|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 24, 2018 1:36:38 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? It isn't so much the risk as it is knowing who to blame and how much if things go wrong. There is a need to have standards. And 'knowing' who is to blame resolves what? Other than Trump, it can be very difficult knowing who, exactly, is to blame. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 1:41:15 GMT
It isn't so much the risk as it is knowing who to blame and how much if things go wrong. There is a need to have standards. And 'knowing' who is to blame resolves what? In some cases not very much. There is no fitting the square peg in the round hole. People then give up, and it might be just as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 24, 2018 1:42:34 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. |
|
|
|
Post by them1ghtyhumph on Sept 24, 2018 1:49:58 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. So you are saying deciding what religion to follow is not a choice? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 24, 2018 1:53:16 GMT
I demand reparations for 2000 years of Levitican oppression against my people, the homosexuals. ^ This guy is cool. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 1:55:52 GMT
But there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. It will be a rare theist who will ever admit that scripture is responsible for anything negative. It's well ingrained in religion that scripture (and the deity who allegedly inspired it) is only responsible for the good things that come from it - anything bad that comes of it is the fault of the people who "misinterpreted" it. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 24, 2018 1:59:31 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. Again you're blaming religion for problems that would arise in society whether there is any religion or not. Society owing to little or no reading of scriptures tries to treat women differently than men. One thing it tries to do is never blame women for anything. This can be difficult because society also holds people who make decisions to blame. Now you see the dilemma. How do you hold people who make decisions responsible and not hold women responsible? One way is too blame the husband. Now you see the dilemma remains. If the husband is to blame and people who make decisions are to blame how does the husband not make the decision? These problems and the confusion are going to recur. Even in modern America as women try to make more decisions they sometimes still prefer to never have to take any blame. That's going to lead to a mess yet again and atheism is not any answer at all. I already addressed this issue in other threads. The Bible allows women to be captains of armies and thus make decisions, it's just that few women choose military roles. I admire your interest in scripture, but as I said before, it really isn't necessary for you to comment. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 24, 2018 15:19:04 GMT
Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. Again you're blaming religion for problems that would arise in society whether there is any religion or not. Society owing to little or no reading of scriptures tries to treat women differently than men. One thing it tries to do is never blame women for anything. This can be difficult because society also holds people who make decisions to blame. Now you see the dilemma. How do you hold people who make decisions responsible and not hold women responsible? One way is too blame the husband. Now you see the dilemma remains. If the husband is to blame and people who make decisions are to blame how does the husband not make the decision? These problems and the confusion are going to recur. Even in modern America as women try to make more decisions they sometimes still prefer to never have to take any blame. That's going to lead to a mess yet again and atheism is not any answer at all. I already addressed this issue in other threads. The Bible allows women to be captains of armies and thus make decisions, it's just that few women choose military roles. I admire your interest in scripture, but as I said before, it really isn't necessary for you to comment.Well, how condescending and dismissive is that last statement? After two paragraphs of unintelligible word salad. Seems more suited, rather than answering the question, to discourage the OP from asking questions. Perhaps the OP, due to his multiple quantifiable degrees in subjects that require a high cognitive thought process, is better at making clear, intelligent statements than you, Arlon. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 24, 2018 15:40:55 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. So, you hit the nail on the head. The stronger, more intelligent Alpha males have no problems finding suitable females who are willing to be dominated. But the other males haves to have control by using scriptures to justify their actions. So scripture, which gives a man the ability to control his woman, is more likely to have been written by men. And note, the verse for wives is explicit in telling women what to do and the verse for husbands is deliberately vague. In my opinion, scripture doesn't have unintended consequences, it is very intentional. Now, I've never studied scriptures outside of Christianity, but my suspicion is that they are all that way. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Sept 24, 2018 17:57:04 GMT
daddy bought me jesus on a birthday cake
even though
daddy is extremely busy
traveling with
his
'business secretary'
while
promoting
his new book:
abstinence beyond the hotel room.
i was super surprised
when
what would arrive
but
a huge dark van with the letters
f.b.i.
on its sides.
so i'm thinking
that
daddy bought me a ride-a-long with our nations
excuse for
industrial strength ding dongs.
that is until
they ransacked the garage
and the rest of his
house made into a hunting lodge
only to dislodge
this massive barrage of
video tapes and dvd blu rays.
so now daddy spends his days
stamping out
california licence plates
but hey it's okay
he promised to send me
a jesus mounted on my next cake
anyways
he always forgets my birthday
so i end up
phoning the national nra
clicking the safety
on
daddy's glock.
asking them to please tell the president
daddy says:
you can suck his cock.
sjw 09/24/19 inspired at this very moment in time as the reichstag squirms into the shape of all manner of worms.
from the 'blitzkrieg series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2018 0:23:43 GMT
It's not just for AJ. It's for quite many people lately who were never prepared for public debate by their schools. Before the internet most people were not prepared. Most people did not enter debates except within their small circles of associates and very controlled conditions. Now that the internet is here most people are still not properly trained. This thread can help prepare you. Perhaps the fact that I do not recognize your ability to critique is part of the problem. Children in elementary school are typically discouraged from entering debates as I have explained many times. College is supposed to require critical analysis, however much math and some science rarely employ much critical analysis. As I have also explained. I know it doesn't seem like something AJ would do, but others here who say they have a college education do not. I've been told many times how college degrees at quite many other universities are worthless lately, but this is the first time I've seen the evidence (inconclusive, but still evidence) myself. By the way, math and science do not require a "high cognitive process." That's a common atheist delusion. The special thing about science and math is that they very easily translate to various people with various backgrounds and languages because science and math deal with the obvious. See Galileo Knowledge of mathematics is a priori insofar as it works by definition. Two plus two is four because it is defined that way. There is no need to consult material existence or be troubled by it. I know very well that the OP was totally wrong about the connection between religion and legal problems with many medical fertility treatments. I showed a case that confirms my findings. It doesn't really matter whether you understand or accept them. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2018 0:58:24 GMT
It's not just for AJ. It's for quite many people lately who were never prepared for public debate by their schools. Before the internet most people were not prepared. Most people did not enter debates except within their small circles of associates and very controlled conditions. Now that the internet is here most people are still not properly trained. This thread can help prepare you. Perhaps the fact that I do not recognize your ability to critique is part of the problem. Children in elementary school are typically discouraged from entering debates as I have explained many times. College is supposed to require critical analysis, however much math and some science rarely employ much critical analysis. As I have also explained. I know it doesn't seem like something AJ would do, but others here who say they have a college education do not. I've been told many times how college degrees at quite many other universities are worthless lately, but this is the first time I've seen the evidence (inconclusive, but still evidence) myself. By the way, math and science do not require a "high cognitive process." That's a common atheist delusion. The special thing about science and math is that they very easily translate to various people with various backgrounds and languages because science and math deal with the obvious. See Galileo Knowledge of mathematics is a priori insofar as it works by definition. Two plus two is four because it is defined that way. There is no need to consult material existence or be troubled by it. I know very well that the OP was totally wrong about the connection between religion and legal problems with many medical fertility treatments. I showed a case that confirms my findings. It doesn't really matter whether you understand or accept them. LOL...STILL boasting Dunning Kruger poster boy (fossil)? Everyone except you is totally wrong ( in your mind) about everything because you allegedly ( again in your own mind) know more about everything because posters on here don't read books, know nothing about 'real 'science' like you, never learned to debate like you, never had good grades like you and their degrees are rubbish ( unlike you if you truly have any ). They don't have a website like you, nor copyright of word salad articles, knows more about fertility and religion than anyone and despite all this claim that You seriously think that we are too stupid to understand your nonsense in your religious and totally nonsensical circular reasoning about pretty much everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2018 1:15:50 GMT
Everyone except you is totally wrong ( in your mind) about everything because you allegedly ( again in your own mind) know more about everything because posters on here don't read books, know nothing about 'real 'science' like you, never learned to debate like you, never had good grades like you and their degrees are rubbish ( unlike you if you truly have any ). They don't have a website like you, nor copyright of word salad articles, knows more about fertility and religion than anyone and despite all this claim that I have noticed that there is real life and there is this discussion board and that they are totally different things. I sincerely hope your real life is totally different too, but I have no way to know. I put somewhat more of my real life out here than you do of yours because I have had lots of training and practice, not in my imagination only, not here, but in real life. I have pictures and other evidence to prove it. There are people here who are right much of the time. They do not disagree with me. Only atheists do. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2018 1:24:34 GMT
Everyone except you is totally wrong ( in your mind) about everything because you allegedly ( again in your own mind) know more about everything because posters on here don't read books, know nothing about 'real 'science' like you, never learned to debate like you, never had good grades like you and their degrees are rubbish ( unlike you if you truly have any ). They don't have a website like you, nor copyright of word salad articles, knows more about fertility and religion than anyone and despite all this claim that I have noticed that there is real life and there is this discussion board and that they are totally different things. I sincerely hope your real life is totally different too, but I have no way to know. I put somewhat more of my real life out here than you do of yours because I have had lots of training and practice, not in my imagination only, not here, but in real life. I have pictures and other evidence to prove it. There are people here who are right much of the time. They do not disagree with me. Only atheists do. Never say!!!! You are right YET again? How about you show me the pictures and other evidence of God? Surely you have that, too? Christ on a bike, you are right again? Other delusional circular reasoning people without knowledge of real science and real logic( as you term them your self) agree with you so you MUST be right? Those poor atheists with only science, logic and provable facts and logical reason on their side. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 25, 2018 1:58:36 GMT
It's not just for AJ. It's for quite many people lately who were never prepared for public debate by their schools. Before the internet most people were not prepared. Most people did not enter debates except within their small circles of associates and very controlled conditions. Now that the internet is here most people are still not properly trained. This thread can help prepare you. Perhaps the fact that I do not recognize your ability to critique is part of the problem. Children in elementary school are typically discouraged from entering debates as I have explained many times. College is supposed to require critical analysis, however much math and some science rarely employ much critical analysis. As I have also explained. I know it doesn't seem like something AJ would do, but others here who say they have a college education do not. I've been told many times how college degrees at quite many other universities are worthless lately, but this is the first time I've seen the evidence (inconclusive, but still evidence) myself. By the way, math and science do not require a "high cognitive process." That's a common atheist delusion. The special thing about science and math is that they very easily translate to various people with various backgrounds and languages because science and math deal with the obvious. See Galileo Knowledge of mathematics is a priori insofar as it works by definition. Two plus two is four because it is defined that way. There is no need to consult material existence or be troubled by it. I know very well that the OP was totally wrong about the connection between religion and legal problems with many medical fertility treatments. I showed a case that confirms my findings. It doesn't really matter whether you understand or accept them. LOL...STILL boasting Dunning Kruger poster boy (fossil)? Everyone except you is totally wrong ( in your mind) about everything because you allegedly ( again in your own mind) know more about everything because posters on here don't read books, know nothing about 'real 'science' like you, never learned to debate like you, never had good grades like you and their degrees are rubbish ( unlike you if you truly have any ). They don't have a website like you, nor copyright of word salad articles, knows more about fertility and religion than anyone and despite all this claim that You seriously think that we are too stupid to understand your nonsense in your religious and totally nonsensical circular reasoning about pretty much everything. At least Arlon has lots of other people - Trump's base supporters - to hang out with. I found this interesting related article about a study done... www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-help-explain-trumps-support    |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 25, 2018 2:16:26 GMT
LOL...STILL boasting Dunning Kruger poster boy (fossil)? Everyone except you is totally wrong ( in your mind) about everything because you allegedly ( again in your own mind) know more about everything because posters on here don't read books, know nothing about 'real 'science' like you, never learned to debate like you, never had good grades like you and their degrees are rubbish ( unlike you if you truly have any ). They don't have a website like you, nor copyright of word salad articles, knows more about fertility and religion than anyone and despite all this claim that You seriously think that we are too stupid to understand your nonsense in your religious and totally nonsensical circular reasoning about pretty much everything. At least Arlon has lots of other people - Trump's base supporters - to hang out with. I found this interesting related article about a study done... www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mind-in-the-machine/201808/the-dunning-kruger-effect-may-help-explain-trumps-support Thankyou for that link. I found it interesting, informative and SCARY!  What hope is therefor good sense in America? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Sept 25, 2018 2:27:14 GMT
Thankyou for that link. I found it interesting, informative and SCARY! What hope is therefor good sense in America? Yeah, same here - it is profoundly disturbing to think that there are so many in the US that have a flawed thinking process. It is bad enough having an idiot for a president, but the thought that his base is certain that the crap he feeds them is real is even more disturbing. I have never been this concerned for our future, and I lived through the G.W. Bush presidency (screaming at the political talk shows for eight years.) Sigh... now I can't even WATCH the political talk shows, I'm afraid I'll have a stroke. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 25, 2018 3:01:01 GMT
I have noticed that there is real life and there is this discussion board and that they are totally different things. I sincerely hope your real life is totally different too, but I have no way to know. I put somewhat more of my real life out here than you do of yours because I have had lots of training and practice, not in my imagination only, not here, but in real life. I have pictures and other evidence to prove it. There are people here who are right much of the time. They do not disagree with me. Only atheists do. Never say!!!! You are right YET again? How about you show me the pictures and other evidence of God? Surely you have that, too? Christ on a bike, you are right again? Other delusional circular reasoning people without knowledge of real science and real logic( as you term them your self) agree with you so you MUST be right? Those poor atheists with only science, logic and provable facts and logical reason on their side. You're not acknowledging the necessity to bring in a real life scientist to speak for you. Hmmm? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Sept 25, 2018 10:43:10 GMT
So basically, were talking about situations that include risks, right? There is risk (good or not so good or bad) in the outcomes. That's just about all decisions. Or am I misunderstanding this? Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. That isn't a risk which can be blamed on Scripture though which is quite clear in its meaning and does not change throughout the whole chapter or letter. The risk is in humans contorting it to fit their own desire and one doesn't need any writing at all to do that. The mere act of cherry picking scripture is what causes the damage where there would normally be none. This is not to say that religion may not have external influence. Christianity is practically telling us to influence those around us in the hopes that they don't stay wicked by our conduct. However, that can't be defined as risk because Scripture has NEVER indicated Christians remove freedom of choice from the equation. Don;t blame a book for the desires of the individual &/or organization. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 25, 2018 10:50:09 GMT
Externality as we are talking here would be the unintended consequences of religion/actions of religious people. For example, take this verse from Bible. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. ( Ephesians 5:22-33 New International Version (NIV)) Christians might not agree that there is anything wrong with that preceding verse ad cite the verses such as these in their defense:
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansingBut there can still be unintended consequences of the verses 22-23. There will be people (and have been) who will beat their wives or think of themselves as their wives' owners as they think religion has given them authority to discipline their wives. Should we not hold the scriptures responsible? Could the verse 22-23 have been written in better way? One argument made by theists will be that men in general are bad people and so they beat women. Even many men who are not religious do so. That may be true but there certainly are people who have been inspired from religions to be misogynist. Such scriptural teachings also led to discrimination against women in inheritance and on other issues. So, you hit the nail on the head. The stronger, more intelligent Alpha males have no problems finding suitable females who are willing to be dominated. But the other males haves to have control by using scriptures to justify their actions. So scripture, which gives a man the ability to control his woman, is more likely to have been written by men. And note, the verse for wives is explicit in telling women what to do and the verse for husbands is deliberately vague. In my opinion, scripture doesn't have unintended consequences, it is very intentional. Now, I've never studied scriptures outside of Christianity, but my suspicion is that they are all that way. Yes, I can totally understand your point about the verses being intentional. I had already thought about that. But let's just suppose we give them some leeway on the basis of the time they were written and how evolved the society was at that time. Even if they are not intentional they certainly can lead to control of women by men in general. If I were a Christian (which I am not) I would have said that's not something I agree with and feel that part of the scripture is not any eternal truth or flawless. Even if I were religious (which I will never be) at most I would have been religious to the extent the member called gadreel is currently religious. |
|
