You are the very person that I would like to ask a ton of questions of. No preaching or teaching from my side.
I'm not interested in learning to deconvert. I'm interested in asking some questions of a professed atheist who was once a Christian.
If that's not you then fine. I only bring it up to you because we've made such a long page of comments and you feel you know me so well that I was hoping you would be so kind as to do this one thing.
You've made the comment several times that it makes no difference to you whether I reply to you or not, but you keep drawing me back, so I figure you would be the one I could ask...and I now feel comfortable enough with you to do this.
You know why I feel comfortable with you? You've been nice.
So this thread is for Cynthia's benefit, but other Christians who want to ask questions of yours truly may do so in this thread as well.
Fire away.
Posts
Guess I shouldn't have said you were nice.
ReplyDeleteYour demeanor in your last post changed also, but not for the better. Afraid of being exposed?
My shift in demeanor was because you were nice.
My convictions have never budged. In fact, the truth is, when I sent that last reply I wish I had not added the part about asking you questions.
Light and darkness don't mix. So we can forget you making another thread and you can think what you will of me.
I honestly don't care.
Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteWill you be asking questions? We'll answer them honestly and in detail.
We on Raytractors often get frustrated by Ray's refusal to answer questions directly, so we (at least most of us) won't do the same to you.
Hi Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteI was looking forward to your questions - even if I couldn't answer, they would have been food for thought.
I'm not sure what it was that Dave said to have changed your mind so much, though. I went back and read his last post and he didn't seem all that antagonistic, no more than usual.
I bet most of us would like the chance to answer sincere questions from Christians, so please ask!
Oooo, ooo -
ReplyDeletequestion, question.......
::hand raised:::
:::bopping out of seat:::
I have tried and tried to understand this, but to no avail - How can an atheist have morals?
You say societal norms - but all our Western societal norms are based on the laws of God.
And non-Western societal norms are not pretty - I don't think most of you would enjoy them very much - think cannibalism.
Blessings,
Patti
Cannibalism is aberant behaviour. It's hardly commonplace anywhere and as far as we know, never has been.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, even among tribes that do practise it, it's usually something done within a very defined framework. I remember studying a tribe (though sadly not the name) that practiced cannibalism during my anthropology lectures at uni. Normally they ate a regular (for a forest dwelling tribe) diet.
Cannibalism was used only against enemy tribes and was preceeded by extensive rituals that were designed to denigrate the targets. This is somewhat analogous to two people squaring up for a fight and trading 'Yo-Mama' insults before blows; the object is to reduce the person from someone of equal standing to a sub-human by the use of insults about their sexual capability, their incestous nature, their mental retardation, their moral failings etc.
Essentially, people find it quite hard to enact violence against people they view as being of a similar standing.
The likelihood is that morals are derived from empathy - I wouldn't like it done to me, so I won't do it to you - and there are strong reasons to suspect that there are evolutionary reasons responsible.
There's certainly no good evidence to suggest that atheists are immoral. Indeed, if you look at the prison population of the US, you find a disproporationately low number of self-identified atheists compared to their percentage of the population as a whole.
Moreover, you claim our western morals are based on God's. Do you mean to suggest that prior to Moses decending with the 10 commandments, the Israelites were incapable of morality? How could such a civilisation survive?
I have tried and tried to understand this, but to no avail - How can an atheist have morals?
ReplyDeleteYou say societal norms
Basing morals on societal norms would be viciously circular, since the norms themselves need justification. Instead, what I believe--and what I consistently hear other atheists say--is that morals should be based on the consequences of actions. Child abuse is wrong because of the suffering of the child. The child's pain alone provides justification for morally condemning child abuse.
but all our Western societal norms are based on the laws of God.
Not at all true. Democracy and women's equality are fundemental values in modern, Western society, but they are not rooted in Christian doctrine. Also, an acceptance of homosexuality is a growing trend and indeed is considered a moral value by many people in the West. This tolerance could indeed become the norm.
And non-Western societal norms are not pretty - I don't think most of you would enjoy them very much - think cannibalism.
To take one example, the idea of Karma--which is non-Western--is actually quite beautiful. While I don't believe there's any magic force that enforces Karma--and in fact bad things often happen to good people and evil is often unpunished--I do think that the idea that your behavior comes back on you is morally instructive.
These answers are brief and designed to get the ball rolling. I hope you'll stick around and continue this dialogue.
Hi Patti
ReplyDeleteGood question! The place to start looking for morality is in altruistic behaviour. A tribe or society that shares its resources and co-operates in protecting its members will have an advantage over a group of self interested individuals. Behaviours that are beneficial will propagate, and eventually become accepted as the social norm.
Every society beyond the most primitive has had mores or laws against theft, murder, false witness and so on. You can find evidence of these dating back well before the time of the Bible. Simpler moral codes such as the "Golden Rule" go back even further. There is simply no need to have laws handed down on tablets of stone for them to be commonly accepted and beneficial for all.
Also, just taking the ten commandments and US law (and societal norms) as an example, apart from the laws against theft, murder and false witness where do the other commandments appear in the constitution or legal system? Coveting greater wealth is the basis of modern capitalism, even Republican politicians like John McCain seem to have no problem with coveting their neighbours wife and getting divorced and the constitution specifically grants freedom of religion (contradicting the first law).
Cynthia said,
ReplyDeleteGuess I shouldn't have said you were nice.
Your demeanor in your last post changed also, but not for the better. Afraid of being exposed?
I don't see anything in my last post to you (this one, for those who are wondering) that reflects a change in demeanour, or that I am afraid of anything -- incidentally, what is it that you think I am afraid of being exposed for?
My convictions have never budged. In fact, the truth is, when I sent that last reply I wish I had not added the part about asking you questions.
Then why did not you not either delete the post or post something to the effect of, "please disregard the bit about me wanting to ask you questions"?
Light and darkness don't mix. So we can forget you making another thread and you can think what you will of me.
I honestly don't care.
Your lack of caring notwithstanding, I'll state for the record that I don't think very highly of you. I think that I am more caring than you, as well as more open-minded. Nevertheless, I was willing to afford you the same courtesy that I have asked of you -- that is, I was willing to consider your questions. Now that you see that I am, in fact, as open-minded as I claim to be, you have suddenly withdrawn your proposal.
I don't accept your "light and darkness don't mix" justification, as that hasn't prevented you from participating to the extent you have, for as long as you have. I suspect, rather, that you're afraid of the answers I'd have to give.
Again, however, that's just a "gut feeling" on my part.
It's also good to keep in mind that morality and altruism are beneficial to our species from an evolutionary standpoint. Apes(which humans are) are very social animals. We thrive in groups and are driven to band together, our likelihood of survival depends on this banding together. In group settings, having a set of morals and being altruistic towards one another helps our society run smoothly.
ReplyDeleteWe see evidence of altruism in other apes - chimpanzees are a good example of this.
"Chimps happily help out unrelated chimps and unfamiliar humans, even if it means exerting themselves for no reward, a new study shows.
True altruism – unselfish acts for another's benefit – was until recently considered uniquely human. Usually when animals cooperate, they either help relatives – thereby increasing chances of passing shared genes to the next generation – or they count on having favours returned in the future."
So, I suppose my question to you is, why wouldn't you expect social animals to be altruistic?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLooks like I'm late to the party...everyone else has already answered most of Patti's questions, and with a degree of thoroughness and erudition I would be hard pressed to equal.
ReplyDeleteThere is one point, however, that I feel compelled to speak upon:
Patti sez:
And non-Western societal norms are not pretty - I don't think most of you would enjoy them very much - think cannibalism.
Patti, what exactly do you think the sacrament of Communion is? I don't know if your particular flavor of Christianity practices this, but several do. The rite of Communion is ritual symbolic cannibalism...unless you're a Catholic, and believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which case, it's ritual actual cannibalism.
And no, when you really think about it, it's not pretty.
Patti,
ReplyDeleteFourkid,
First, the murder rate in Japan, which is a non-religious country is far less than ours in the USA.
Empathy is the bedrock of morals and ethics. The ethic of reciprocity was around long before any of the known religions.
You say, "You say societal norms - but all our Western societal norms are based on the laws of God."
No, the supposed "laws of God" came from our natural empathy. That is a survival skill for the tribe and over all, humanity.
Plus, as can be seen in many religions, natural laws are touted as "God's" law in an effort to control people within certain dogmas that are not natural. Religion has often been used to control and opress people.
The Code of Hammurabi was written long before the Moses. (Code of Hamurabi 1770 BCE- Moses born 1200BCE) There are 226 of those codes and some of them closely resemble the Ten Commandments.
Moses merely borrowed the ones he liked.
I am not in anw way trying to change your mind, but if you want to study more on this you could use the keywords in this comment to do searches and see what the actual time lines are on these events.
You may want to declare that the sociologists, bible scholars and anthropologists that study this are an evil conspiracy, but these events were dated over a hundred years ago further investigation shows them to be quite reliable.
Patti
ReplyDeleteI'm really curious...
Why would you think cannibalism is a common social norm of non-Western cultures?
Also, would say non-Western or non-Christian cultures are inferior? Please don't take this as a loaded question or attack.
@ dave...no longer interested in your answers
ReplyDelete@ geoff & the shaggy,
If you are former christians, then my questions are for you. There are 11 here but if you answer these, I'm sure I'll have more and if there was a way I could get this off dave's post I would appreciate it.
1. At what age did you profess to be a Christian?
2. Were you formerly Catholic christians? If not, what denomination?
3. What did your profession or belief at conversion, as a christian, consist of?
4. How long were you a christian?
5. Were you always NOT satisfied in your beliefs?
6. What exactly caused doubt to creep in?
7. Were you ever mistreated in or because of your religion?
8. Have you ever, before or after your previous profession of faith, considered yourself a sinner?
9. While a christian, what was your understanding of sin?
10. What was your understanding of God at the time of conversion?
11. What was your understanding of Jesus at the time of conversion?
Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the questions.
Fortunately, I was never a Christian, so I can't answer them specifically. I was, however, a "spiritual agnostic" at one point, holding some belief in an unproven system of fate and destiny (which I won't get in to at the moment), but have since realized that you don't need a metaphysical "grand force" or whatever to explain the concepts... they don't need a future end point or a controlling intelligence to still make sense, they just need human interaction with people and things. This included morality, Patti, because morality is merely a set of guidelines in how we interact.
Once I figured that out, everything else fell into place and atheism made sense. The guilt I may feel is far more concrete and substantial, as is the relief and joy, because ultimately it is all my own, and nobody else's.
Thanks, though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCynthia - I was a Christian
ReplyDelete1. At what age did you profess to be a Christian?
19 years old
2. Were you formerly Catholic christians? If not, what denomination?
Baptist
3. What did your profession or belief at conversion, as a christian, consist of?
Saying the sinners prayer, as the result of an altar call, asking Jesus to become my Lord and Saviour.
4. How long were you a christian?
10 years, maybe more, my loss of faith was gradual.
5. Were you always NOT satisfied in your beliefs?
No, for many, many years I was completely convinced and overjoyed at my relationship with God as His child.
6. What exactly caused doubt to creep in?
Unease over diffrent interpretations of Christian powers, why some churches hqd gifts of tongues etc and others didn't.
Unanswered prayer.
Doubt of my ability to remain "good seed" - how could I know I wasn't one of the seeds on barren ground, or about to be choked by weeds? They were all good seeds, they all took root, but yet, thru no fault of their own, not all seeds produced crop.
7. Were you ever mistreated in or because of your religion?
Never
8. Have you ever, before or after your previous profession of faith, considered yourself a sinner?
For many years, in a "backslidden" state, I knew I wasn't living in a righteous manner. I knew that I was sinful, and not pleasing God, but also knew that my profession of faith in Jesus and His sacrifice for me still made me "saved"
9. While a christian, what was your understanding of sin?
Doing whatever was against the expressed will of God
10. What was your understanding of God at the time of conversion?
Not sure what you mean by this. But I knew God as my loving father.
11. What was your understanding of Jesus at the time of conversion?
I knew Jesus to be the unique and perfect son of God who had sacrificed his life to redeem me from my sin and had risen from the dead to save me for eternity with Him.
How I have come from there to here is a long, but not too comlicated story. It has not yet been one of your questions.
Thanks Stew & the shaggy.
ReplyDelete@Stew,
Once I saw your picture I remember reading some of your profile/blog a while back. Very interesting.
I was especially interested in question #6.
=======
6. What exactly caused doubt to creep in?
Unease over diffrent interpretations of Christian powers, why some churches hqd gifts of tongues etc and others didn't.
Unanswered prayer.
Doubt of my ability to remain "good seed" - how could I know I wasn't one of the seeds on barren ground, or about to be choked by weeds? They were all good seeds, they all took root, but yet, thru no fault of their own, not all seeds produced crop.
From here I'll ask another set of questions.
1. What particular Baptist denomination were you a member of, Southern Baptist, No. American, Missionary,etc?
2. Concerning speaking in tongues:
Did your church practice this or was it another, say Charismatic church, that caused the unease or confusion as compared to your church?
3. Concerning unanswered prayer:
Did you ever once have an answered prayer?
4. Did you ever know of anyone else having a prayer answered?
5. Were your prayers biblical, such as asking in faith and not doubting, praying in God's will, etc.
6. From the parable of the seeds,
what were your expectating as an answer to whether you were one of the seeds on barren ground or not?
Thanks.
You said:
"How I have come from there to here is a long, but not too comlicated story. It has not yet been one of your questions."
Reply:
I am very much interested in your story if you'd like to tell it.
Thanks for all your answers.
silent dave,
ReplyDelete"I'm talking about your forgetting them and being blissfully unaware that the people you purportedly care about in this life are being tortured"
Love never dies. Therefore when cynthia is in heaven the love she has for her family and friends will never die.
In Christian Love,
Brittany
Oh dear, too many replies. After sewing all day my brain is too tired - and I still have one more fitting to do on granddaughter's garment.
ReplyDeleteBut I will do my best. Expect many typos!
{{{ BaldySlaphead said...
Cannibalism is aberant behaviour.}}}
Really?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{It's hardly commonplace anywhere and as far as we know, never has been. }}}
But it exists - and it is practiced or has been practiced in many places - Phillipines, Papau New Guinea, here in the US and Canada. Do you object to it? On moral grounds? Bad for the species?
If humans can eat cows, pigs, chickens, horses, dogs, cats, guinea pigs, and eels - why not eat humans?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{In fact, even among tribes that do practise it, it's usually something done within a very defined framework. }}}
Like Kosher?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{I remember studying a tribe (though sadly not the name) that practiced cannibalism during my anthropology lectures at uni. Normally they ate a regular (for a forest dwelling tribe) diet. }}}
And I just met a (Phillipine) man whose family were cannibals only 2 generations ago. Why did they stop? They accepted Jesus - and God's moral laws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(snip some more cannibal stuff...)
{{{Essentially, people find it quite hard to enact violence against people they view as being of a similar standing.}}}
So is this a basis for morality? I am not sure if that is what you are saying.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{The likelihood is that morals are derived from empathy - I wouldn't like it done to me, so I won't do it to you - and there are strong reasons to suspect that there are evolutionary reasons responsible.}}}
This sounds like wishful thinking, maybe?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{There's certainly no good evidence to suggest that atheists are immoral. }}}
That's my point. I don't think atheists, in general, are immoral. There is the occasional existentialist that gets carried away, but by and large you are moral people - why? Because we live in a society founded on God's laws. For thousands of years it is ingrained in us that lying is wrong. That goes back to Cain and Abel.
In modern socety now you (generically) say we don't lie becuse of the "harm" or "consequences" - but that has not been true for thousands of years. We didn't lie because God's law said it was worng. In cultures where this was not the case, lying is not deemed as bad - but is used more as a convenience and is expected in may instances.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Indeed, if you look at the prison population of the US, you find a disproporationately low number of self-identified atheists compared to their percentage of the population as a whole.}}}
I have friends that are in prison ministry - have been for about 20 years. They have found that prisoners are already well aware that they are sinners, and many are already broken and humbled. They get to skip the whole first step of coming as a humble sinner to the Lord - the fields in prisons are quite ripe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Moreover, you claim our western morals are based on God's. Do you mean to suggest that prior to Moses decending with the 10 commandments, the Israelites were incapable of morality? How could such a civilisation survive?}}}
No that isn't what I mean at all. I will take up this in Dale's Hammurabi post.
Blessings,
Patti
Geoff said...
ReplyDelete{{{Basing morals on societal norms would be viciously circular, since the norms themselves need justification. }}}
Exactly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Instead, what I believe--and what I consistently hear other atheists say--is that morals should be based on the consequences of actions. Child abuse is wrong because of the suffering of the child. The child's pain alone provides justification for morally condemning child abuse.}}}
So if no one is actually harmed, then it is okay to do?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Not at all true. Democracy and women's equality are fundemental values in modern, Western society, but they are not rooted in Christian doctrine.}}}
Wrong on both counts. The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah. Differences between men and women are addressed in Scripture - but the role's of each, while differing, do not mean one is inferior to the other.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Also, an acceptance of homosexuality is a growing trend and indeed is considered a moral value by many people in the West. This tolerance could indeed become the norm.}}}
Surely you don't think this is someting new?
Blessings,
Patti
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{neil h said...
ReplyDeleteHi Patti
Good question! The place to start looking for morality is in altruistic behaviour. A tribe or society that shares its resources and co-operates in protecting its members will have an advantage over a group of self interested individuals. Behaviours that are beneficial will propagate, and eventually become accepted as the social norm. }}}
Hmmm, is that what we are seeing in society today? Are we improving and getting better for the good of society?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Every society beyond the most primitive has had mores or laws against theft, murder, false witness and so on. }}}
I have had contact with a number of people that have lived among tribal peoples. Interesting that they (tribal peoples) are looking for ways to be free from the guilt of sin the same as our "civilized" peoples.
And btw, I don't believe in primitive tribes - at one time they were prosperous and highly intelligent - they devolved from there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{You can find evidence of these dating back well before the time of the Bible. Simpler moral codes such as the "Golden Rule" go back even further. There is simply no need to have laws handed down on tablets of stone for them to be commonly accepted and beneficial for all.}}}
I will also defer this comment to Dale's Hammurabi post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Also, just taking the ten commandments and US law (and societal norms) as an example, apart from the laws against theft, murder and false witness where do the other commandments appear in the constitution or legal system? Coveting greater wealth is the basis of modern capitalism, even Republican politicians like John McCain seem to have no problem with coveting their neighbours wife and getting divorced and the constitution specifically grants freedom of religion (contradicting the first law).}}}
Oh, this section is a term paper and then some. Just can't tackle it tonight - but if you really want to talk about this more - jsut let me know.
Blessings,
Patti
I'm a long time lurker from here and Ray's, so I hope no-one minds my answers to cynthia's questions.
ReplyDelete1. At what age did you profess to be a Christian?
High school to early 20s
2. Were you formerly Catholic christians? If not, what denomination?
Yes, I was raised in a Catholic family, but oddly enough, I wasn't well trained in the fundamentals of it's faith. I was never confirmed, never once went to confession (I thought those rooms off the side were the dressing rooms for the priests and alter boys). I have no idea how to say the rosary. The only actual teaching I had was learning the 'Hail Mary' before I could receive first communion. I learned much more about Catholicism once I became a Christian.
3. What did your profession or belief at conversion, as a christian, consist of?
At the very beginning? That God sent his only son to die for our sins and that we are called to repentance and to believe in him. Oh, and that we were unworthy of this gift.
4. How long were you a christian?
About 5 years total
5. Were you always NOT satisfied in your beliefs?
Only to the extent that I wanted to learn more and be useful to Him. I wanted to grow in faith.
6. What exactly caused doubt to creep in?
I didn't start with doubt. I started with a desire share my belief with others and to grow as a Christian. I started reading the Bible and works from other Christains. Sadly, the more I learned, the more I saw that Christianity was a fully human construct. I still didn't give up on God, though. At the time, I rather thought that God was the elephant and that religions were the blind men trying to make sense of him.
7. Were you ever mistreated in or because of your religion?
No
8. Have you ever, before or after your previous profession of faith, considered yourself a sinner?
Before being a Christian? No, Sin was something only bad people did, and I wasn't bad. While being a Christian? Yes, we are all sinners and fall short. After being a Christian? No, I don't paint with such big brushes anymore.
9. While a christian, what was your understanding of sin?
That sin was our nature and divides us from God.
10. What was your understanding of God at the time of conversion?
That God was the God of the Abraham and Moses, maker of heaven and earth, 3 in 1, pretty basic Christian God understanding, really.
11. What was your understanding of Jesus at the time of conversion? That he was the way, the truth, and the light. That no one comes to the Father except through him. That he so loved the world and all that.
Thanks, that was fun!
(I hope I didn't post this twice!)
Thanks perdita.
ReplyDeleteYou said: Sadly, the more I learned, the more I saw that Christianity was a fully human construct.
Just two questions, please.
1. Did you make this conclusion on your own, or was it in conjunction with ideas from the books you read?
2. What one thing that you learned was the turning point for you, if you can narrow it down that way.
Thanks.
Brittany said,
ReplyDeleteLove never dies. Therefore when cynthia is in heaven the love she has for her family and friends will never die.
Name one person whose existence you are unaware of whom you love.
Cynthia said,
ReplyDelete@ dave...no longer interested in your answers
Okay. Saves me some typing.
cynthia - you're welcome!
ReplyDelete1. Did you make this conclusion on your own, or was it in conjunction with ideas from the books you read?
At the time, I read the Bible, history books, and Christian apologetics and I certainly didn't want to come to this conclusion. But the more I learned, the more things didn't make sense. Just for one example, take inconsistancies in the Bible. I was never told, or never read, that there were inconsistancies - I could read them myself. Then I read all the apologetics that told me that really, there were no conflicts in the Bible and here's why...but the reasoning that was used was so tortured and illogical and quite disappointing.
2. What one thing that you learned was the turning point for you, if you can narrow it down that way.
Well, first, it wasn't one thing I learned -- It's not like, oh they can't decide who was at the tomb, therefore I'm not a believer anymore. Or, oh, Christians have always had many different beliefs, therefore God is false. It was many things, including, but not limited to: what is written in the Bible, how the Bible came together, the differing beliefs of all Christians over the centurys and how they've changed and evolved over time. These, by themselves, weren't the problem. But realizing that I could only find subjective reasons for anyone's belief, including my own, well, that was a problem.
I know I'm considered a false convert now, but it certainly didn't feel that way at the time.
Hmmm, is that what we are seeing in society today? Are we improving and getting better for the good of society?
ReplyDeleteIn some ways we are - society (at least in the UK where I live) is more tolerant, although the rise of religious fundamentalism does worry me
I have had contact with a number of people that have lived among tribal peoples. Interesting that they (tribal peoples) are looking for ways to be free from the guilt of sin the same as our "civilized" peoples.
I am using primitive in the sense of pre-agricultural stone age hunter-gatherer. As soon as a wandering group settles in a permanent location then laws and moral codes become more prevalent.
And btw, I don't believe in primitive tribes - at one time they were prosperous and highly intelligent - they devolved from there.
Certainly, some civilizations have fallen leaving anarchy behind, but human kind did start from a primitive state. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming for the development of tool use, agriculture, metal working, written language and other milestones in a logical progression.
Re The Ten Commandments
Oh, this section is a term paper and then some. Just can't tackle it tonight - but if you really want to talk about this more - jsut let me know.
Other people have expressed it better, but it is clear that the ten commandments are not the basis for western law or government. We get democracy from the Greeks (and we all know how much St Paul hated Greek culture), most of our legal concepts from Roman law (definitely pre-Christian) and in the UK our constitution derives from the Magna Carta which was effectively a revolt against the divine right of Kings.
Blessings,
Patti
perdita.
ReplyDelete1. Did you attend college?
2. If so, did any of your professors teach anything that helped solidify your unbelief?
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer all my questions.
I have been wanting some insight on false conversion turning into unbelief.
I understand false conversion turning into true conversion. I've seen that happen many times but I had never seen anyone going from believer into atheism. I've never met an atheist, that I'm aware of.
I can't say I fully understand the thought processes of conversion into deconversion, but the answers here have helped me, I think, to find a starting place.
Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteBased on your wording, I'm guessing you don't think there's any such thing as unbelief which comes subsequent to a "true conversion" (but only a false one). Is that a fair statement?
If so, here's a quote from Richard Carrier I'd like you to consider:
I have increasingly encountered Christians who accuse me to my face of being a liar, of being wicked, of not wanting to talk to God, of willfully ignoring evidence--because that is the only way they can explain my existence. I cannot be an honest, well-informed pursuer of the truth who came to a fair and reasonable decision after a thorough examination of the evidence, because no such person can exist in the Christian worldview, who does not come to Christ. Therefore, I must be a wicked liar, I must be so deluded by sin that I am all but clinically insane, an irrational madman suffering some evil psychosis.
There is nothing I can do for such people. Nothing I ever show or say to them will ever convince them otherwise--it can't, because they start with the assumption that their belief in Christ has to be true, therefore right from the start everything I say or do is always going to be a lie or the product of some delusion. They don't need any evidence of this, because to their thinking it must be true. Such people are trapped in their own hall of mirrors, and for them there is no escape. They will never know they are wrong even if they are. No evidence, no logic, no reason will ever get through to them.
When we combine this troubling fact with the observation that their religion, like every other, appears tailor-made to justify their own culture-bound desires and personal vanities--as if every God is made in man's image, not the other way around--then we already have grounds for suspicion. The fact that even the Christian idea of God has constantly changed to suit our cultural and historical circumstances, and is often constructed to be impervious to logic or doubt, is reason enough to step back and ask ourselves whether we're on the wrong track with the Christian worldview.
Just something for you to chew on.
Ack, I forgot...
ReplyDeleteThe above quote is from Carrier's essay, "Why I Am Not A Christian."
cynthia said:
ReplyDelete1. Did you attend college?
No, I barely made it through high school.
2. If so, did any of your professors teach anything that helped solidify your unbelief?
You need to understand, that at that time I was deep in the bosum of Christianity. I was only reading the Bible and Christian authors.
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer all my questions.
No prob!
I have been wanting some insight on false conversion turning into unbelief. I understand false conversion turning into true conversion. Me too. I even went through a "true" conversion after my initial "false" one, and rededicated myself to Christ.
I've seen that happen many times but I had never seen anyone going from believer into atheism.
I didn't go straight to atheism. I went from Christian to non-Christian. I still thought God existed, just that we were all so hoplessly muddled in our understanding of him. You know, I don't think my church or my friends at the time realized what was happening either. I had a new job and was moving, so I rather quietly slipped away.
I've never met an atheist, that I'm aware of. Most people I know are probably unaware that I'm an atheist. It usually doesn't come up in conversatation. And when it does, you never know what the reaction will be. Once, I had told some ladies that were at my doorstep witnessing that I was an atheist, their jaws dropped, they turned and fled down my front steps without another word. And here, I thought I was being polite.
I can't say I fully understand the thought processes of conversion into deconversion, but the answers here have helped me, I think, to find a starting place. You may never understand, but I think thats okay. At least you're asking questions and finding out for yourself. And of course, I can only speak of myself - others will have other deconversion stories and reasons.
fourkid wrote:
ReplyDelete"The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
Could you quote the specific passages?
Also, in regards to women's rights, where does the Bible say that women should be able to hold the same jobs and have an equal voice in government?
@ not-so-silent-dave
ReplyDeleteyou said:
"Cynthia,
Based on your wording, I'm guessing you don't think there's any such thing as unbelief which comes subsequent to a "true conversion" (but only a false one). Is that a fair statement?
No it is totally unfair. You saw nowhere that I said any such thing or even inferred it.
Your problem is, dave, you keep supposing that I've said something other than what I've stated.
I told you, your voodoo wont work on me.
I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
I am only asking questions here to get a better understanding of the process of deconversion of former christians from those that take the time to answer my questions.
Please, take the time to get off your high and mighty and read what I have actually said concerning my asking questions.
You have not read anywhere on this post where I've given my opinion about their decisions to deconvert, their false conversion, or anything other than simply me asking questions.
There's no hidden motive or agenda here.
Stop making something more of it than what it is.
And stop pretending you know me.
=========
"Just something for you to chew
on."
The only thing you can give me to chew on are your typing fingers.
Since we're throwing out anecdotal evidence (which is, of course, the best kind)...my wife's parents are from the Phillipines. They've feed me some weird shit over the years, but no boiled humans as far as I know. Of course, that's probaly only because they are Catholic. But, then again, Catholics aren't True Christians. And now that I think of it, that pig at last years roast did look kinda strange...hmmm...and it's kinda strange how her Uncle Boy suddenly disappeared before the BBQ...oh fuck, I think I'm gonna puke!
ReplyDelete4Kid - "The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
ReplyDeleteGeoff - "Could you quote the specific passages?"
Also, could you provide evidence that John Locke or if you want, Madison et al, used these passages as a basis for the idea of Seperation of Power. Thanks.
Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteHold up, just take a breath. I don't know why this ire for Dave is so vicious (honestly, where does the "voodoo" thing come from?), but just chill out for a second.
I think what he was referring to was this comment: "I have been wanting some insight on false conversion turning into unbelief."
I got the same implication that he did. Neither he (I assume) nor I think you were making direct claims on individual conversions, but that statement taken in context with the others suggests a general opinion that "true converts" can't deconvert ito unbelief.
That's it, really. No need to flip out.
theshaggy said in part:
ReplyDelete"I got the same implication that he did. Neither he (I assume) nor I think you were making direct claims on individual conversions, but that statement taken in context with the others suggests a general opinion that "true converts" can't deconvert ito unbelief"
Reply:
No, that thought never crossed my mind as I was making my statements.
There was no hidden anything there.
I am simply asking questions and whoever answers them is telling me about their experiences. I'm not judging them one way or the other. I only want to understand the thought processes, of whoever answers, leading up to their conversion and then into deconversion.
I'm a Christian and so you all know what I believe, but Dave's voodoo comes from him consistently telling me (here and in his other posts) how I "really" feel and think - trying to deconvert me by making me think that when I say one thing I actually mean something entirely different.
Please don't "read something into" what I ask or say. I try to say exactly what I mean, in regards to the questions, without any bias and I am doing my best to ask questions WITHOUT anyone being able to say I have an opinion attached to it.
This is what I have against Dave.
Thank you for pointing out that I need to chill.
I said,
ReplyDeleteBased on your wording, I'm guessing you don't think there's any such thing as unbelief which comes subsequent to a "true conversion" (but only a false one). Is that a fair statement?
Cynthia said,
No it is totally unfair.
...followed by 166 words of "Christian" bitchiness which I will disregard.
So you do believe that unbelief can arise subsequent to a "true conversion." I'm having a little difficulty, then, reconciling that position with your earlier statement:
I have been wanting some insight on false conversion turning into unbelief.
I understand false conversion turning into true conversion. I've seen that happen many times but I had never seen anyone going from believer into atheism. I've never met an atheist, that I'm aware of.
Could you clarify?
theshaggy said to Cynthia,
ReplyDeleteHold up, just take a breath. I don't know why this ire for Dave is so vicious (honestly, where does the "voodoo" thing come from?), but just chill out for a second.
Cynthia replied,
Dave's voodoo comes from him consistently telling me (here and in his other posts) how I "really" feel and think - trying to deconvert me by making me think that when I say one thing I actually mean something entirely different.
To clarify:
In our discussions, I have been having gut feelings regarding Cynthia's stances on certain issues -- the most pertinent one being whether her belief in the existence of God is sincere and fully held. I don't believe it is, and I have not gone out of my way to avoid expressing this opinion. However, I have done so only with the caveat that it is only a gut feeling on my part, for which I have no evidence -- a caveat I repeat here, for the record. Since this particular opinion is not epistemically actionable, I have not stated it as demonstrable fact, nor have I drawn any analytically rigorous conclusions from it. It's nothing more than opinion on my part.
I regret having caused Cynthia any discomfort or annoyance in expressing this opinion, but I cannot in good conscience apologize for holding and expressing honest opinions. Nor would I think it appropriate to promise to refrain from expressing such opinions in the future, considering all the venom that has landed on my face from Cynthia's general direction.
So, I suppose my question to you is, why wouldn't you expect social animals to be altruistic?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with atruism in animals - I have observed it myself. Altruism is not morality. See definitions below.
Blessings,
Patti
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Altruism
1 : unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2 : behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Moral
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical (moral judgments) b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior (a moral poem) c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment (a moral obligation) e: capable of right and wrong action (a moral agent)
2: probable though not proved : virtual (a moral certainty)
TripMaster Monkey said...
ReplyDelete{{{Patti, what exactly do you think the sacrament of Communion is? I don't know if your particular flavor of Christianity practices this, but several do. The rite of Communion is ritual symbolic cannibalism...unless you're a Catholic, and believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation, in which case, it's ritual actual cannibalism. }}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
I'm not Catholic, so no ritual actual cannibalism here.
And no ritual symbolic cannibalism either - It is symbolic - I will give you that word. And it is a rite of the Scriptures, so you can have that word too. Since it is symbolic - no cannibalism is implied - only a remembrance of the offering of Christ dying for our sin.
Blessings,
Patti
[QUOTE]
ReplyDeleteNaFa said...
{{{Patti
I'm really curious...
Why would you think cannibalism is a common social norm of non-Western cultures?}}}
[REPLY]
I don't think it is common or a norm - and I don't think it is limited to non-Western cultures. But it is done and I used it as an example. I didn't feel it was an especially extreme example, but one of many examples I could have used - and that one came to mind first.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
Also, would say non-Western or non-Christian cultures are inferior? Please don't take this as a loaded question or attack.}}}
[REPLY]
No problem, I didn't. Actually I am surprised it took this long for that to come out as a critique of what I wrote. I am impressed that you picked this out. Either the rest of the commentators let it slide, or they are so westernized in their thinking they didn't notice.
I do think there is a huge difference in the norms of Western and non-Western socieities, but I don't think one is superior to the other - just different. The bottom line is that all are people and all are in need of a Savior. And any person who accepts Christ becomes my brother or sister. There is only one race of people - humans.
Blessings,
Patti
...and now to tackle Dale's post. I had intended to do it last night - sorry - a big lightening storm and sparks popping from my keyboard made for a quick shut down.
ReplyDelete{{{dale said...
Patti,
Fourkid,
First, the murder rate in Japan, which is a non-religious country is far less than ours in the USA.}}}
[REPLY]
True, but they have their own problems - racism being a big one.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Empathy is the bedrock of morals and ethics. The ethic of reciprocity was around long before any of the known religions.
You say, "You say societal norms - but all our Western societal norms are based on the laws of God."
No, the supposed "laws of God" came from our natural empathy. That is a survival skill for the tribe and over all, humanity.
[REPLY]
And this is true because????
Off hand I can think of only one reason this could be true - because you believe the Bible to be false and mythology. So then you would have to have another reason to explain this - so the one you state is as good as any other, I suppose.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plus, as can be seen in many religions, natural laws are touted as "God's" law in an effort to control people within certain dogmas that are not natural. Religion has often been used to control and opress people.
[REPLY]
This is very sad and very true. Especially when one just accepts what another says about the Bible and not actaully study it for themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Code of Hammurabi was written long before the Moses. (Code of Hamurabi 1770 BCE- Moses born 1200BCE) There are 226 of those codes and some of them closely resemble the Ten Commandments.
Moses merely borrowed the ones he liked.
[REPLY]
No, Hammurabi borrowed the ones he liked. I was very careful to say the Laws of God, not the laws of Moses. Moses only wrote them down - but before that they were well known to the people (though in the bonage of Egypt many got sloppy abuot keeping them - or were forced to not keep them.)
Why did Abel know to offer a sacrifice of a lamb - and Cain knowingly decided to offer up his own sacrifice of produce making his own rules? Because they were instructed on what to do by their daddy, Adam- and he was instructed by God.
Why did Moses ask pharaoh to let the people go worship on the Sabbath? Because they knew that the 7th day was for this purpose. this was before the 10 commanments were given to Moses on the tablets of stone - they were in fact already on the peoples hearts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am not in anw way trying to change your mind, but if you want to study more on this you could use the keywords in this comment to do searches and see what the actual time lines are on these events.
You may want to declare that the sociologists, bible scholars and anthropologists that study this are an evil conspiracy, but these events were dated over a hundred years ago further investigation shows them to be quite reliable.
[REPLY]
Check what dates, Hammurabi and Moses? - I have no problem with your time line on this.
Blessings,
Patti
neil h said...
ReplyDeleteHmmm, is that what we are seeing in society today? Are we improving and getting better for the good of society?
In some ways we are - society (at least in the UK where I live) is more tolerant, although the rise of religious fundamentalism does worry me
[REPLY]
Since I have understood that Christianity is declining there - are you speaking about Muslim fundamentalism?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(snip)
Certainly, some civilizations have fallen leaving anarchy behind, but human kind did start from a primitive state. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming for the development of tool use, agriculture, metal working, written language and other milestones in a logical progression.
[REPLY]
This is true only if you believe in evolution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Other people have expressed it better, but it is clear that the ten commandments are not the basis for western law or government. We get democracy from the Greeks (and we all know how much St Paul hated Greek culture), most of our legal concepts from Roman law (definitely pre-Christian) and in the UK our constitution derives from the Magna Carta which was effectively a revolt against the divine right of Kings.
But the Hebrews predate them all (although they were only called Hebrews after Abraham, but same group of people....)
Blessings,
Patti
Geoff said...
ReplyDeletefourkid wrote:
"The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
Could you quote the specific passages?
[REPLY]
(for those that hate to see Scripture quoted - I am sorry - feel free to skip on by...)
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD id our king; he will save us.
See also:
Lev. 19:34 Jer. 17:9
Deut. 17:15 Ez. 7:24
Deut. 17:6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also, in regards to women's rights, where does the Bible say that women should be able to hold the same jobs and have an equal voice in government?
[REPLY]
It doesn't. I said that they are given differing roles - but not inferior roles. Nor does it say they can't have those roles. Many women in the Bible had powerful and influential roles - and many did remerkable things for God.
Blessings,
Patti
NaFa said...
ReplyDelete4Kid - "The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
Geoff - "Could you quote the specific passages?"
Also, could you provide evidence that John Locke or if you want, Madison et al, used these passages as a basis for the idea of Seperation of Power. Thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
Passages cited.
For the rest I will have to dig a bit - and dont' have my handy-dandy best resource on that topic awake (that would be Dh!)
I will get back to it.
Blesisngs,
Patti
A summary to date:
ReplyDeleteExcept for a question for NaFa, I think I have addressed the comments directed to me (let me know if I missed something). I asked for a basis for morality without the Word of God - and I am just not seeing it. Without a standard, it is just whatever is right it each person's opinion. Even if you are considering group norms - there is a leader and enforcers - so they get to decided what is best. And this changes with the tides of leadership.
Have I missed something? Is there more?
Blessings,
Patti
Patti said,
ReplyDelete"The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD id our king; he will save us.
Looks to me like that, insofar as that verse is making the case for a particular form of government at all (and can you show us, contextually, that that is the case, Patti?), it's arguing for a single-branch theocracy, not a three-branch secular democracy. It's showing a key figure of a religion acting, as one person, in the three capacities that our Founding Fathers split into separate branches.
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't. I said that they (women) are given differing roles - but not inferior roles.
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish.
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
Looks like inferior roles to me.
@fourkid
ReplyDeletePatti, you said:
[REPLY] No, Hammurabi borrowed the ones he liked. I was very careful to say the Laws of God, not the laws of Moses. Moses only wrote them down - but before that they were well known to the people (though in the bonage of Egypt many got sloppy abuot keeping them - or were forced to not keep them.)
Why did Abel know to offer a sacrifice of a lamb - and Cain knowingly decided to offer up his own sacrifice of produce making his own rules? Because they were instructed on what to do by their daddy, Adam- and he was instructed by God.
Why did Moses ask pharaoh to let the people go worship on the Sabbath? Because they knew that the 7th day was for this purpose. this was before the 10 commanments were given to Moses on the tablets of stone - they were in fact already on the peoples hearts."
=========
Thank you for this reply. I learned a new perspective on the Law of God vs law of Moses; Cain making his own rules; and worship on the Sabbath before the 10 commandments. Even though I've read Genesis and Exodus many times I had never considered these things.
Thanks very much for that.
Patti,
ReplyDeleteOk, I just thought it odd then that you would use an aberrant behavior to contrast the differences between social norms. But moving on…
Christianity certainly has been a big part of western culture and generally, western societies have been more ‘Christian’ influenced than non-western. (Although, it has been a huge part of South American culture also) I get the impression that you believe Christianity is the most important part of western culture and that our values are derived from Christianity. I guess it’s understandable why you would think this, but I disagree.
I won’t deny that Christianity has influenced our western societies (both positively & negatively), but I do not think it is the main influence or the strongest tie which binds modern western societies.
I would say the exposure to enlightenment/ post-enlightenment thinking, capitalism/consumerism and a half-ass commitment to democracy are more important contributors.
But even among modern western cultures we can observe an increasing divide in values. There are differences in values between American and European cultures, and even among the various American sub-cultures. You may say the fracture caused by the values of the ‘saved’ vs the ‘non-saved’. I would say kinda…but that is not nearly accurate enough. I think it is more a divide between ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ thinking. And I use those terms in a broad sense, as in those who want to maintain the status-quo vs those who think the old ways are broken and need to change.
I point to the difference between America and the Scandinavian countries as an example of what I mean. Both western, but both heading in very different direction and molding different value systems.
It often seems that many Christians pine for some ‘good ‘ol days’. But I think those ‘good ‘ol days’ are just a myth. Sure they were good for some, but hell for others. To try to return to a past time would be a huge mistake. Once upon a time ‘Islamic’ nations were very advanced (relative to the time period). And look what a return to godliness got them.
The only Savior we need is our selves. To recognize we are all in this shit-storm together, and our only chance of survival is to rely on rational thought and a respect for human rights. Sorry but Jesus ain’t coming back.
Patti,
ReplyDeleteLawgivers, judges, and kings existed in many societies before the concept of separate branches of government providing checks and balances against each other was developed. You're foisting an interpretation onto the Bible based on ideas that are not in it.
[QUOTE FROm CYNTHIA]
ReplyDelete{{{Thank you for this reply. I learned a new perspective on the Law of God vs law of Moses; Cain making his own rules; and worship on the Sabbath before the 10 commandments. Even though I've read Genesis and Exodus many times I had never considered these things.
Thanks very much for that.}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
Blessings to you Cynthia. You probably also thought of tithing - and that is taught before "The Law". Also look at Job, which was written before Moses' Law.
I do need to clarify one point. While Moses wrote on parchment the ceremonial laws that God told him to write - it was God himself that worte the 10 Commandments on the tablets of stone with His very finger.
Patti
[For S. Dave and Geoff]
ReplyDeleteSilent Dave said...
{{{Patti said,
"The checks and balances of the 3 branches of government come directly from Isaiah."
Isaiah 33:22
For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD id our king; he will save us.
S. Dave says...
Looks to me like that, insofar as that verse is making the case for a particular form of government at all (and can you show us, contextually, that that is the case, Patti?), it's arguing for a single-branch theocracy, not a three-branch secular democracy. It's showing a key figure of a religion acting, as one person, in the three capacities that our Founding Fathers split into separate branches.}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
I am not saying that this one passage is in context of teaching 3 branches of government. I am saying that it inspired our Founding Fathers when they were writing our Constitution. And the other verses I wrote were specifc parts of the Constitution as well. For example: Lev. 19:34 is reflective of Article 1 Section 8.
In that day people had a huge working knowledge of Scripture and memorized large protions of it. Most people today are lazy and do not really study the Bible as they should - myself included.
Blessings,
Patti
NaFa said...
ReplyDelete(snip)
{{{Also, could you provide evidence that John Locke or if you want, Madison et al, used these passages as a basis for the idea of Seperation of Power. Thanks.}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not my area of expertise. I asked Dh if he would give me some insight, he said no. It is the beginning of the school year here (he is a 37 year educator - and our district Social Studies coordinator) and he is inundated with work right now. And he also said for me not to spend hours researching it (that is what it would take for me to do it) - so sorry. I try not to leave things hanging, but this one will have to be let go on my part.
Blessings,
Patti
[Whew - another long post...]
ReplyDeleteNaFa said...
{{{Patti,
(snip)
Christianity certainly has been a big part of western culture and generally, western societies have been more ‘Christian’ influenced than non-western. (Although, it has been a huge part of South American culture also) I get the impression that you believe Christianity is the most important part of western culture and that our values are derived from Christianity.}}}
[REPLY]
I beleive that is their foundation, yes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{I guess it’s understandable why you would think this, but I disagree.
I won’t deny that Christianity has influenced our western societies (both positively & negatively), but I do not think it is the main influence or the strongest tie which binds modern western societies.}}}
[REPLY]
Not necessarily modern society. But the foundation has so permeated our lives, that it is impossible to escape the underlying morals established by Christianity for the last 2,000+ years.
(and that was the start of my question - how do we establish morals without the standard of God's law?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{I would say the exposure to enlightenment/ post-enlightenment thinking, capitalism/consumerism and a half-ass commitment to democracy are more important contributors.}}}
[REPLY]
...and don't foget our era now of the electronic age. I beleive that history will someday show this current time period as the start of a huge new era that rivals the industrial revolution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{But even among modern western cultures we can observe an increasing divide in values. There are differences in values between American and European cultures, and even among the various American sub-cultures.}}}
[REPLY]
I agree - this is the evolution of society. But at the bottom of it is still the bedrock of Christian values, there is just no getting away from it.
The only reason we say a lie is worng is becasue it is biblically wrong. Without the Christian influence in our society we would say it is okay in some situations, as many non-Western civivlations do. Or, even more likely, we wouldn't even consider that something is a "lie". That word and its concept would not even exist.
We are heading more and more that way - but is still hanging on as an ideal, if not a practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{You may say the fracture caused by the values of the ‘saved’ vs the ‘non-saved’. I would say kinda…but that is not nearly accurate enough. }}}
[REPLY]
Not exactly. Christian influence is claimed by many that I would be hard pressed to call "saved". The Dark Ages were rife with "Christian" teachings - but little in the way of true Christianity. The true Christians of that time were running and hiding for their lives, and working "underground".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{I think it is more a divide between ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’ thinking. And I use those terms in a broad sense, as in those who want to maintain the status-quo vs those who think the old ways are broken and need to change.}}}
[REPLY]
I would agree with this in modern society, as long as you acknowlege that there is an underlying Christian influence that is still hanging on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{I point to the difference between America and the Scandinavian countries as an example of what I mean. Both western, but both heading in very different direction and molding different value systems.}}}
[REPLY]
True. But Christianity was a huge influence in that region - they gave us the Reformation. Since they have now shed a lot of that teaching and substitute a more socialized gospel, we are seeing significant societal changes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{It often seems that many Christians pine for some ‘good ‘ol days’. But I think those ‘good ‘ol days’ are just a myth. Sure they were good for some, but hell for others.}}}
[REPLY]
That I can totally agree with.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{To try to return to a past time would be a huge mistake.}}}
[REPLY]
I agree, but probably for different reasons :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Once upon a time ‘Islamic’ nations were very advanced (relative to the time period). And look what a return to godliness got them.}}}
[REPLY]
I also agree - I have done some study of early Andulusia and am sorry that as a soceity, inevitable intolerance negated much good. I am of the belief that the lust for power, the greed of men, and sexual deviations by the few, do much evil for many.
I do not agree that Islam is returning to godliness. They never had godliness, only a corrupt form of it.
The Arab world is directly influenced by the teachings of the Jehovah of the Jews - they are after all, the descendants of Abraham.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{The only Savior we need is our selves.}}}
[REPLY]
Then we really are without hope if that is the case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{To recognize we are all in this shit-storm together, and our only chance of survival is to rely on rational thought and a respect for human rights.}}}
[REPLY]
This is a great ideal, but is impossible to attain. We are all too greedy and selfish.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{Sorry but Jesus ain’t coming back.}}}
[REPLY]
It will be any day now.
NaFa said...
ReplyDelete(snip)
{{{Also, could you provide evidence that John Locke or if you want, Madison et al, used these passages as a basis for the idea of Seperation of Power. Thanks.}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not my area of expertise. I asked Dh if he would give me some insight, he said no. It is the beginning of the school year here (he is a 37 year educator - and our district Social Studies coordinator) and he is inundated with work right now. And he also said for me not to spend hours researching it (that is what it would take for me to do it) - so sorry. I try not to leave things hanging, but this one will have to be let go on my part.
Would you be willing to abandon your thesis that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Isaiah and other scripture if we could show you that they were, for the most part, deists and agnostics?
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily modern society. But the foundation has so permeated our lives, that it is impossible to escape the underlying morals established by Christianity for the last 2,000+ years.
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could show you that most of the "positive" morals of the Bible had precursors unrelated to Judeo-Christianity?
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteThe only reason we say a lie is worng is becasue it is biblically wrong. Without the Christian influence in our society we would say it is okay in some situations, as many non-Western civivlations do.
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, upon request, you turned out to be unable to name two such civilizations?
{{{Sorry but Jesus ain’t coming back.}}}
ReplyDelete[REPLY]
It will be any day now.
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could demonstrate that Jesus's prediction was that he would return within his disciples' lifetimes, a prediction which obviously did not come to pass?
This just came in my e-mail - very appropriate to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Patti
President Harry S. Truman said, "The fundamental basis of this
nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our
Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St.
Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough
these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we
will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in
rights for anybody except the state."
{{{Would you be willing to abandon your thesis that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Isaiah and other scripture if we could show you that they were, for the most part, deists and agnostics?}}}
ReplyDelete~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dh has already researched this. If I remember - I think there are 2 confirmed deists. The majority were ministers seminary graduates.
Check primary sources - not books about them.
So, that one won't float.
Blessings,
Patti
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could show you that most of the "positive" morals of the Bible had precursors unrelated to Judeo-Christianity?}}}
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a precursor to Adam and Eve?
Blessings,
Patti
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, upon request, you turned out to be unable to name two such civilizations?}}}
ReplyDeleteThis one is shakey. I am thinking mainly of the Ismamic teaching that it is okay to lie if the person to whom you are lying is an infidel.
Blessings,
Patti
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could demonstrate that Jesus's prediction was that he would return within his disciples' lifetimes, a prediction which obviously did not come to pass?}}}
ReplyDeleteI agree that the disciples "thought" it would be in their lifetime. But they also thought that the kingdom would be established by Jesus before He died, and they got that timing wrong. They also got the timing of His birth wrong and only a handful of people were aware of it.
Do you have more on this?
Blessings,
Patti
4kid…”This is not my area of expertise. I asked Dh if he would give me some insight, he said no. It is the beginning of the school year here (he is a 37 year educator - and our district Social Studies coordinator) and he is inundated with work right now. And he also said for me not to spend hours researching it (that is what it would take for me to do it) - so sorry. I try not to leave things hanging, but this one will have to be let go on my part.”
ReplyDeletePatti,
I won’t deny most the FF were Christians and that even those that weren’t were influenced by Christianity.
But here’s the rub….
1) What do we mean by Christian? We see the phrase ‘false convert’, ‘not a true Christian’ thrown around a lot. But suddenly when it’s convenient everybody’s a Christian. But the fact remains there are different views on life, values and beliefs amongst the various Christian sects. Even amongst individuals of the same sect there a different views. How could there not be – we are all individuals.
2) How much of an influence was Christianity? The FF were made up of critical freethinkers. They were mostly highly educated men and successful men from the elite. These weren’t men who blindly believed what was feed to them. They were highly influenced by enlightenment philosophers and critically examined the world for themselves. These were not men who were prone to the kind mental gymnastics it takes to take the bible on face value. They saw the mistakes of the Motherland, and didn’t want to repeat them….to a degree
…there is a lot of myth surrounding the FF. As great as they were they were also interested in protecting their own way of life. The rich and powerful always are. Isn’t that the point of the Federalist Papers? We need strong central government because the ordinary bumpkin isn’t fit to rule himself.
You are correct about Truman. But he is one man. Even the Presidential actions of the FF, who served in office, don’t suggest that they based their philosophy primarily on Christianity (this in itself deserves another post – probably later).
I know you are familiar with Joseph Story. He felt that religion (Christianity) was providence of the State to ‘evoke’, but had no place in the Federal gov. But after the 14th amendment, even that view could no longer hold up. The courts would and have thankfully disagreed with this ‘Christian Nation’ canard.
BTW, I think Stalin also went to seminary school.
NaFa - The only Savior we need is our selves.
ReplyDeletePatti - Then we really are without hope if that is the case.
There is hope for our survival, but only rational thought will accomplish this, not superstitions.
4kid…”I agree - this is the evolution of society. But at the bottom of it is still the bedrock of Christian values, there is just no getting away from it.
ReplyDeleteThe only reason we say a lie is worng is becasue it is biblically wrong. Without the Christian influence in our society we would say it is okay in some situations, as many non-Western civivlations do. Or, even more likely, we wouldn't even consider that something is a "lie". That word and its concept would not even exist.
We are heading more and more that way - but is still hanging on as an ideal, if not a practice.”
Let’s take an imaginary journey back to the Paleolithic era. We have a tribe of hunter/gatherers. They rely on each other’s labor and abilities to survive. They’re banging out stone tools, protecting each other, making saber tooth cat frocks for each other and so on…
One night a member of the tribe, Grock, is on hunting duty. He goes out and kills a woolly mammoth. He thinks to himself, instead of sharing this meat and fur, why don’t I just keep it for myself and my family. So, he goes back and tells the tribe the hunt was unsuccessful and hides the woolly mammoth in his backyard.
Now, how do you think the rest of the tribe will react when the find out about his treachery? Probably they will kill him or at least evict him from the tribe. You make think this makes sense under ‘survival of the fittest’, just ‘worry about myself’ first, screw other people. But it doesn’t for social creatures which depend on each other to survive. Grock’s dishonesty and selfishness was not worth the results.
This may be a make believe example, but clearly shows a basis of why societies value honesty. No gods, no bible, no Christianity needed. It just comes down to practicality. We not only see this in other cultures, but also other animal societies.
You may ask ‘what if Grock got away with it?’
Well, then he would probably end up becoming President or the CEO of some multi-national corporation…
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteDh has already researched this. If I remember - I think there are 2 confirmed deists. The majority were ministers seminary graduates.
Check primary sources - not books about them.
So, that one won't float.
That wasn't my question, Patti. My question again was,
Would you be willing to abandon your thesis that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Isaiah and other scripture if we could show you that they were, for the most part, deists and agnostics?
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a precursor to Adam and Eve?
If Adam and Eve were not the first humans on Earth, then that's how. Since you apparently believe that they were, let me modify my question appropriately:
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could show you that most of the "positive" morals of the Bible had precursors unrelated to Judeo-Christianity, and that such precursors did exist, notwithstanding the Genesis thesis that Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePatti said,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the disciples "thought" it would be in their lifetime. But they also thought that the kingdom would be established by Jesus before He died, and they got that timing wrong. They also got the timing of His birth wrong and only a handful of people were aware of it.
Do you have more on this?
I absolutely do, but first I need an answer to my initial question:
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could demonstrate that Jesus's prediction was that he would return within his disciples' lifetimes, a prediction which obviously did not come to pass?
Patti said,
ReplyDeleteThis one is shakey. I am thinking mainly of the Ismamic teaching that it is okay to lie if the person to whom you are lying is an infidel.
Before I address that response, I need an answer to my initial question:
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, upon request, you turned out to be unable to name two such civilizations?
Two (very) quick comments - below - and then I *have* to go finsih the uniforms for granddaughters school (yes, I have been working on these for awhile - and they have been a challenge) since she starts school tomorrow! I think she needs these to wear :) I will try to tackle osm more of this otnight and tomorrow - I just need to talk less!!!
ReplyDelete{{{ @NaFa..... Well, then he would probably end up becoming President or the CEO of some multi-national corporation…}}}
You crack me up!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
{{{@ Dave.... Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, ...}}}
Oh, so is what you really want to know - what would it take for me to abandon my faith?
Blessings,
Patti
ReplyDeleteOh, so is what you really want to know - what would it take for me to abandon my faith?
Let's concentrate first on what I actually asked, then we can move on to what you think I'm asking. Okay?
Silent Dave says:
ReplyDelete{{{Would you be willing to abandon your thesis that the Founding Fathers were inspired by Isaiah and other scripture if we could show you that they were, for the most part, deists and agnostics? }}}
[REPLY]
No, not even if they were all atheists. They were taught Scripture from a young age - it was a significant portion of their education. The Dec. of Ind. and the Const. are heavily sprinkled with biblical references. Just as much of literature in general from certain time periods is sprinkled with Greek or Roman mythology - even if the authors didn't believe it was real - it still influenced their writing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patti said:
{{{How can you have a precursor to Adam and Eve?}}}
Silent Dave says:
{{{If Adam and Eve were not the first humans on Earth, then that's how. Since you apparently believe that they were, let me modify my question appropriately:
Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if we could show you that most of the "positive" morals of the Bible had precursors unrelated to Judeo-Christianity, and that such precursors did exist, notwithstanding the Genesis thesis that Adam and Eve were the first humans on Earth? }}}
[REPLY]
You lost me here - the question itself has gotten so convoluted that it no longer makes sense to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patti said,
{{{This one is shakey. I am thinking mainly of the Ismamic teaching that it is okay to lie if the person to whom you are lying is an infidel.}}}
Silent Dave says:
{{{And what of the Christian teaching that it's okay to lie to a person if that lie furthers the purpose of bringing that person to Christ? }}}
[REPLY]
I have never heard that "Christian" teaching - can you help me understand it or where it came from?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silent Dave says:
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis [i.e. the imminent return of Jesus] if we could demonstrate that Jesus's prediction was that he would return within his disciples' lifetimes, a prediction which obviously did not come to pass? }}}
[REPLY]
If you could do that, it would mean that a portion of Scripture is false and it would therefore call into question the whole of Scripture.
So, if you could do that, then I would assume the logical reply would be, Yes, that thesis would have to be abandoned. Give it your best shot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patti said,
{{{The only reason we say a lie is worng is becasue it is biblically wrong. Without the Christian influence in our society we would say it is okay in some situations, as many non-Western civivlations do.}}}
Silent Dave says:
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, upon request, you turned out to be unable to name two such civilizations?}}}
No, I don't think I know enough about this to be specific enough to meet your standards - and so based on my lack of speciifc knowledge, I would not abandon my thesis based on the information I had to supply.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Update:
I think I answered these specific to how they were asked.
On NaFa's questions and the women's subserviance questions - I ahven't forgotten them - I just can't get to them just yet.
Blessings,
Patit
NaFa said...
ReplyDelete[QUOTE]
{{{Patti,
I won’t deny most the FF were Christians and that even those that weren’t were influenced by Christianity.}}}
[REPLY]
Okay.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{But here’s the rub….
1) What do we mean by Christian? We see the phrase ‘false convert’, ‘not a true Christian’ thrown around a lot. But suddenly when it’s convenient everybody’s a Christian. But the fact remains there are different views on life, values and beliefs amongst the various Christian sects. Even amongst individuals of the same sect there a different views. How could there not be – we are all individuals.}}}
[REPLY]
This is very true. And it is something that I grapple with a lot! In fact, in our home we are having to help steer #2 son through some of these very same issues. But Paul faced the very same problem (1 Corinthans 1:12)- so it has been around since the first century church - and I suspect for much longer than that. I think Moses and his brother and sister had some of these same issues, just to name one OT incident.
Having said that - we don't negate all of Christianity because of division. Really it is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. But there also definitely tares in with the wheat! You do the best you can - starting with assurrance first of one's own faith, and then love and reach out to others, but neither should we hesitate to reprove sin when needed.
#3 son once asked me why it was so hard to live a Christian life - I said it isn't really hard - it is very simple - just do what God says in the Bible - the hard part is the flesh and sin that get in the way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{2) How much of an influence was Christianity? The FF were made up of critical freethinkers. They were mostly highly educated men and successful men from the elite. These weren’t men who blindly believed what was feed to them. They were highly influenced by enlightenment philosophers and critically examined the world for themselves. These were not men who were prone to the kind mental gymnastics it takes to take the bible on face value. They saw the mistakes of the Motherland, and didn’t want to repeat them….to a degree}}}
[REPLY]
Very well said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{…there is a lot of myth surrounding the FF. As great as they were they were also interested in protecting their own way of life. The rich and powerful always are. Isn’t that the point of the Federalist Papers? We need strong central government because the ordinary bumpkin isn’t fit to rule himself.}}}
[REPLY]
There was a lot of that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{You are correct about Truman. But he is one man. Even the Presidential actions of the FF, who served in office, don’t suggest that they based their philosophy primarily on Christianity (this in itself deserves another post – probably later).}}}
[REPLY]
I don't know that I would say "primarily" - I am just saying that until recent history (and actually, quite recent history) Christianity is so ingrained into the fabric of our westernized thinking, that it affects all aspects of our decision making. The ideal may not always meet up to the actuality - but the base is still there.
And that ingrained thinking is what I believe is the "morality" of the atheist. Which is where I began my question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{I know you are familiar with Joseph Story. He felt that religion (Christianity) was providence of the State to ‘evoke’, but had no place in the Federal gov. But after the 14th amendment, even that view could no longer hold up. The courts would and have thankfully disagreed with this ‘Christian Nation’ canard.}}}
[REPLY]
Yes, I call that revisionist history - I suppose some would say that it just evolved to fit the way things are today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[QUOTE]
{{{BTW, I think Stalin also went to seminary school.}}}
[REPLY]
Yes, he did - and so did Rasputin.
Blessings,
Patti
Patti said,
ReplyDelete[REPLY]
No, not even if they were all atheists. They were taught Scripture from a young age - it was a significant portion of their education. The Dec. of Ind. and the Const. are heavily sprinkled with biblical references. Just as much of literature in general from certain time periods is sprinkled with Greek or Roman mythology - even if the authors didn't believe it was real - it still influenced their writing.
I think I need clarification for your thesis. Are you saying that the Bible was the primary inspiration for the Constitution? Or that it was one of many?
You lost me here - the question itself has gotten so convoluted that it no longer makes sense to me.
I'm sorry, I can't really put it more simply than I have.
If you could do that, it would mean that a portion of Scripture is false and it would therefore call into question the whole of Scripture.
So, if you could do that, then I would assume the logical reply would be, Yes, that thesis would have to be abandoned. Give it your best shot.
Will do. Stay tuned to the main page.
{{{Would you be willing to abandon that thesis if, upon request, you turned out to be unable to name two such civilizations?}}}
No, I don't think I know enough about this to be specific enough to meet your standards - and so based on my lack of speciifc knowledge, I would not abandon my thesis based on the information I had to supply.
Then your thesis is unfalsifiable, and should therefore be automatically rejected on rational grounds.
Okay, Patti, here it is.
ReplyDeleteSilent Dave has left a new comment on the post "Questions for Dave":
ReplyDelete{{{Patti said,
It doesn't. I said that they (women) are given differing roles - but not inferior roles. }}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
Oops, I just found I had left this posting sitting for a bit. I don't have the energy or time to do the detailed analysis - and since this is quite applicable to my life - I have spent well over 30 years studying the issues - so I will just make a few general comments - you can feel free to pick apart as you please, but I am not going line for line on this one. (the order may vary form the original posting)
Silent Dave quoted this Scripture:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
[REPLY]
And this is a problem because...? Looks like an organizational pattern to me - not an indication of worth. Since Jesus died for me - I would expect my husband might do likewise?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silent Dave quoted this Scripture:
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
[REPLY]
Again organizational and role - not worth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silent Dave quoted this Scripture:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
[REPLY]
This addressed a problem in the church with rowdy women being disruptive. I have seen churches carry this to an extreme - I don't go to those churches, and neither would my husband. In fact the only reason I write here is because he encourages me (I really need to be doing sewing and cooking right now - my desiganted roles. Dh - and kids - do a lot of the cleaning - a role he chose as more efficient for our home.) At testimony time in church service - my whole family waits for me to say something - they know me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Silent Dave writes:
Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish.
[REPLY]
Yeah, he was such a worm. Lot tried the same thing, but the homosexuals at the door wouldn't go for it. And where did you see that God told them to do this? I see wicked, selfish men doing what their society norms allowed them to do, not what God says to do. Becuase it is in the Bible doesn't mena that God said to do it. He tells it like it happened, not like we would pretend it to be. the sin is laid bare - just as it will be on the day of judgement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)
[REPLY]
Usurp is the key here. There are certain jobs for which I feel women are unsuited. Just as there are some jobs for whihc men are unsuited. I won't go into the listing - but there are always exceptions.
The judge Deborah is one of my favorite women int he Bible - she had to step in when Barak whimped out. And it was Jael that killed Sisera in the tent as he was hiding. Seems to me that when men don't do what they should, God will use women to take up the slack.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[REPLY]
And to round out the Bible quoting - this Scripture says that men should do the washing of the dishes;
2Kings 21:13b ...And I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down.
Blessings,
Patti
Post Script - I am sorry for all the typos - I am rushing and should not do that when replying to public forums - and now it is fully revealed how poor a typist I truly am.....
ReplyDeleteBlessings,
Patti