To the Christians here...

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
When the likes of you or Ken are around, you bet I am.

Remind me to apologise when I'm fighting for same-sex marriages.

No need.

I wouldn't believe it's sincerity, anyway.

 

[RandFan]

Huh?

Under what authority?

Well, perhaps I'm simply confused. I sincerely apologize. You and I were having a discussion and I voiced my inability to comprehend a God that would send people to hell simply because they were not exposed to Christian theology. I can't think of anything more antithetical to the notion of fair. It seems to me that you believed that it was indeed possible for people who had not been exposed to Christian theology to go to heaven.

Again, my apologies.

Dude, your God sucks.

 

[Pauliesonne]

No need.

I wouldn't believe it's sincerity, anyway.

that would be a smart move.....

 

[Huntster]

Well, perhaps I'm simply confused. I sincerely apologize. You and I were having a discussion and I voiced my inability to comprehend a God that would send people to hell simply because they were not exposed to Christian theology. I can't think of anything more antithetical to the notion of fair. It seems to me that you believed that it was indeed possible for people who had not been exposed to Christian theology to go to heaven.

That is, indeed, my belief.

Dude, your God sucks.

And that is precisely what I held your opinion to be.

 

[I less than three logic]

Ah, then instead of this:



Perhaps this would have been more accurate:

"As a former Mormon I can say, not bad".



Inserting words is not comprehension. It's "trickery".

I think I read what was written quite accurately.

Well, good thing I didn't insert any words then I guess. Wouldn't want to be a trickster, you know. I said it was implied, quite clearly or there would have been no need for the *, that he was making the statement from the Mormon POV, which doesn't necessarily require you to be a Mormon to do so. Since he has already said he was no longer a Mormon, I assumed this would make this implied meaning even more obvious. However, I see now that he was using Mormon in more of an ethnic sense and not a religious one, which makes it quite possible to be both.

 

[rocketdodger]

Ah. Well, I suppose that all depends. If Christian doctrine is correct, then it is certainly is not without utility. But even if, as I suppose, it is not correct, it has proven useful in other respects, e.g. as a catalyst for technological and social progress.

But is it more useful than proposed alternatives?

What does the gender of the speaker have to do with what I just said? It's a linguistic convention, and one that would be hard to change (probably especially for Christians, since it seems to have been a convention also observed by Jesus). Would you necessarily expect a woman to say "She who hesitates is lost" rather than the conventional form of the adage?

I also assert that many linguistic conventions contribute to the inequality of women in society.

That's your basis for comparing the presidency to the priesthood?

That, and the fact that both of them command alot of power...

And I was using the term cult in its broad sense of "worship rendered to a divine being" or "a particular system of religious worship" (OED), not in its narrow sense as "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister" (also OED). So I think we understand each other on this point, and my earlier statement stands.

Then your statement was wrong, because the status of women in such societies was much better than what it was replaced with. The status of Christian women now might be better still, but that is irrelevant, for reasons I have already discussed. And clearly, with other major religions, the status of women is certainly worse, even today. A claim that Egyptian women of today enjoy a higher status than they did in ancient Egypt would be hard to prove correct.

One might make broadly similar observations about government, democracy, philosophy, education, art ...

And I would attack those institutions in the same way I attack the major organized religions.

 

[RandFan]

That is, indeed, my belief.

Would you please make up your mind? For crying in the dark. Which is it?

RandFan
The Jewish children who were gassed in the holocaust, where are they today? If the Germans who killed them received Christ as Lord and Savior then they are in Heaven and the children are in Hell, according to many Christians. I can't speak for Kathy. I will say that Huntster is one who doesn't share this view.....

Huntster
Huh?

Under what authority?

The Jewish Children died having been raised without exposure to Christianity. Where are they today? Could you please pick one belief and not two?

 

[RandFan]

Ah, then instead of this:

Perhaps this would have been more accurate:

"As a former Mormon I can say, not bad".

Inserting words is not comprehension. It's "trickery".

I think I read what was written quite accurately.

It really doesn't matter. An argument can be made for both.

 

[ceo_esq]

Would you please make up your mind? For crying in the dark. Which is it?

Perhaps Hunster was reflexively objecting to the idea that someone would purport to speak for him in this way (even if he did in fact agree with what was said).

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps Hunster was reflexively objecting to the idea that someone would purport to speak for him in this way (even if he did in fact agree with what was said).

???

I'm sorry, I don't understand. If I misrepresented his views I would understand. There is no need for so much emotional baggage. I don't care if someone states my belief unless they misstate that belief.

I think some people take themselves far too seriously. I was trying to point out that not all Christians share the same sentiment and providing a valid example. Objecting serves no purpose but to satisfy ones ego.

It's simple, he either shares the view or he doesn't. If he doesn't he has ever right to object.

 

[Huntster]

The Jewish children who were gassed in the holocaust, where are they today? If the Germans who killed them received Christ as Lord and Savior then they are in Heaven and the children are in Hell, according to many Christians. I can't speak for Kathy. I will say that Huntster is one who doesn't share this view.....

Whoops! Sorry. Poor reading on my part, and jumping before comprehending.

I apologize.

 

[RandFan]

Whoops! Sorry. Poor reading on my part, and jumping before comprehending.

I apologize.

Not a problem. I apologize for making a disparaging remark about your beliefs. It was uncalled for regardless.

 

[ceo_esq]

But is it more useful than proposed alternatives?

Hard to say. There are very few historical alternatives that do not suffer in comparison, certainly. I'm not sure which alternatives you had in mind particularly, though.

I also assert that many linguistic conventions contribute to the inequality of women in society.

Possibly. I'm skeptical of whether religion bears any substantial culpability for that, though.

Then your statement was wrong, because the status of women in such societies was much better than what it was replaced with.

Well, I think you have some convincing to do here. For example, probably the most famous of all goddess cults in pagan antiquity was found in Athens, which (as the name suggests) was devoted to the worship of its patron deity Athena. Yet the status of women in ancient Athenian society was very low indeed.

I am not aware of any societies in which the arrival of Christianity, in particular, had anything other than a progressive and salutary effect on the status of women (vis-à-vis the status quo ante).

The status of Christian women now might be better still, but that is irrelevant, for reasons I have already discussed.

It would certainly seem relevant in the context of a discussion of the status of women in Christianity and Christian-influenced cultures.

And clearly, with other major religions, the status of women is certainly worse, even today. A claim that Egyptian women of today enjoy a higher status than they did in ancient Egypt would be hard to prove correct.

I agree. This is a good example of why we should never lump all religions together, any more than we would lump all politics together.

And I would attack those institutions in the same way I attack the major organized religions.

Okay, but I think you should start separate threads (one for attacking democracy, one for attacking education, etc.).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ken makes it his business to insult me, God, the RCC, and faith itself.

My posts aren't about insulting your god, church and self, their about giving an accurate portrayal of your position, the absurdity and silliness of your god and the ridiculousness of the RCC.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Ken makes it his business to insult me, God, the RCC, and faith itself.

My posts aren't about insulting your god, church and self, their about giving an accurate portrayal of your position, the absurdity and silliness of your god and the ridiculousness of the RCC.

Somehow, I don't think I'll get such a post from that mean, old Kurious Kathy that all of you seem to hate so much.

 

[RandFan]

Somehow, I don't think I'll get such a post from that mean, old Kurious Kathy that all of you seem to hate so much.

I don't hate Kathy. I don't personally find her mean. I do find her arrogant, condescending and presumptuous.

 

[Admiral]

My posts aren't about insulting your god, church and self, their about giving an accurate portrayal of your position, the absurdity and silliness of your god and the ridiculousness of the RCC.

Oh, I get it- you're not insulting Hunster's God, you're calling Him absurd and silly. You're not insulting his church, you're calling it ridiculous.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, I get it- you're not insulting Hunster's God, you're calling Him absurd and silly. You're not insulting his church, you're calling it ridiculous.

Yes, because it's an honest assessment. I also call huntster's belief that sasquatches exist moronic as well. Absurd beliefs are silly, whether it's gods, pixies, sasquatch or boogeymen. In short, I place religion in the same category as paranormal beliefs.

 

[Huntster]

...I also call huntster's belief that sasquatches exist moronic as well. Absurd beliefs are silly, whether it's gods, pixies, sasquatch or boogeymen. In short, I place religion in the same category as paranormal beliefs.

What's "paranormal" about the possibility that a rare, uncataloged primate may exist?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What's "paranormal" about the possibility that a rare, uncataloged primate may exist?

What's paranormal about people claiming to shoot lasers out of their rectums?