Home PEx Family and Society Realm of Thought

*****, Polygamy and Prejudice. Women of the Bible.



  • Christians, what is your basis for the prohibition of polygamy?
  • blue[]ce wrote:
    Congrats perkins, You are doing a much better job of convincing people to become atheist than what the rest of us here are doing.

    My apologies to Easter for the delayed response to his answer. Although we are on opposite sides of the fence, I appreciate your sincere desire to defend your faith using your intellect. I shall prepare a response worthy of your post but in the meantime kindly excuse the delay. It is most unfortunate that our discussion has been hijacked for the past few days.

    now, now essex, i am sorry. but your eye-rolling is getting old and uh-huh.. is not intelligent even for one-liners.

    blue_ice, thank you very much. however, the intention of a sarcasm is to convince via a tinge of honesty, which actually makes it sound good and enjoyable to laugh at.

    honestly, show me who you converted so far while i am hijacking your hate thread and i will show you either a liar or another poser like you and your lot - like decoy who just popped up like daisy - only to display his ignorance.

    as far as facts tell us, it is now feb16 and the last post i preceeded is already 3 days away. last week that i regularly play in your thread, you would not present any real fight but instead stick to your dumb-down conventional bible-christianity lines that you are already sounding like a bible-toting fanatic at the opposite direction of miserable fundamentalists.

    so that on the contrary, and i am sorry to tell you that this is not sarcasm: you are trying so hard until now to fend off a very simple criticism that your fad belief (which cannot be atheism) is as irrelevant as your fixation to the useless and counterproductive sections of the bible and to christianity without regard to their actual, current, practical, useful and productive application to our modern, pragmatic world - and for which reason you forget to reply to all other posts but mine.

    thank me instead for making you famous, blue, without the corny sarcasm; i like to keep your hate thread up for a very long time for all the community to see your indiscretion and those whose lines of thinking are as impractical as yours. but you always have the chance to redeem yourself in our own little way if you will choose to.

    so again, for starters, real atheist have an alternative belief system. without such, there is no practical reason why should i change my current personal belief system.

    please take note that even the economics, politics and far, far most of the superstructures of this world from antiquity (chinese, indian, egyptian, sumerian, grecian, roman, etc.) are based in belief systems that includes, if not highlights, belief in god.

    a system is a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole. if one element of the atheist belief system is the non-belief in the existence of god, what are its other elements, especially the non-religious ones?

    as i have indicated in one of my posts above, one attempt was made by those who became so engrossed with its other elements (military, economics) that in the 1990s they crumbled. the only handful of supposed remaining atheist societies today are either dubious at this time or are actually being supported and assisted by theist systems.

    so it would be fair to say that by, we have yet to see a really succeeded system that includes standard or official policy of atheism like the old soviet union.

    china, who is a highly supported market by the faithful west, is a dubious atheists because for one their current standard, religious festivals.

    please teach us blue_ice, so that you may really convince us and redeem your folly in this hate thread.
  • Atheism is not Communism

    You should visit our atheist/exchristian thread and see how it was defined over there.

    Shifting the burden of proof to Atheism so that you would not need to defend your faith in this supposed inerrant scripture? Good job Perkins.
  • perkins wrote:
    now, now essex, i am sorry. but your eye-rolling is getting old and uh-huh.. is not intelligent even for one-liners.

    Yah...ummmm obviously, I care about what you think.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
  • essex wrote:
    Yah...ummmm obviously, I care about what you think.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    as i suspected, essex finally and unconciously bared to us that she really is just another fanatic. good luck, simpleton.

    btw, i also think decoy will suit you well - he expresses without thinking; you think without expressing (hey, is this a complement or what?), heheh...

    btw too, thank you for your referral blue_ice, i will grace that thread in case somebody is worth engaging around there. but for sure it will not be the laughable you.

    for now, i am really sorry guys, more than two weeks of waiting and no direct assault from your ***-monkey point of views.

    heheh..fad/fake atheism anyone? blue_ice and essex - and of course, decoy - are selling some, bwahahahaharharharhawhawhawh....
  • How many women were included in the twelve? 0. Remember, they were often referred to as the 12, giving them special significance as a group. Not including mary magdalene and such because they were not considered part of the 12.

    How many matriarchs do we have? 0. We have Abraham, Moses, et al

    How many queens did Israel have? 0.

    How many priestess did Israel have? 0.

    How many prophetess did Israel have? I have not researched this but Im guessing that is a very small number.

    How many female leaders did Israel have?

    So on and so forth. The clear picture of a male centered society is very evident in the Bible. Males are preferred over females.

    Just a reiteration of my previous post. Since Perkins was happy enough to remind me of this thread and of the different posts I have made.

    Was there Polygamy in the bible?

    Was there prejudice against women in the bible?

    Yes there was. The question is, did God do anything about those who indulged in it? Well, David who raped Bathsheba was a man after his own heart. Abraham had a few wives and he is the father of Israel. Paul said women should not speak and are not allowed to teach.

    You be the judge.
  • perkins wrote:
    follow christianity, follow the bible, word of god, infallible scripture. part of the solution by showing what is wrong - please dont get me started to a fit of laughter, atheists would be the lamest resource about faith. just as lawyers are the lamest resource about medicines.
    Unless the lawyer was once a pharmacist. But it seems that such a thing is a logical impossibility.

    In response to this part of your post:
    perkins wrote:
    if you are so intelligent about faith, why it is now taking you people thousands of years and you still cannot convert a dent? why is the rise of religions remain unchecked?
    together with this one:
    perkins wrote:
    please take note that even the economics, politics and far, far most of the superstructures of this world from antiquity (chinese, indian, egyptian, sumerian, grecian, roman, etc.) are based in belief systems that includes, if not highlights, belief in god.
    I am reminded of Gellner's take on Weber's secularization/disenchantment thesis in his book Legitimation of Belief. He points out that:
    the Weberian disenchantment thesis is in partial error. What is true is that modern cognition does bureaucratise nature, and must neccessarily do so; but serious cognition need not pervade all aspects of daily life. On the contrary, the insulation of various spheres of life, the division of labour and specificity of function, makes it easier to permit any degree of fantasy in those aspects of life which are distinct from the serious business of knowledge...

    ...In a traditional society, the rationale of dietary regulation, say, may well come from exactly the same source as the premisses governing fundamental therapeutic, political or productive activities, and hence can have similar status. This is no longer so, and cannot be so. when serious issues are at stake - such as the production of wealth or the maintenance of health - we want and expect real knowledge. But when choosing our menu or our rituals, we turn to culture and religion.
    To translate: in essence, religion survives because even if the sciences has pervaded the political, economic, and medical spheres of human existence (which was once under some influence of religion in one way or another) there are still some spheres of human existence that science provides no guidance on (although I'm not as harsh as Gellner with his dismissal of these spheres of human existence not under science as less than "serious") and it is these aspects of life that religion latches on thus assuring its continuity.
    perkins wrote:
    the last real atheists i know just crumbled in the 1990s after sucking dry their country's respective economies. the chinese atheists rose as a potential superpower only when the businesses of more vibrant non-atheists began to patronize its economy in the 1990s to present.
    Now I understand. You conflate religion with theism. Though of course it can be argued that what we lack is a conceptual delineation. Presumably if you equate religion with belief in deities then we have no problem with your use of the word religion. But if we consider religion as "a belief system that includes moral stances, guides for daily life, systematic views of humanity and its place in the universe" we will then be able to consider belief systems (excluded by the first definition) that have been called religions, like Buddhism (i'm not sure if it's the Mahayana or Theravada branch) or (purportedly) Confucianism.
    perkins wrote:
    now i am almost sure you are dumb**** as to all other world faiths so this sole fixation to christianity - whom you must actually thank for tolerating your folly. as i say, it is a highly liberal faith, so i promise not to cut your head or burn down your house any day after this.

    because in case you are genius also about, say, a faith other than christianity, you would have copied and posted too its holy book here for scrutiny just the same. or maybe you are afraid that they might not be so courteous like the christians.
    A friend once told me that this is somewhat analogous to Microsoft's Internet Explorer and Mozilla's Firefox. Before Firefox, IE was purportedly the browser of choice and thus malicious scripts were tailormade for it. But now that Firefox has gained popularity he told me that there has been a proportional increase in malicious scripts for Firefox. Oh well, the price of popularity... Furthermore I also have the feeling that most of your "dumb****'s" are converts from your particular religious tradition so maybe they're just sticking to dissing the devil they know.
    perkins wrote:
    prove god? we are in a world where far, far more than the majority believes in god. i regret to tell you that in the real world, i.e., outside the bubble that you live in, it is a tyranny of the majority in here.
    Yes, quite a majority it is. I'm hoping though that you can point me towards statstics from more reputable sources (I don't trust .com websites). And as I have pointed out earlier "Chinese traditional religion", some schools of Buddhism and to an extent Shintoism are relatively non-theistic. And I must say that these statistics are somewhat puzzling when contextualized with your assertion about true scotsm... I meant atheists. But then i'm sure you remember what Benjamin Disraeli said about statistics :rotflmao: .
    perkins wrote:
    but if you are so zealous about the subject, why not prove instead that god does not exist. the world might believe you, but i dont promise it.

    as for now that the world is free to enjoy whatever it wants to believe, please do not burden us with such useless, if not counterproductive, proposition. its either you get a life, or at least get a real job to enjoy yourself while you still live.

    because after you live, it is the end for you.

    to the faithfuls, at least there is hope.
    As Bokonon hath saith: "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."
    perkins wrote:
    heheh..i may be a sinner, baby, but i do not profess to be what i am not - unlike you guys who claim to be atheists and do or know nothing else aside from disowning god.
    And I thought that was all that was required of an atheist. Unless your usage of the word "disown" is different from how I think you used the word.
  • Those are proofs that the bible is corrupt. Even the biblical Jesus won't follow them because they are obviously corrupt rules.
  • ^^^^ funny!

    siguro nga nagalit pa si Magdalene niyan.. over thousand of years, she's been accused, eh paano, na yung mga namatay na fanatical sa mga saints, di nabago ang reputasyon niya sa kanila...bakit din nagreklamo sa boss na tamaan ng kidlat yun sila !!!
Sign In or Register to comment.