|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Women In 1 Corinthians | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Whatever.
If you can't even manage something as mild as, "I don't like what you wrote about women." in response to jonfolton, then I guess you can be counted as one who doesn't think it is important to contradict him directly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationista Inactive Junior Member |
That is also your opinion.
It is not sufficient to say "I don't like". It's not strong enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: OK, how about something like: "What you sed about women is the worst thing I've ever heard." The point is, you refuse to confront him directly. Why is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationista Inactive Junior Member |
Clearly it's for whatever reason you have invented in your head. Let's just go with that, because nothing I could say would convince you otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All morality is based upon the social requirements of people living together in groups. So its relative then. How can you use your group's relative morals to criticize another group's relative morals? Without some authority, you're just expressing your opinion. How is your opinion any more valid than theirs? For example, if a group wants women to STFU in church, how can you use your groups social requirements to say that their social requirements are wrong? All morality is based upon the social requirements of people living together in groups. Or are you saying that it is based on one set of social requirements that all people living together in groups require?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
All morality is based upon the social requirements of people living together in groups. quote: Yes.
quote: Because I believe that my morality leads to a better, freer, more humane society.
quote: Well, we can look at history and the societal results of oppression of women (or any group) as an authority. Would you say that life was better for women when they were considered chattel? Or when they weren't allowed to own property? Or vote? Or be paid as well as a man for doing the same or better work? Or before people even recognized the term "marital rape" as anything other than an oxymoron, since a husband's supreme right to sexual access to his wife's body was considered inviolate?
quote: It is a matter of philosophy, to be sure, to determine if a freer, more egalitarian society or a more oppressive, hierarchical society leads to greater peace, contentment, and prosperity for all, not just those with certain sexual organs or of certain families or of certain castes. I think that history has some lessons for us there.
quote: No. All people living together in groups require some social rules to function as a society. I think there have been plenty of examples over the millenia of various social contracts that we can look at an judge their relative effectiveness and ability to bring justice, peace and prosperity to as many people as possible. Strict gender roles and oppression leads to discontent and revolution. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given. Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why would I ask if I didn't want to know your reason?
quote: So you are a mind reader now, and already know that I can't be convinced? I love how you don't answer the question and then blame me for it on the basis of something you can't possibly know. Come on, now. Why won't you directly confront him? I am asking becasue I want to know why.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: Because I believe that my morality leads to a better, freer, more humane society. That's just circular reasoning. You are also assuming that being freer and more humane is better. Another group could believe that thier morality is better and that being free and humane doesn't matter. For them, your morality is worthless. How can you criticize their morality?
Well, we can look at history and the societal results of oppression of women (or any group) as an authority. That's a good point. We could certainly use history as a gague for which group's moralities are the best. But we'd have to qualify what determines betterness. How do we determine if Roman, Egyptian, or American morality is the best one?
It is a matter of philosophy, to be sure, to determine if a freer, more egalitarian society or a more oppressive, hierarchical society leads to greater peace, contentment, and prosperity for all, not just those with certain sexual organs or of certain families or of certain castes. This assumes that greater peace, contentment, and prosperity for all is a good thing. Another group might not.
I think there have been plenty of examples over the millenia of various social contracts that we can look at an judge their relative effectiveness and ability to bring justice, peace and prosperity to as many people as possible. More circular reasoning, you're just assuming that your group's morality is the best one and then concluding the same. Bringing justice, peace and prosperity to as many people as possible might not be important to another group. How do we qualify the betterness of a group's morality in order to compare multiple ones to determine which is the best morality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationista Inactive Junior Member |
Because it isn't possible to adequately confront him, and he will pay for his crimes eventually. It's a waste of time to try to change someone so sure of his own superiority. Meanwhile, it was someone else who decided to make a fuss about the whole thing and degrade the rest of us because of one individuals poor choice of opinion. As such, it is that individual who is most in need of correction. Further, I think it is that individual who might best respond to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: No, it isn't.
quote: I am not assuming that it is. I look to history and it shows me that it is.
quote: From a historical and philosophical persoective, I can easily do so. They don't have to accept my premise that freedom and humane treatment of others is better, but the point is, my morality is based upon a relatively rational basis. Saying "X is moral because we believe God said it is moral" is a pretty lame reason for morality. I would then ask, if you believe that your God declared it moral to rape and murder and commit genocide, a la Old testament, does that make rape and murder and genocide moral? Under their morality, it does.
quote: True. Of course, se are rather evolved to be social animals and we also evolved to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Stress over long time periods does bad things to our bodies, even causing us to abort pregnancies and die prematurely. I think we are rather biologically driven to want to live peacefully and prosperously. Greed and disdain for those who are considered "other" is a human characteristic, but as what people consider "the tribe" comes to encompass more and more of the entire population of the planet, the more it seems to make sense to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." In other words, Jesus was right when he urged all of us to treat each other the way we would wish to be treated. That seems to be part of what makes us human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I disagree. Remember, to confront him is not just an attempt to change or enlighten him. I agree that he is probably a hopeless case. To address his sexism is also a declaration to everyone else reading, as a Christian, that you do not condone his position. Your silence translates as tacit approval.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote: I am not assuming that it is. I look to history and it shows me that it is. I'm not so sure it can. How do you determine betterness?
They don't have to accept my premise that freedom and humane treatment of others is better, but the point is, my morality is based upon a relatively rational basis. Saying "X is moral because we believe God said it is moral" is a pretty lame reason for morality. But another morality that is based on a rational basis could come to a differenct conclusion about what is better.
I think we are rather biologically driven to want to live peacefully and prosperously. But peace and prosperity can coexist with oppression. If I'm understanding you, you're saying that you can look at history and determine which group's moralities lead to more peace and prosperity, label that as better, and then say that those moralities are better and use that to criticize the moralities of others. Your criticism remains circular. Let me hash it out:
quote: nator writes: We have morality and ethics. quote: nator writes: All morality is based upon the social requirements of people living together in groups. quote: You say that it can by looking at history and determining which has been better. But that assessment of betterness is relative, itself, and does not remove the relativity that makes the criticism invalid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Your silence translates as tacit approval. Only if you want it too. Its bullshit. There are plenty of reasons to not reply and for you to assume tacit approval just exposes your bigotry to christians.
To address his sexism is also a declaration to everyone else reading, as a Christian, that you do not condone his position. But the default position is not condoning every post that you don't reply too. You choose to read it that way to feed your bigotry. And that makes you a hypocrite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Creationista Inactive Junior Member |
"Remember, to confront him is not just an attempt to change or enlighten him. I agree that he is probably a hopeless case. To address his sexism is also a declaration to everyone else reading, as a Christian, that you do not condone his position.
Your silence translates as tacit approval." Only because you choose to interpret it that way. I don't know about you, but I have a job and a household and I have much more important things to do than run around on every site on the internet and denouncing every single uneducated comment some Christian makes. The only person responsible for his comments is his own self. Further, I'd hardly call this last 10 posts "silence".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Well, do you agree with his view of women, or not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024