcomed to their places of worship. My old pastor (before I decided to never return to Church again) was talking about how the state was forcing equal opportunity on them. At one point he said "I'd rather be thrown behind bars than to accept a gay man playing in my choir."
Any truly Christian church should welcome all people. Your pastor's words disgust me. For one, it's not his choir. Nor is it his church. Both are God's alone. Now, I wouldn't want a person who is actively living a homosexual lifestyle to be in a leadership position at my church, but that's a totally separate discussion. Living in sin without even trying to follow righteousness is a little bit different than walking in the "path of righteousness" (forgive my overly "churchy" lingo) and occasionally stumbling.
Well, forgive me for my heresy and blasphemy, but I would think Christ would be very happy knowing that a gay man was singing his praises of love and mercy, rather than not being allowed to. Christ was (or is, depending on how you look at it) the embodiment of love. Love does not discriminate, nor does it blame. It is pure. Can you say the same about Christ? Absolutely. Can you say the same about Christianity? Absolutely not.
I agree with this statement. It is not blasphemous or heretical. Christians who are truly trying to follow in the footsteps of Christ and who actually believe and live by the Bible would agree with you, for it says in 1 Corinthians 13 verses 1-7:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
And in case it was missed, that video I posted wasn't specifically about the post it was in. Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msJrL7o6RpU
By looking at that video, you have to agree that Christianity should take a long, hard look at itself in how very little it follows the guidelines taught by Christ. Hell, It'd be more accurate to call it anti-christ. Just because we were given the gift of love does not give us the right to keep it to ourselves.
Yes, that's what the video sets out to do, to a degree. John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Who was it who said "I like your Christ, and I like your Christians. I hope one day to meet one.".
I think it was Sitting Bull?
IDK who said that quote, but Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
Ghandi had read the Bible, and felt compelled to become a Christian. Then he saw the way "Christians" acted and was disgusted.
The decliners declined because they didn't want steve to suffer needlessly. If Christianity... apperently... dismisses that as a wrong thing...
Suffer needlessly? In order to go to the party, they had to pay for their wrongs. The only place I can think of where this metaphor falls short is where it fails to acknowledge that most of the people could have done 10 push-ups.
Trashman, Goatmaster, you are absolutely wrong that women are unsuited to some jobs. Weak people are unsuited to some jobs. If a woman can pass a physical fitness test then she should damn well be able to do the job. Anyone with a modicum of education -- or experience with athletic women -- should know that most women can pass these tests.
I agree with that statement. However, for some things, a woman would need to work a lot harder to build the strength to be able to pass that physical fitness test. Whereas men typically fall short in the area of natural flexibility, for example, and thus need to do WAY more flexibility stretching to be able to, say, drop into the splits. That's not to say they can't. I know guys who can drop into the splits, and I know women who can do pull-ups well into the double digits. In my example stated earlier, I could probably play the guitar if I spent years training in it. However, mixing music came naturally. It's just something I was suited for.
-
*sigh*
Women are reffered to as a weaker/fairer sex...or are you also insulted by the fairer bit? It's a perfecly legit, common term and you're the first woman I know that actually got insulted by that term. Sorry it if offends you.
I think you mean women were referred to as the weaker or fairer sex. Unless you live in the nineteenth century, or maybe Iran, this is not broadly acceptable in modern culture. I think any woman I know would be offended by that.
Bonus fact: 'fairer,' though sometimes intended as a synonym for beauty, originally just meant 'whiter,' because that was beautiful at the time. As in, she never goes outside the house so her skin is milky pale. Yeah, I think that is a little offensive.
As for your example, say you have a small pool of candidates for this position, both male and female. You subject them all to a round of fitness testing. Maybe the males do better on average, but a woman or two still makes it into the top five or whatever.
Now, presumably they beat out a couple men to get there, as that gender overlap we were talking about does exist. Are you going to reject these women who made it into the top spots just because the men had a higher average? Even though the women are the best of the pool you have available? This happens to people. It is absolutely wrong to judge individuals on the basis of the average for their demographic. Hold them to high standards, fine. But hold everyone to the same high standards, and take them on their individual merits.
Honestly, I respect that :) - but were talking about religion (in other words) in a perfect "Christian" world this is the teaching.
This is not a mandate for slavery against women, but merely a form of conduct made by both man and women to honor Christ. This does NOT include abusive or downright wrong/slave behavior, hence the "perfect world" words I spoke earlier.
A relationship based on submission to one’s husband is inherently unequal and demeaning, whether or not it entails physical or other abuse. If this is the conception of a perfect world, then, returning to the original point, that is evil. Honestly, I don’t think that’s the case, and I don’t think the majority of Christians – of whom I know and like many – believe it is.
-
So, say you're married, and the two of you disagree on something that's somewhat important. Are you going to disagree all your life or get a divorce over this one, semi-important detail in your relationship?
-
So, say you're married, and the two of you disagree on something that's somewhat important. Are you going to disagree all your life or get a divorce over this one, semi-important detail in your relationship?
You’re going to talk it out and reach a compromise like adults and equals.
-
So, say you're married, and the two of you disagree on something that's somewhat important. Are you going to disagree all your life or get a divorce over this one, semi-important detail in your relationship?
So you're suggesting that even in the most stupid of circumstances the female should always yield?
-
Rian - I believe I'm painting the wrong picture for you. Believe me I'm getting married to the most stubborn person in the world. I can't tell her to do anything. :p
A relationship is about respect, listening, and compromises. What I told you is the biblical teaching on how relationships should work.
Paul tells the men to love the women as he loves himself - literally - "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church"
I love my soon to be wife, we do live together because she has nobody else. As I said "in a perfect world" There isn't arguments nor quarrels. No need for this teaching if we did live in a perfect world. But we don't, this is a compromise on our part as imperfect humans, to listen and make decisions based on suggestions coming from both parties. If we can't decide somebody sometimes has to make the hard choices. For the sake of unity we have to sometimes submit. This scripture lays the responsibility of decision on the men.
I admit it sounds degrading but the context it shows it's not.
-
I think you mean women were referred to as the weaker or fairer sex. Unless you live in the nineteenth century, or maybe Iran, this is not broadly acceptable in modern culture. I think any woman I know would be offended by that.
I would be careful not to brand myself as the flag bearer of modern culture. And in a unrelated rant, modern culture (in general) can kiss my ***.
Bonus fact: 'fairer,' though sometimes intended as a synonym for beauty, originally just meant 'whiter,' because that was beautiful at the time. As in, she never goes outside the house so her skin is milky pale. Yeah, I think that is a little offensive.
Fairer was meant to mean more beautiful (which women are..they are easier on the eyes..LOL ). In this case you are going out of your way to GET offended. Why don't you run each of my words and sentences trough a computer algorithm that will check it trough every possible meaning in every possible language and combination othereoff, and if you fin even a hint that one MIGHT bne taken offensively, scream bloody murder.
Heck, you can't even compliment someone these days...
Now, presumably they beat out a couple men to get there, as that gender overlap we were talking about does exist. Are you going to reject these women who made it into the top spots just because the men had a higher average? Even then though the women are the best of the pool you have available? This happens to people. It is absolutely wrong to judge individuals on the basis of the average for their demographic. Hold them to high standards, fine. But hold everyone to the same high standards, and take them on their individual merits.
Special forces do hold everyone to the highest standard and there are no women there. If you get an equal amount of willing and fit men and woman, that +1 STR bonus the men start out with is an advantage that tips the scales.
Please, don't think any of this as an offense, cause Lord knows I'm trying my not to offend you.
If you still think me a badmouthed chauvinist, all I can say is - my sisters and all my female friends would disagree.
-
Incredible. Women are supposed to be the more emotional sex, but when I read this crap I had to stop for a moment and cry (and for those of you who are confused, I'm a straight male and I always have been, NOT a female). I'm not ashamed to admit that it offended me that strongly.
Fairer was meant to mean more beautiful (which women are..they are easier on the eyes..LOL ). In this case you are going out of your way to GET offended. Why don't you run each of my words and sentences trough a computer algorithm that will check it trough every possible meaning in every possible language and combination othereoff, and if you fin even a hint that one MIGHT bne taken offensively, scream bloody murder.
Heck, you can't even compliment someone these days..
You just told her that she was going out of her way to get offended? After you've told her she should be barred from certain positions, forced to submit to her husband, and treated as subordinate to you just because she's got an extra goddamn X chromosome?
Rian, if you left the community because of the things TrashMan has said here, I would not blame you. I'm appalled.
Trashman, you're an imbecile. If a woman passed a Special Operations qualification exam she'd be just as fit as anyone else to serve, and you would do damn well to trust her. Aren't you familiar with all the records of female snipers and front-line infantry fighters -- in Russia, in China, in Vietnam? They did just as well as the males, and in many cases surpassed them.
Rian - I believe I'm painting the wrong picture for you.
...
I admit it sounds degrading but the context it shows it's not.
Yes, it is.
My God, you're so blind. I wish you could be made a woman for a year to see how it is.
There are a lot of intelligent, moral people on Hard Light. Where are you? I was expecting a crushing wave of indignation at this kind of talk, but it seems like Trashman, Goatmaster, and and jdjtcagle are being given free reign for misogyny.
Can you imagine the reaction if they were saying these kinds of things about black people?
-
Please don't associate me with Trashman. I don't agree with pretty much anything he says, ever.
Re-read my post.
-
All right, I can see what you're saying.
So long as you don't expect women to enter the kind of arrangement you're suggesting without their consent, I don't have a problem with it. But if you want that imposed on everyone, I'm repelled.
I think you have have maintained an admirable standard of decency even when you're saying things I disagree with, jdjtcagle. Props for that. I know the judgment's subjective but hopefully it's reassuring nonetheless.
-
There are a lot of intelligent, moral people on Hard Light. Where are you? I was expecting a crushing wave of indignation at this kind of talk, but it seems like Trashman, Goatmaster, and and jdjtcagle are being given free reign for misogyny.
I for one would gladly join in, Battuta, but I've come to realise that TrashMan is impossible to argue with. He does not listen to other people, and you won't change his opinion here. There is no other person on this forum who is more like a brick wall.
Frankly I think it'd be best if this thread was locked. This isn't going anywhere pleasant and I'd rather HLP didn't scare off any more quality members thanks to an idiotic debate.
-
Please don't associate me with Trashman. I don't agree with pretty much anything he says, ever.
Re-read my post.
What he said.
And as far as it not going anywhere pleasant, There's a good deal said a few posts back that's worth reading and discussing yet.
And if all else fails, we could get back on topic...
-
A lock would be good, but frankly, I worry the damage is already irreparable.
What he said.
And as far as it not going anywhere pleasant, There's a good deal said a few posts back that's worth reading and discussing yet.
And if all else fails, we could get back on topic...
I'm sorry, but if you're stung by being compared to TrashMan, maybe you need to realize that from my perspective you're not acting very different.
-
Sorry, submission as prescribed social role is always a negative thing. To say otherwise is like saying it’s ok to own slaves so long as you’re nice to them.
As a matter of fact the bible actually does say that too.
Rian, if you left the community because of the things TrashMan has said here, I would not blame you. I'm appalled.
Rian shouldn't take this kind of nonsense as proof of the general feeling here on HLP.
-
All right, I can see what you're saying.
So long as you don't expect women to enter the kind of arrangement you're suggesting without their consent, I don't have a problem with it. But if you want that imposed on everyone, I'm repelled.
I don't believe anything should be forced on anybody. We are human beings and I never want to forget that.
I think you have have maintained an admirable standard of decency even when you're saying things I disagree with, jdjtcagle. Props for that. I know the judgment's subjective but hopefully it's reassuring nonetheless.
Thank you, that means alot :)
-
Rian shouldn't take this kind of nonsense as proof of the general feeling here on HLP.
With all due respect, Karajorma -- acknowledging that you're one of the most stable, considerate, intelligent, and reliable people on HLP -- that's really not our place to decide, is it?
TrashMan, you need to understand something: I'm not a woman. I had a female user sharing my account before she registered her own. That user's now posting under the name Rian.
Is that clear? I'm not saying these things because I'm a woman, or because I feel that women need defending -- clearly Rian can take care of herself, and she does it more calmly and reasonably than I do. I'm objecting to your attitudes because they're sexist and evil.
-
There are a lot of intelligent, moral people on Hard Light. Where are you? I was expecting a crushing wave of indignation at this kind of talk, but it seems like Trashman, Goatmaster, and and jdjtcagle are being given free reign for misogyny.
Does the phrase giving someone enough rope mean anything to you? :D
Let's face it, Trashman's rant against women in the army (not to mention the RPG explanation) has done more to undermine his position than any number of posts I could have made on the subject.
-
*sigh* I guess it's good to know I'm not alone, then.
I don't pretend to want to convince him. I know that's futile. But at some point I hope he earns the social sanction he so rightly deserves.
-
Also to make something else clear, I'm discussing women in a biblical relationship pertaining to marriage.
I just don't want to be misunderstood at all :)
-
Rian - I believe I'm painting the wrong picture for you. Believe me I'm getting married to the most stubborn person in the world. I can't tell her to do anything. :p
A relationship is about respect, listening, and compromises. What I told you is the biblical teaching on how relationships should work.
Paul tells the men to love the women as he loves himself - literally - "He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church"
I love my soon to be wife, we do live together because she has nobody else. As I said "in a perfect world" There isn't arguments nor quarrels. No need for this teaching if we did live in a perfect world. But we don't, this is a compromise on our part as imperfect humans, to listen and make decisions based on suggestions coming from both parties. If we can't decide somebody sometimes has to make the hard choices. For the sake of unity we have to sometimes submit. This scripture lays the responsibility of decision on the men.
I admit it sounds degrading but the context it shows it's not.
My objection was to the injunction to submit, which I am well aware is drawn from scripture. No matter what kind of justification or pretty sentiment surrounds it, the explicit meaning of the word and its use is that the woman is intended to bow to her husband’s will, and to allow him to make all the decisions. And that is degrading no matter what the context.
I think it’s necessary to recognize that, whatever pearls of great and lasting wisdom they do contain, most of the major religious texts are hundreds or thousands of years old and they reflect the social attitudes of earlier eras. I believe that it is wrong for organized religion to continue espousing such an outdated and inequitable standard for human relationships, whatever its textual basis. As I mentioned earlier, I am fairly sure that a great many of religions and sects do not uphold inequity in this manner.
I think you have have maintained an admirable standard of decency even when you're saying things I disagree with, jdjtcagle.
I’d like to second this. You’ve been very reasonable throughout this conversation. While I disagree completely with some of the things you’ve said, I have not been offended by your manner of expressing them.
-
Trashman, in response to your comment that women are easier on the eyes, you do understand that this is because you're a male, right? You're perpetuating a male-centric, patriarchal view. There are women everywhere who would much rather look at men. To them, we're the fairer sex.
Do you understand what this quote means?
For a woman or girl to be treated as a sexual object, rather than as a person whose body is her body, not someone else's "object of desire", is an unacceptable breach of her basic rights.
-
You just told her that she was going out of her way to get offended? After you've told her she should be barred from certain positions, forced to submit to her husband, and treated as subordinate to you just because she's got an extra goddamn X chromosome?
Exactly when have I said that? :wtf:
I'm not telling her what she should or should not do, nor am I telling her to be a subordinate to anyone. I'm not forcing nor do I want to force anything on anyone.
I'm saying that specific groups can have internal rules that neither I or you have to like. If someone wants to create a group/order/church with no man allowed to even enter I would have no problem with that. Your house, your rules.
If a woman passed a Special Operations qualification exam she'd be just as fit as anyone else to serve, and you would do damn well to trust her. Aren't you familiar with all the records of female snipers and front-line infantry fighters -- in Russia, in China, in Vietnam? They did just as well as the males, and in many cases surpassed them.
Sniper isn't the same as a front-line commando. And I'm saying females aren't good soldiers or incapable of serving in special forces.
Trashman, in response to your comment that women are easier on the eyes, you do understand that this is because you're a male, right? You're perpetuating a male-centric, patriarchal view. There are women everywhere who would much rather look at men. To them, we're the fairer sex.
Maybe.. I'm trying to be objective here as it seems to me most females have finer facial lines, better taste in clothing and generally take care of themselves better...ergo, easier on the eyes.
-
I think it’s necessary to recognize that, whatever pearls of great and lasting wisdom they do contain, most of the major religious texts are hundreds or thousands of years old and they reflect the social attitudes of earlier eras. I believe that it is wrong for organized religion to continue espousing such an outdated and inequitable standard for human relationships, whatever its textual basis. As I mentioned earlier, I am fairly sure that a great many of religions and sects do not uphold inequity in this manner.
I respect what you've said whole heartedly but sadly I'm going to have agree to disagree with you.
I live of a very strict religious practice - wouldn't you agree with me that if you believe in something you should practice the entirety of it? Not pick and chose what I want to? I believe that's the problem with Christianity. I could talk more about ancient social attitudes and modern practice more but now I don't have time. Maybe another thread.
Now I'm off to spend time with my "extremely" stubborn Fiancee (sp?) :P
-
Does the phrase giving someone enough rope mean anything to you? :D
Let's face it, Trashman's rant against women in the army (not to mention the RPG explanation) has done more to undermine his position than any number of posts I could have made on the subject.
My position is undermined only in the eyes of people to stupid to understand what I mean....
Interesting use of phrases tough..."rant against" .. like I'm actually advocating the removal of women from the army (which any sane person reading my post would clearly see it's not the case) .. this wasn't a rant against anything.
-
If women wish to join the army that is their choice. What kind of sick nanny stateism do you espouse where you can claim that removing women from the army for their own good is a pro-woman stance?
I'm saying that specific groups can have internal rules that neither I or you have to like. If someone wants to create a group/order/church with no man allowed to even enter I would have no problem with that. Your house, your rules.
Until you claim that they are God's rules of course.
Which is exactly the issue here. We aren't dealing with the by laws of the Hextable Lawn Bowling Association. We're talking about groups who claim that their rules come straight from God. So either you admit that the Church is wrong to exclude women because God has no objection to it or you admit that they are right and God doesn't want women priests.
You can't hide behind claiming it's a tradition without claiming it's a tradition God doesn't agree with.
-
Well, I could have discussed about the Religion in general, but seems that things have taken an unexpected turn to somewhere else. This gender equality or inequality, I think it is overblown today. Too many people shout about it.
How many of the writers have actually served with women in army? I have. Putting women to the front lines is not really a good idea, but it is only partly related to endurance and strength. There are several other more compelling factors involved. And by front lines I mean the assaulting troops (well your basic grunt, though I wonder where does that term come from), not snipers or guerillas.
Besides I thought French resistance used women in their operations. Other field operations, like intelligence, supply or communications are a fair game. But please not to the front line. Or special forces. Airforce I'm not sure about, women might actually make physically better pilots, but then there are a couple of other things which I count as a downside.
Then again, during the years I have trained martial arts I have never seen a woman who could surpass man's strength or hardness if both trained as hard as possible. Even your typical family father has more muscular strength than highly athletic women. Then again, naturally bones of the men become more dense and more resistant to impacts. However, flexibility, balance, coordination and fluidity is where men usually have a lot more trouble.
True equality begins with acknowledging that genders have their differences, other being more suitable to certain task than the other. Only then you can learn to respect your significant others - and then you have equality.
For a woman or girl to be treated as a sexual object, rather than as a person whose body is her body, not someone else's "object of desire", is an unacceptable breach of her basic rights.
I acknowledge that mainly this is because of men's attitude, but women themselves are not completely innocent about this either.
Mika
-
I find that the more I ignore Trash, the better my day gets. Don't take it personally, gents, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even if it's wrong/doesn't make sense.
-
I respect what you've said whole heartedly but sadly I'm going to have agree to disagree with you.
I live of a very strict religious practice - wouldn't you agree with me that if you believe in something you should practice the entirety of it? Not pick and chose what I want to? I believe that's the problem with Christianity. I could talk more about ancient social attitudes and modern practice more but now I don't have time. Maybe another thread.
Now I'm off to spend time with my "extremely" stubborn Fiancee (sp?) :P
I think the worst members of religions are the sorts of people that show up to church on Sunday (and subsequently daydream the whole time) and automatically think that they are favored in some way. That being said, I believe that it is most important to think for oneself, not be led blindly through life. I would be more than happy to not be part of the flock, if it meant not being a sheep...
-
If women wish to join the army that is their choice. What kind of sick nanny stateism do you espouse where you can claim that removing women from the army for their own good is a pro-woman stance?
Kaj, I never said that women should be removed from the army..learn to read.
I'm saying that specific groups can have internal rules that neither I or you have to like. If someone wants to create a group/order/church with no man allowed to even enter I would have no problem with that. Your house, your rules.
Until you claim that they are God's rules of course.
Which is exactly the issue here. We aren't dealing with the by laws of the Hextable Lawn Bowling Association. We're talking about groups who claim that their rules come straight from God. So either you admit that the Church is wrong to exclude women because God has no objection to it or you admit that they are right and God doesn't want women priests.
You can't hide behind claiming it's a tradition without claiming it's a tradition God doesn't agree with.
It's not a rule. Never was. And no, I don't claim either of those two options you so neatly attempt to steer me in.
As far as I know God has no objection to woman priests, but the Church excluding them is not wrong by itself. As far as I know God has no objections to priests having a wife, but the Church has said no so far. I don't have to like all of the rules, but I know the church (or any other group) has the right to run it's house the way it wants to.
I won't mind at all if that church rule is changed (In fact, I'm all for it), but the rule by itself, it's reason and application, are not "evil".
-
I find that the more I ignore Trash, the better my day gets. Don't take it personally, gents, everyone's entitled to their opinion, even if it's wrong/doesn't make sense.
But where the FUN in that? :p
-
It's not a rule. Never was. And no, I don't claim either of those two options you so neatly attempt to steer me in.
As far as I know God has no objection to woman priests, but the Church excluding them is not wrong by itself. As far as I know God has no objections to priests having a wife, but the Church has said no so far. I don't have to like all of the rules, but I know the church (or any other group) has the right to run it's house the way it wants to.
I won't mind at all if that church rule is changed (In fact, I'm all for it), but the rule by itself, it's reason and application, are not "evil".
There, you just highlighted the issue; the Church claims to be following the word of God, when in reality they are following the words of men that are no better or worse (or divine) than anyone else. So what would compel one to abide by the rules laid down by men in a society that no longer exists?
-
The thing is, you guys are still arguing with Trash. Once you've talked to him long enough, you'll realize he doesn't actually listen to what you're saying. He hears it, but he doesn't comprehend it as a possibility - all it is is more evidence that is wrong.
-
The thing is, you guys are still arguing with Trash. Once you've talked to him long enough, you'll realize he doesn't actually listen to what you're saying. He hears it, but he doesn't comprehend it as a possibility - all it is is more evidence that is wrong.
Which correlates with his beliefs...
(http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7459/1193889246624fx9.png)
-
Kaj, I never said that women should be removed from the army...
[and later]
It's not a rule. Never was. And no, I don't claim either of those two options you so neatly attempt to steer me in.
As far as I know God has no objection to woman priests, but the Church excluding them is not wrong by itself. As far as I know God has no objections to priests having a wife, but the Church has said no so far. I don't have to like all of the rules, but I know the church (or any other group) has the right to run it's house the way it wants to.
I won't mind at all if that church rule is changed (In fact, I'm all for it), but the rule by itself, it's reason and application, are not "evil".
Now that you've gotten to the point of redacting previous statements and carefully pruning away previous implications, I'm content to rest my case.
As for your comment that the church (or any other group) has the right to run its house the way it wants to -- please be aware that gender and race discrimination lawsuits are an almost daily occurrence, suggesting that no, groups do not have the right to run their own house.
I'm well-settled on the topic now, and I've said all I want to. Trashman, I trust you're now aware that most men and women are of overlapping and equivalent physical ability, and that -- while the strongest man is a lot stronger than the strongest woman -- those inequalities only hold on the extremes.
-
I weep for Hard Light.
-
You know, there are some good points on both sides here, but the whole thing is getting drowned out by TrashMan's train wreck of an argument. TrashMan, do everybody a favor and shut up. You're sabotaging your own argument here. You're your own strawman. Nothing is more foolish than a little knowledge without understanding -- go read Proverbs or something.
Everybody else: If you want to have a civilized debate on Christianity, or gender issues from a religious perspective, or anything like that, feel free to PM jdjtcagle or Sandwich or me or someone who knows what they're talking about. I'm sure any of us would be happy to chat with you in a courteous, respectful, and reasoned manner.
I'm going to put TrashMan on the short list for monkey candidates once I get around to posting the new policy. In the meantime, I'm not opposed to people having a respectful debate, but I'm not going to let TrashMan anywhere near it.