Jump to content

Hi Everyone! My husband and myself are going to try to share this profile and we will see how that works


we2
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Oh sure, except for the many parts that don't. Leans in favor? Bet I can find more extremist behavior than you can find humble behavior in the Bible. It preaches moderation, but few of the characters actually practice it.

I disagree that it IS a basic assessment, which should be far more objective. Moderate is what YOU consider it. It was not uncommon in biblical times for women to go topless. It wasn't considered immodest. In fact, there are more mentions in the B about women covering their heads than there are about covering their breasts. And try reading the Song of Solomon sometime. 

Well, this is the Religion section, which makes this a religious discussion. 

It's OK that you aren't interested in a POV that disagrees with yours. And I completely understand why it wouldn't interest you. But my points weren't inaccurate or off-topic, and I'd be happy to defend them for you, from Biblical times all the way up through more modern primogeniture practices. You can defend why you think sports influenced the biblical stance on nudity.

 

 

I hadn't realized this thread was posted in the religious discussion section. 

If you want I can prove everything you posted is extremely inaccurate. 

Its basic context. You have unrealistic expectations where you expect those who lived 2,000 years ago to have the same views, values and ideology about modesty and moderation as people of today do.

Breast feeding in the bible doesn't mean that hebrews did not believe in moderation. It simply means that breast feeding was cultural normalized by different circumstances and living conditions.

During eras of the bible where israelites invaded other nations. Killed all the men. Claimed their women as spoils of war. The ratio of men to women became extremely lopsided. Which normalized polygamy and men having more than 1 wife. 

During eras of the bible when the ratio of men to women was more even. Monogamy became the ideal to follow.

The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms. They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Doctor Derp said:

Breast feeding in the bible doesn't mean that hebrews did not believe in moderation. It simply means that breast feeding was cultural normalized by different circumstances and living conditions.

Normalized? What options were available? But that's nothing to do with nudity. Nursing mothers are not nude or naked; they have one uncovered breast concealed by a baby's head.

 

35 minutes ago, Doctor Derp said:

During eras of the bible where israelites invaded other nations. Killed all the men.

Nothing extreme about that!

35 minutes ago, Doctor Derp said:

Claimed their women as spoils of war. The ratio of men to women became extremely lopsided. Which normalized polygamy and men having more than 1 wife. 

Sounds a like a self-fulfilling necessity. Anyway, they didn't marry those foreign captured women; they just used them as servants and whatever. But they had practised polygamy long before the wars, or the establishment of Israel. Read Genesis 29-30, where Jacob marries two of his cousins and also has children by both of their maids. But he never went outside the tent without his loincloth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Doctor Derp said:

 

The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms. They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today. 

If you heard me make a statement about some other social group, ethnicity, or creed beginning with "the problem with [members of this group]..." and continue on with a blanket statement that betrayed ignorance of said group, you might well conclude that I was a flaming bigot.  No need to waste any more time with your ill-informed prattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doctor Derp said:

The problem with atheists is...

The problem with bigots is that they assign negative traits to individuals based simply on their membership in a group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

If you heard me make a statement about some other social group, ethnicity, or creed beginning with "the problem with [members of this group]..." and continue on with a blanket statement that betrayed ignorance of said group, you might well conclude that I was a flaming bigot.  No need to waste any more time with your ill-informed prattle.

 

 

If an analysis of atheist arguments against religion were conducted. A high percentage of them would revolve around claims that were context negative for accuracy.

Its not a blanket statement.

Its a fact.

You only need to look as far as Sam Harris and others distancing themselves from everything atheist to recognize it for what it is.

 

Edited by Doctor Derp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Doctor Derp said:

If an analysis of atheist arguments against religion were conducted. A high percentage of them would revolve around claims that were context negative for accuracy.

You wouldn't know accuracy if it ran you over with a Sherman tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You wouldn't know accuracy if it ran you over with a Sherman tank.

 

Mark Zuckenberg. CEO of facebook. Used to be an active and vocal atheist.

He recently converted to christianity as have many others.

I credit atheists like yourself who bring up sherman tanks.

Rather than offering intelligent or honest discussion, for that change.

Keep up the good work.

If you continue to spam your irrational and illogical context negative atheist claims.

Maybe you can alienate another 1 billion atheists to convert to christianity in addition to those you have already alienated.

Edited by Doctor Derp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Doctor Derp said:

The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms

This is a non-sequitur. What does atheism have to do with this? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doctor Derp said:

Rather than offering intelligent or honest discussion, for that change.

Speaking of, I notice you haven't refuted my biblical references.

9 hours ago, Doctor Derp said:

If you continue to spam your irrational and illogical context negative atheist claims.

Ooooh! Direct hit! On the latrines.

9 hours ago, Doctor Derp said:

Maybe you can alienate another 1 billion atheists to convert to christianity in addition to those you have already alienated.

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to serious numbers. Not a lot to do with nudity, nakedness or the uncovering of limbs, but at least its contextually void.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, Doctor Derp said/implied that eople who think a certain way ... ( meaning atheist beliefs ) make zero effort ...
Then proceeded to try and back up his assertions with faulty thinking.

That makes him wrong, not a bigot against atheists.

We are not the thought police here; make counter arguments, not 'labels' to stop discussion you don't agree with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them.
Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects.

Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions.
Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ?

If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion.

( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions.

If they are going to paint an entire group of people with such a broad brush, I'm not against making them feel a little unsafe.

Especially when it's unbidden as it was here. One person - and AFAICT not among those DD was responding to - had identified themselves as atheist. It was an assumption, consistent with "if you are questioning my religious stance you must be an atheist" as if one can't cite the Bible and point out inconsistencies if one is a follower.

I think we can do without that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2022 at 6:54 PM, Doctor Derp said:

The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms. They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today. 

@MigL If you join a website and post the above, then you are going to come across as bigoted in your attitude.   Note he could have added "some" before atheists, and then offered specific examples to support the last sentence.  My guess is that he didn't back up that remark because it's a straw man.  

If you post bigoted comments, then where there is free discourse (which you clearly prize, as I do) people will call you on it and you don't get a special safe space where your bigotry is tiptoed around.

Then Derp went onto assert:

On 9/30/2022 at 9:24 PM, Doctor Derp said:

If an analysis of atheist arguments against religion were conducted. A high percentage of them would revolve around claims that were context negative for accuracy.

Did he post polls or surveys to support this?  Did he offer any quotes from atheist arguments to support his contention of "context negative for accuracy"(whatever that means)?  So, another vague attack, without any actual consideration of an atheist perspective, or glimmer of intellectual honesty.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MigL said:

That makes him wrong, not a bigot against atheists.

That is what I previously posted.

I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted.

That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2022 at 6:54 PM, Doctor Derp said:

Its basic context. You have unrealistic expectations where you expect those who lived 2,000 years ago to have the same views, values and ideology about modesty and moderation as people of today do.

But this isn't my expectation. This is, in its basic context, what I accused your arguments of doing. You imposed your modern version of modesty on biblical characters, and I pointed that out and even remarked that women often went topless. You countered with some strawman argument about breast-feeding, which I never mentioned. Women often went topless in the regions mentioned in the B because it was hot, and it just wasn't as shocking as it is today.

I dislike your argument style. It seems very dishonest, and you make claims you don't seem prepared to defend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is what I previously posted.

I concede he is wrong in his reasoning, but believing people who, don't believe in God(s), think a certain way ( I'm one of them ) is not bigoted.

That is my opinion; am I bigoted for thinking that group thinks that way ?

You are wrong in your understanding of what 'bigot' means.

He stated:

"The problem with atheists is they make zero effort to quantify these basic contextual paradigms. They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today. "

He assigned a negative trait ('make zero effort') to all individuals based on their membership in a group (atheism).

 

big·ot
/ˈbiɡət/
 
noun
 
  1. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
     
     
    In addition, he provided no "reasoning". He simply made a ridiculous assertion about what atheists expect of people who lived in the past.  i.e. "They simply expect people who lived 2,000 years ago to know and follow the same ideals and standards modern day humans do today. "
     
    I stand by my call.
    I also find it amusing that you think you know the motivation behind my posts. e.g. That you think I am trying to stop a discussion I disagree with. Better to ask why I am saying something than to guess and state it as if it were a fact.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MigL said:

No problem whatsoever with Zap's thoughts and opinions; I have always valued them.
Everyone's opinions should be ( ie. no thought police ), so we may discuss, and even attempt to change each other's minds about certain subjects.

Labelling people with offensive terms, like 'bigot', makes them feel unsafe about sharing their ideas/opinions.
Is that not the whole idea behind 'safe' spaces ?

If you'd rather eliminate all views which don't agree with your own, you're not going to have much of a discussion.

( and I did give Zap a +1 for being respectful )

Aren't you conflating valuable well reasoned opinions with opinions born of ignorance?

If we don't point that out, there's no chance they (people like derp) will learn/change their minds; whilst I agree that a safe space is sometimes necessary for sharing, it's usually for children subjected to bullying, not adults who display a tendency to bully. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Women often went topless in the regions mentioned in the B because it was hot, and it just wasn't as shocking as it is today.

Did they? I don't recall any biblical references. Lots of bared breasts in Renaissance art - from a period in Europe when it certainly would have been shocking if a real woman walked down the street topless, but they would most likely feed their babies, under a cloak or veil, wherever they happened to be. Different mores applied then, as now, to different forms and degrees of exposure for different people.  In biblical times, slave women may have been lightly or selectively covered,

Quote

  and dancing girls, concubines and harlots might wear very little, but 'respectable' women were supposed to cover themselves, particularly their hair and thighs, which the prophets found most provocative. Besides, desert-dwellers cover every inch of skin they can, to protect it from the scorching sun.

But the OT god's peculiar problem seemed to be with uncovering people for the purpose of intercourse; all of Leviticus 18 is about carnal knowledge, with a long preamble about the nakedness of close kin, then more prohibitions about sex outside the home. The onus is on the one who sees the body parts, not on the owner of the parts. Curiously, the Noah-Ham story predates the commandments, so the proscription abut patriarch's genitalia must be coming from an older culture. 

Quote

 

That wasn't a huge effort, but farther from zero than Doctor Derp's efforts to make his case.

Edited by Peterkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I interpret the biblical admonition to "Render unto Caesar..." as similar to the aphorism "When in Rome...". I think the Christian or general public distate for nudity comes from long traditions aimed at chastity and partly as a result there are laws in many of these traditionally Christian places against such a display in public.

The most perplexing thing in this thread is @Doctor Derp's deduction that @Peterkin is an atheist based on participation here, but, maybe that's from other data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't you conflating valuable well reasoned opinions with opinions born of ignorance?

I have had many opinions borne of ignorance and faulty reasoning, which has been set straight by experts in their respective fields, on this very forum.
We all come here to learn, and are all ignorant of one thing or another.
Is your solution to call us all names, or educate us.
Are we all bigots because we are ignorant of certain things ?

I think calling someone a bigot is offensive; that is my opinion.
And since, according to Zap, I'm ignorant of the definition ( even though I'm offended ), I must be, according to Dim, a bigot.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.