I know I can't say for sure that "there are no deities" but can we deduce which ones we know don't exist?

outofnowheres
outofnowheres's picture
Posts: 16
Joined: 2009-11-08
User is offlineOffline
I know I can't say for sure that "there are no deities" but can we deduce which ones we know don't exist?

ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4149
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Hello again eX.  How's


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO wrote:As the

eXnihilO wrote:

As the husband, your role is to lead your wife, you are the head of your wife, but not superior. She is the man's wife and in terms of the marriage covenant, she 'belongs' to him. Likewise, the man is the woman's husband, and in terms of the marriage covenant, he 'belongs' to her... consider this:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Gal 3:28

We are all equal in the eyes of the Lord my friend.

All the best,

If we are all "equal" in the eyes of Jesus, how can it be a woman's role to be led by the man, and a man's role to lead the woman?  Those are not the same, and they certainly don't have an equivalence of any sort.  You might get away with claiming that one role isn't superior to another, but you can't claim they are equal.

And while I'm in the neighborhood, if "there is no male or female", there is also no Christian basis for hating up on gays and lesbians.  According to you, Jesus can't tell the difference.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If we are all "equal" in the eyes of Jesus, how can it be a woman's role to be led by the man, and a man's role to lead the woman?  Those are not the same, and they certainly don't have an equivalence of any sort.  You might get away with claiming that one role isn't superior to another, but you can't claim they are equal.

And while I'm in the neighborhood, if "there is no male or female", there is also no Christian basis for hating up on gays and lesbians.  According to you, Jesus can't tell the difference.

Is a higher-ranking soldier better than a low-ranking one? Of course not. We can be equal in dignity and separate and roles, even if those roles include leadership. The wife can choose not to marry if she wants, it's not forced submission.

You are right with your second point. There is absolutely no basis to hate homosexuals, anyone doing so is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin in the Torah as well as the New Testament, so we should agree that if there is a problem with the law, you will need to take it up with God, not us.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
eXnihilO

eXnihilO wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

If we are all "equal" in the eyes of Jesus, how can it be a woman's role to be led by the man, and a man's role to lead the woman?  Those are not the same, and they certainly don't have an equivalence of any sort.  You might get away with claiming that one role isn't superior to another, but you can't claim they are equal.

And while I'm in the neighborhood, if "there is no male or female", there is also no Christian basis for hating up on gays and lesbians.  According to you, Jesus can't tell the difference.

Is a higher-ranking soldier better than a low-ranking one? Of course not. We can be equal in dignity and separate and roles, even if those roles include leadership. The wife can choose not to marry if she wants, it's not forced submission.

By DEFINITION, a higher ranking soldier and a lower ranking soldier are not equals.  The passage doesn't say "Equal ... in this way that isn't really significant".  That's a Christian interpolation of a Jewish concept.  We're all "b'tzelem Elokim", not "White skin good, Black skin bad" or "Penis good, vagina bad."  Christians invented that interpolation because it made Christianity work better with the Roman state.

FurryCatHerder wrote:
You are right with your second point. There is absolutely no basis to hate homosexuals, anyone doing so is wrong. Homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin in the Torah as well as the New Testament, so we should agree that if there is a problem with the law, you will need to take it up with God, not us.

Would that be the same "sin" as eating pork, shell fish, bugs, wild game (not slaughtered correctly), wearing garments of mixed fibers, planting gardens with mixed seeds, etc?

Homosexuality made it into the "Things Christians really hate" list because Romans were much more intolerant of homosexuality than, say, the Greeks.  And if the relationship between David and Jonathan didn't have homoerotic aspects, I'd like you to explain the texts.

FWIW, "Wives be submissive to your husbands" is also evidence of Roman corruption of Jewish law.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 

@Furry

 

“Christians invented that interpolation because it made Christianity work better with the Roman state.”

Well that type of unjust assertion awards you the burden of proof, so please back this statement up. The Roman view of women is quite lower than equal to man.

“Would that be the same "sin" as eating pork, shell fish, bugs, wild game (not slaughtered correctly), wearing garments of mixed fibers, planting gardens with mixed seeds, etc?”

For a Jew, you seem to be quite ignorant of Jewish law and the concept of God’s covenants. Those are referring to ceremonial cleanliness. God people are no longer required to be ceremonially clean, because we are no longer required to partake in those ceremonies. There is a new covenant.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.


eXnihilO
Theist
eXnihilO's picture
Posts: 188
Joined: 2009-11-14
User is offlineOffline
...

 (double post)