ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd December 2018, 02:39 PM   #41
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,809
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I hold the same first 2 standard sub-culture western beliefs. I don't hold the 3rd one, since I am a skeptic.
You just admitted that they are beliefs. You are a member of a sub-culture, who holds these 3 beliefs.

You are a product of nature/nurture, so am I. You just admitted that. Where is the problem?


There is no “problem” other than you seemingly classifying such as “folk beliefs.”

It’s weird phraseology. Yes, those are things I “believe” but they aren’t based on any faith-based grounds. I believe those things in the same way I believe that gravity is real, 2+2=4 and lemons are sour. That is: I have a variety of experience and empirical data that has been verified by others which leads me to such “beliefs.”

You seem to be hung up on the word “believe” as having a faith-based connotation. It doesn’t always. In my case, I mean “to accept the evidence of” those propositions I laid out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 09:21 AM   #42
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45,466
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Once again for the kiddies at home. The Christians I know would not say that they're "throwing out" or "not taking any notice of" or "disregarding" any part of the Bible. They would say that they're interpreting it in a modern context. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.
Exactly they have to get rid of all that hippy socialist crap about caring for the poor and needy somehow. Ayn Rand is of course a better christian philosopher than Jesus.

(For american Christianity anyway)
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 12:53 PM   #43
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Once again for the kiddies at home. The Christians I know would not say that they're "throwing out" or "not taking any notice of" or "disregarding" any part of the Bible. They would say that they're interpreting it in a modern context. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

And Thor, I'm sorry if you feel like I'm picking on you. It's not intentional. It's just that we tend to read the same parts of the forum. You have a tendency to make broad sweeping statements about Christians that directly contradict my experience. If you don't want your horizons expanded, if you would prefer to go on believing that all of Christianity is monolithically barbarous, just say so and I'll lay off for a bit. But I don't think you should.
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Exactly they have to get rid of all that hippy socialist crap about caring for the poor and needy somehow. Ayn Rand is of course a better christian philosopher than Jesus.

(For american Christianity anyway)

I decided to ignore this crap in spite of the insulting "for the kiddies at home" jab, but as ponderingturtle has resurrected it will have my say.

Interpreting Biblical stuff in a "modern context" now is it? I would really like to see how that works if you could give a few examples. You can start with the rules for selling your daughter into slavery.

Now this thread is about the use of Biblical direction by those who refer to the Bible for guidance. You wading in with all the stuff about your nice Christian friends who don't do that, (oh well they do but with a modern context interpretation ), is not really relevant ..... sorry.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2018, 02:31 PM   #44
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,803
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I decided to ignore this crap in spite of the insulting "for the kiddies at home" jab, but as ponderingturtle has resurrected it will have my say.

Interpreting Biblical stuff in a "modern context" now is it? I would really like to see how that works if you could give a few examples. You can start with the rules for selling your daughter into slavery.
First of all, I think most of "modern Christians" don't really give a hoot about the OT.

Quote:
Now this thread is about the use of Biblical direction by those who refer to the Bible for guidance. You wading in with all the stuff about your nice Christian friends who don't do that, (oh well they do but with a modern context interpretation ), is not really relevant ..... sorry.
Well, I suggest that people who use the Bible in whatever way are the ones who decide what is relevant for them. Obviously, as pointed out again and again on this forum, the Bible is full of ... nasty stuff, and as we also know, self-contradictions galore, so anybody wanting to use it for guidance must take their picks. I don't see how others can be the judges of exactly what they decide to pick.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2018, 01:53 PM   #45
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
First of all, I think most of "modern Christians" don't really give a hoot about the OT.
Most "modern Christians" know very little of the Bible from my observations.

Regarding the relevance of the OT stuff to them, most of these guys are not aware of the words of Jesus according to Matthew:

Quote:
Jesus explains His view of the law very quickly after giving the beatitudes: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).
Now I lifted this quotation from a United Church of God site which had a lot of script supporting this theme. Tried to find out if the United Church of God is one and the same as The Uniting Church who arth's mates belong to but couldn't get a clear answer.

Quote:
Well, I suggest that people who use the Bible in whatever way are the ones who decide what is relevant for them. Obviously, as pointed out again and again on this forum, the Bible is full of ... nasty stuff, and as we also know, self-contradictions galore, so anybody wanting to use it for guidance must take their picks. I don't see how others can be the judges of exactly what they decide to pick.

Hans

Well when you just pick this or that from Christian holy script, (which in turn has picked this and that from other religions), if becomes difficult to define what is a Christian.

All that to one side, my point is that some Christian churches have and do draw on Biblical text to support the subjugation of women. That is the reason #Churchtoo was born. To point out that some other "modern Christians", (with a somewhat vague definition of what makes them Christian), don't believe this stuff is beside the point.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:34 AM   #46
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,003
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
There seems to be a groundswell of those taking on the church, regarding the patriarchy encouraged by them, leading to violence against women.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-...witter/9188666





I know it will be pointed out by others that some churches have gone a long way, in providing equal status for women. Of course a big lump of Biblical scripture must be set aside in order to progress along this road. One has to wonder how far this can go, whilst maintaining the concept of the Bible being the divinely inspired script, that defines Christianity.

For the unaware, Amazon carries both fiction and non-fiction re: religionist males spanking recalcitrant religious females.


The evidence: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_n...gious+spanking
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:35 AM   #47
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,003
OOps, or uppity...…….
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 08:28 PM   #48
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Most "modern Christians" know very little of the Bible from my observations.

Regarding the relevance of the OT stuff to them, most of these guys are not aware of the words of Jesus according to Matthew:
What do you think Matthew 5:17 means?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 08:41 PM   #49
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
What do you think Matthew 5:17 means?

It means what it says. Pretty clear really. You might as well ask if someone says "I am going to the pub." what does he/she mean.

Oh sure some theologians will jolly it up and put a cherry on top and say it means something completely different because they think they can. I will not be impressed however.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:16 PM   #50
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
It means what it says. Pretty clear really. You might as well ask if someone says "I am going to the pub." what does he/she mean.

Oh sure some theologians will jolly it up and put a cherry on top and say it means something completely different because they think they can. I will not be impressed however.
Wow, you really do believe that this can be naively dismissed, don't you?

Jesus came to fulfil the law. That's not something clear like going down to the pub, that's open to interpretation. What does the verb "fulfil" even mean when referring to law? Can you "fulfil" the Safe Work Australia Act (2008)? What would fulfilling that law look like?

You can just dismiss it all if you like, but you're dipping your toe into a very deep pool. If anyone else thought that their personal uninformed opinion was more relevant than the learned conclusions of experts in the field, they'd they'd be laughed at, especially on this forum.

So. You tell me what you think the phrase "fulfil the law" in Mat 5:17 means, and I'll tell you what I was taught about it by experts and actual theologians when I was learning about this stuff. After all, you don't want to be building a strawman, do you?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:39 PM   #51
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Wow, you really do believe that this can be naively dismissed, don't you?

Jesus came to fulfil the law. That's not something clear like going down to the pub, that's open to interpretation. What does the verb "fulfil" even mean when referring to law? Can you "fulfil" the Safe Work Australia Act (2008)? What would fulfilling that law look like?

You can just dismiss it all if you like, but you're dipping your toe into a very deep pool. If anyone else thought that their personal uninformed opinion was more relevant than the learned conclusions of experts in the field, they'd they'd be laughed at, especially on this forum.

So. You tell me what you think the phrase "fulfil the law" in Mat 5:17 means, and I'll tell you what I was taught about it by experts and actual theologians when I was learning about this stuff. After all, you don't want to be building a strawman, do you?

Once again the appeal to authority strategy. You've used this one before haven't you? Experts in theology we must submit to the opinion of, because this stuff is too deep for the likes of you or I to interpret.

Don't start throwing that "stawman" crap at me arth. You know it won't stick.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 10:43 PM   #52
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Once again the appeal to authority strategy. You've used this one before haven't you? Experts in theology we must submit to the opinion of, because this stuff is too deep for the likes of you or I to interpret.
I trust experts in theology to know more about theology than you do.

You do know that if we were talking about evolution or physics instead of theology, you'd be first on the bandwagon to deride and dismiss the idiot who thought he'd disproved Darwin or Einstein. But because it's theology, you can apparently just make crap up and call it an argument.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Don't start throwing that "stawman" crap at me arth. You know it won't stick.
*shrug* If the straw shoe fits.

What do you think the phrase "fulfil the law" means in Mat 5:17?
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 03:18 PM   #53
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
[quote=arthwollipot;12529347]I trust experts in theology to know more about theology than you do.

You do know that if we were talking about evolution or physics instead of theology, you'd be first on the bandwagon to deride and dismiss the idiot who thought he'd disproved Darwin or Einstein. But because it's theology, you can apparently just make crap up and call it an argument.[quote]

Now your comparing experts in theology to experts in science, oh my!

There is another thread going on - Matthew 12:40 an Idiom?..... And guys are having the audacity to try and make some sense out of what Matthew said. Don't think there is a theology expert among the lot. You best hop over there and set them straight.

Quote:

*shrug* If the straw shoe fits.

What do you think the phrase "fulfil the law" means in Mat 5:17?
You keep on harping on this. I think you have to look at the the whole quotation and not just a part. You know, to get the thing in context.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

These are the words of Jesus as relayed by Matthew, and my understanding is he (Jesus) did not want to be seen as disputing a lot of the stuff, laid down as law by his father in previous work. He also wanted to be seen as the messiah prophesied in that work - thus fulfilling.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 10th December 2018 at 03:20 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th December 2018, 05:24 PM   #54
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Now your comparing experts in theology to experts in science, oh my!
I take it that you are of the opinion that it is impossible for a person to be an expert in theology? Let me go get a Jesuit.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
There is another thread going on - Matthew 12:40 an Idiom?..... And guys are having the audacity to try and make some sense out of what Matthew said. Don't think there is a theology expert among the lot. You best hop over there and set them straight.
I might. Though I do not claim to be an expert, of course, just someone who has done some reading and learned about Christianity in an actual church for a time. I don't think it takes a lot of expertise to counter naive arguments put forward by lifelong atheists who don't even believe that theology is a valid avenue of intellectual inquiry.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You keep on harping on this. I think you have to look at the the whole quotation and not just a part. You know, to get the thing in context.

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

These are the words of Jesus as relayed by Matthew, and my understanding is he (Jesus) did not want to be seen as disputing a lot of the stuff, laid down as law by his father in previous work. He also wanted to be seen as the messiah prophesied in that work - thus fulfilling.
Thank you. This is a little more nuanced than I expected, actually. Yes, the latter part of your statement is getting close. What I was taught is that the history of the Hebrews was directed by God in order to produce a Messiah. The purpose of the laws and prophecies and the persecution of the Jews and all that was for Jesus to be born, and thereby for humans to be saved from the original sin of Adam and Eve. So the Old Testament laws were valid at that time for that purpose, but once the Messiah had been produced, there was just no need for them any more. It definitely does not mean that the laws do or should still apply.

Again, just in case any readers of this thread misinterpret me here - I am an atheist. I don't believe that the Bible is even remotely true, and I don't know whether Jesus even actually existed as a historical person. I am recalling what I was taught at a time when I was a churchgoer, which, I should add, was a good quarter century ago, and which I have been adding to by speaking with actual Christians about it from time to time since then.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 01:29 PM   #55
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

Thank you. This is a little more nuanced than I expected, actually. Yes, the latter part of your statement is getting close. What I was taught is that the history of the Hebrews was directed by God in order to produce a Messiah. The purpose of the laws and prophecies and the persecution of the Jews and all that was for Jesus to be born, and thereby for humans to be saved from the original sin of Adam and Eve. So the Old Testament laws were valid at that time for that purpose, but once the Messiah had been produced, there was just no need for them any more. It definitely does not mean that the laws do or should still apply.

You have to wonder about people who find some sense in this stuff.

God is so pissed about the original sin of Adam and Eve he makes all these laws to keep the people in line, (Rules about how to sell your daughter, stoning your wayward kids, killing those not keeping the sabbath, killing homosexuals, and so on, and so on), and Jesus is his right hand man even back then, (Well it is Catholic belief about the Trinity always being there. Some other Christians seem somewhat wishy washy about it.), so is cool with all of it.

Present day Christians however are interpreting this stuff in "in a modern context" so they are cool with it all as well.* Too bad about all those dudes in the past who were killed by the religious zealots who took this stuff literally.

To digress. This sort of extreme adherence to religious law is happening in todays world of Islam. I wonder in the future, if a more moderate version of Islam will develop in those countries, so that sharia law can be interpreted in a modern context.

* Some modern day Christian contextual interpretations of Biblical direction, is not as vague as that of others it seems, when we look at issues like male dominance, this being the subject matter of this thread.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 11th December 2018 at 01:39 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th December 2018, 05:21 PM   #56
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You have to wonder about people who find some sense in this stuff.
You may wonder. I don't have to. I've experienced it.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
God is so pissed about the original sin of Adam and Eve he makes all these laws to keep the people in line, (Rules about how to sell your daughter, stoning your wayward kids, killing those not keeping the sabbath, killing homosexuals, and so on, and so on), and Jesus is his right hand man even back then, (Well it is Catholic belief about the Trinity always being there. Some other Christians seem somewhat wishy washy about it.), so is cool with all of it.

Present day Christians however are interpreting this stuff in "in a modern context" so they are cool with it all as well.* Too bad about all those dudes in the past who were killed by the religious zealots who took this stuff literally.

* Some modern day Christian contextual interpretations of Biblical direction, is not as vague as that of others it seems, when we look at issues like male dominance, this being the subject matter of this thread.
Hmm... I'm not sure I'd say that they were "cool with it". But it was apparently necessary for what in the end was a desirable outcome. I personally don't think the ends always justify the means, but it's a very grey area at best.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
To digress. This sort of extreme adherence to religious law is happening in todays world of Islam. I wonder in the future, if a more moderate version of Islam will develop in those countries, so that sharia law can be interpreted in a modern context.
I think it's absolutely inevitable. But Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity - Islam today is as mature as Catholicism was in the 1400s - the era of the Inquisition and the Auto-da-fé. I don't think it'll take another 600 years, but I do feel that the progressiveness that is, let's face it, still only a growing minority in Christianity, will inevitably also affect Islam. But maybe I'm just an optimist.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

Last edited by arthwollipot; 11th December 2018 at 05:22 PM. Reason: grammar pedantry
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2018, 01:31 PM   #57
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You may wonder. I don't have to. I've experienced it.

Hmm... I'm not sure I'd say that they were "cool with it". But it was apparently necessary for what in the end was a desirable outcome. I personally don't think the ends always justify the means, but it's a very grey area at best.
Personally I find it hard to imagine people having minds so supple or ductile, they can just take all this stuff on board and not rupture.

Quote:
I think it's absolutely inevitable. But Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity - Islam today is as mature as Catholicism was in the 1400s - the era of the Inquisition and the Auto-da-fé. I don't think it'll take another 600 years, but I do feel that the progressiveness that is, let's face it, still only a growing minority in Christianity, will inevitably also affect Islam. But maybe I'm just an optimist.
Why then do you immediately jump in with your: "I know these Christians who are really, really, nice and don't go for this stuff", when I start a thread about those that do?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2018, 03:18 PM   #58
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Why then do you immediately jump in with your: "I know these Christians who are really, really, nice and don't go for this stuff", when I start a thread about those that do?
Because you always, unfailingly, write as though you are referring to all Christians when you point out the bad stuff that some of them do. You completely ignore the fact that Christianity is an extremely diverse spectrum, some parts of which have more in common with you than they do with those at the other end of the spectrum.

If you referred to "fundamentalist evangelical Christians", or even "right-wing nutbar Christians", rather than just "Christians", I wouldn't jump down your throat as much.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 02:30 PM   #59
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Because you always, unfailingly, write as though you are referring to all Christians when you point out the bad stuff that some of them do. You completely ignore the fact that Christianity is an extremely diverse spectrum, some parts of which have more in common with you than they do with those at the other end of the spectrum.

If you referred to "fundamentalist evangelical Christians", or even "right-wing nutbar Christians", rather than just "Christians", I wouldn't jump down your throat as much.

This is getting tiresome arth.

You must be getting this stuff from between the lines of what I wrote, or was it between the lines in the article I linked?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 06:13 PM   #60
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This is getting tiresome arth.

You must be getting this stuff from between the lines of what I wrote, or was it between the lines in the article I linked?
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
There seems to be a groundswell of those taking on the church, regarding the patriarchy encouraged by them, leading to violence against women.
"The church" is monolithic language. This sentence implies that all Christians encourage the patriarchy that leads to violence against women, except those you are specifically saying are taking "the church" on. That is not true. You should be more careful with your language. Try this: "Many Christians have started to take on the patriarchal churches." It's both pithier and more accurate, while also acknowledging that those who are taking on the patriarchy are Christians.

To be fair, you did at least acknowledge the existence of non-patriarchal churches in your followup paragraph, which is progress. As such, I will leave it at that.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:06 PM   #61
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,666
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
"The church" is monolithic........

prattle, prattle, prattle ........

........... taking on the patriarchy are Christians.

To be fair, you did at least acknowledge the existence of non-patriarchal churches in your followup paragraph, which is progress. As such, I will leave it at that.

Thanks heaps arth .
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 04:51 PM   #62
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 60,819
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks heaps arth .
Here to help.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
arthwollipot is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.