Buddhas Hand Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 For some years the church was without pastor. There have been times the pastor has been male, and for some other years it has been female. See where you are going with this, some sort of discrimination due to gender. And it does exist and I am not ashamed of it. Throughout the ages, male and female have common differences. Males tend to be task driven and more head knowledge. Females tend to be nurturing and higher on the emotional quotient. This kind of truth is prevalent even today. This is going to be kind of hard to explain, so work with me here. Christian life and church structure are supposed to be correlated with each other. The family unit, as depicted in Genesis of Husband, Wife, and God, is suppose to be the structure of the healthy church. Both husband and wife work together to take care of creation, and by obeying God, they grow closer to him. Due to the kind of gifts we are given by our predisposed gender, our 'roles' in family and church are clearly defined. Men are to lead spiritually and to love their wives, and wives are suppose to listen to husbands (not using the negative word "submit") and to nurture children. You may disagree and label it as a method of control, arrogant hypocrisy, and even lunacy, but what I see is very different. I see gender as something intentional. I see gender as something to be embraced. It is possible to have a holistic and healthy church where people take up their roles. By no means do I condone beating your wife, showing disrespect to your wife, exercising abusive authority on your wife... all this is extremely counter cultural to the healthy family unit. For women out there who believe it's absolutely arrogant to have males as the "head" of the household.. let me ask you one question. If your husband is perfect, if your husband loves you, if your husband would do anything for you, why wouldn't you make him the head of the household? I read the article a few days ago. It's a tragic thing. That one is particular due to cultural differences - at which is a totally different discussion. I can't speak for them, but you have to understand their culture and customs before you criticize. To them, I bet a westerner looks awfully stupid fighting in a hockey game. I already explained to you that the Bible has various genres in which ancient scholars and textual critics determine how it should be read. Genesis 1+2 are EXTREMELY poetic. They are just LEAKING with poetry that only the most uninformed skeptic wouldn't know. You already know all this. By stating these same arguments over and over again show how backed you are in an illogical corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.DirtyDangles Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 A really great read for anyone questioning the creation of the universe. What I think many here are forgetting is simply "I think therefore I am" http://tillerfoundation.com/ConActsCreation.pdf Consider that we are all living in a postulated third dimensional reality and that WE are the gods just playing knuckle headed games with one another. Do creationist really believe that A single God or supreme omnipotent being created MEST(Matter ,energy , space and time ?) I highly doubt it but cannot myself prove it. We cant even agree on how many dimensions there are let alone who we should invade next month for profit! Classical physics claims 3 dimensions. String theory says 10. M theory 11. Hilbert claims there are infinite dimensions( I tend to agree here) What is the real answer? Will we ever know ? I doubt it. Unless someone enters the nearest blackhole and sends us a postcard from the other side all this arguing over if there is a GOD is pretty much pointless. Unless we can shed our physical bodies and travel inter/extra dimensionally we will never know. Our current grasp of dimensional physics is purely theoretical and until concrete evidence can establish any of these theories we are left to toil in our ignorant misery of misunderstanding one another. At least science is making an effort to prove something based on results of tested theories. Religion basically says believe this or burn in hell ? Pretty cut and dry if you ask me. I do not classify myself as atheist or religious by an means but I sure as hell do not believe ONE BEING is responsible for this beautiful evolutionary concoction of gasses and elements we call the known universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 You do not view women as equals and you admit to having no problem with that , that is fracked . and as for your statement , "MEN TEND TO BE TASK DRIVEN AND MORE HEAD KNOWLEDGE " this just makes me question your sanity . My partner has more "HEAD KNOWLEDGE" than you will ever have and her sister is a scientist of some note in her field , both have had the word genius connected with their name . you and your ilk are repeating a pattern of descriminatory behaviour that disinfranchises women , and what is even worse is that you convince the women in your life that this is acceptable . I will not "work with you" to rationalise and validate the fact that you seem to to view women as lesser beings , and that they are subservient to their male partner . I believe that in many ways my partner is smarter , kinder and more emphathetic than i will ever be , and this makes me a very lucky man . I will ask you a question , if your wife is perfect , if your wife loves you ,if your wife would do anything for you ,why would'nt you make her head of the household Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 If you're content with that, then by all means, enjoy life, and be sure to strive for that satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 At no point did I say men and women are not equals. Just because I asserted there are different roles in a family unit, does not assert the fact that there is inequality. Is an engine more important than the wheels? Is the alternator more important than the battery? Not at all. If one part suffers, the other part suffers as well. Typical for a non-believer to not understand correct terminology. Hey, what's more important? The fourth line or the third line? A WHOLE TEAM wins cups. Not just a single line. Umm, if you consider yourself to be a social person, or even one that understands culture, you will also know that men and women are different. It is ubiquitous truth. Just how do we apply those differences is the important thing. I'm not saying women are dumb, or that men can't be emotional. Of course they can be. But we have been given a specific gender and gifts and we ought to make use of what God has given us. You keep asserting that women are lesser beings, not I. Don't see everything as a hierarchy of order and command, which it isn't. It is a family unit that functions with different roles. Women are just as important as men are, and they should be treated with tremendous respect and care. Consider this - women love to dance. But more importantly, women love men who can lead in dancing. Nothing captures a women's heart more than being led in dancing. Does this make me sound arrogant and chauvinistic? No, it doesn't. Altogether, this discussion won't make any sense if you outright fully reject the existence of God. To a non-believer, obviously what I'm saying is messed up. But the existence of God also puts emphasis on order, meaning, purpose which includes gender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 where did i assert women are lesser being's , i have not, and would never do this . you have rationalised your behaviour and i do not want to try to force you to change , rather expose your sexist and outdated atittudes towards women for all to see . and you did not answer my question . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I answered your questions and went above and beyond in fact. Am I sexist to assert the fact that men and women are different? I am NOT asserting that men are BETTER, or vice versa. I am asserting that men and women are DIFFERENT. Get that through your head first. I dare you to click this link - http://www.dailymail...ity-traits.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 But none with our intelligence and resourcefulness. Though yeah we probably will be the first to go much much earlier. Or at the same time when Jesus returns and destroys the earth by fire! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Sikes Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I clicked the link and discovered that thousands of years of men treating women as second class citizens has left it's mark and these behaviour patterns have been reinforced by sexist males like yourself. and you did not answer my question, , if your wife is perfect , if your wife loves you ,if your wife would do anything for you ,why would'nt you make her head of the household ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The Abrahamic religions, specifically Christianity and Islam have long histories of suppressing women, in pre Christian Northern Europe women were held in much higher esteem, many wore keys on their belt as a sign that they ran the houshold, they could own land and could give their husband the heave ho if he screwed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Digging deeper into 'The First Church of Atheism', i cannot see anything to indicate that it is satire. -It is being started on the internet by an atheist activist couple in Langhorne, PA. -They are raising money to build an actual church. Donate on the website. -They want to perform ceremonies just like Christians do. -They have ordained Atheist Ministers online. -They have a belief system. No mention of non-belief. -They have a doctrine: “Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of that natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.” -They are encouraging other atheists to unite. Also welcoming other classes of 'non-believers' in order to unite them as well. -They have a religious symbol. Shown on the website. Presumably, this would be outside the church and/or on the altar/podium. There are no snide remarks about God on the website. No satirical tone. No underlying message of 'we're making a point that anyone can set up a church or become an ordained minister'. This is a legitimate website designed by legitimate atheist activists in order to promote atheism as a new recognized religion that has the same rights as other religions in the state(s). Tax relief. etc. If they are successful, and they very well could be, then atheism will become an official religion and 'non-believers' will have to be classified seperately if they don't want to be linked to a religion. Atheists who weren't aware of this development probably won't like it. Matt Dillahunty doesn't like it. But he can see the point of doing it. Unifying those who share the same belief system is a good thing. I wish the First Church of Atheism well. Looking forward to seeing their churches all over the continent soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Einstein didn't like the atheist label and neither do i. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I guess some, not all, atheists are tired of being persecuted by Christians and are taking steps to organize and rise up against oppression by forming a counter-religion of their own. Yes, other organized atheists might view that as the wrong way to do it, but like in anything religious, you're not going to be able to unify everyone under one banner. Perhaps there will be religious atheists and non-religious atheists. The thing is some atheists see all those theists getting all that free cash and are all jelly. It's certainly easier to make atheism into a religion than it is to convince the powers that be that atheists should get free cash as well. But why 'Church of Atheism' and not some other title? Simple: Another name would sound like a cult, whereas atheists see themselves as beyond that. And there are way more atheists than there are humanists etc. Atheists, if all combined, form a religion of 161,000,000 million people, but once they convert all types of non-religious people on over to atheism, that's an additional 833,000,000 people. That's a pretty significant world-wide religious power, folks. No wonder people are trying very hard to get it organized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Doesn't anybody find it interesting that as humanity, as a whole, gets smarter belief in religion wanes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Exactly my point. If your human heart is this calloused, there is no reason for God to show you anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevlach Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Was doing some reading this morning, stumbled upon this and thought it was kind of interesting given one of yesterday's topics in here. Does Atheism Mean "A Lack of Belief in God?" Let’s see check with the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Excerpt: ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. Stanford University is one of the top 5 universities in the United States, so that’s a solid definition. To be an atheist is to be a person who makes the claim that, as a matter of FACT/BELIEF, there is no intelligent agent who created the universe. Atheists think that there is no God, and theists think that there is a God. Both claims are objective claims about the way the world is out there, and so both sides must furnish forth arguments and evidence as to how they are able to know/believe what they are each claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I clicked the link and discovered that thousands of years of men treating women as second class citizens has left it's mark and these behaviour patterns have been reinforced by sexist males like yourself. and you did not answer my question, , if your wife is perfect , if your wife loves you ,if your wife would do anything for you ,why would'nt you make her head of the household ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Oh no, not sexist at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Look, I don't hate God (if he exists), I just don't feel the need for one to exist for my life to have meaning. If I was shown irrefutable evidence of his existence, I'd say "wow, that's interesting. I didn't know that before, but now I do. Cool beans." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajusta Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 It was just a joke, I don't think you could actually call my heart "calloused", if you knew me irl I think you might change your mind. I like making jokes, they make me laugh (though I'm sorry if I offended you, I have a tendency to do that). Look, I don't hate God (if he exists), I just don't feel the need for one to exist for my life to have meaning. If I was shown irrefutable evidence of his existence, I'd say "wow, that's interesting. I didn't know that before, but now I do. Cool beans." I think the best you'll get out of me is I'm thankful for my existence (mostly to my parents). But I'm not going to devote my life to worshiping God even if you can convince me he exists. Best he might get is a card, like my mom does on mother's day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.