Sexism and Racism in the Bible

[cl154576]

I find the Bible quite sexist and racist in certain parts (if you disagree I can list them). The religious people I know tell me that that meaning evolves over time and these parts are no longer relevant today, although some people are more rigid in their interpretation.

Dante argues in the Divine Comedy that God, as perfection, is completely unchanging because if perfection were to change its only course could be toward imperfection.

Is this accurate? Can the Word of God ever "change"?

[BienvenuJDC]

(Remember that some do not take the same interpretation as what I am presenting here. But my comments are based solely on this interpretation. If you do not believe in God or Christianity, or if you have a varying view of Christianity, then you may disagree with these comments. However, I am presenting one perspective in order to answer the query.)

Consider the passage from the prophet Malachi when he spoke on God's behalf say, "I am the Lord, I do not change." The message of the Bible and the theme has never changed. But if you consider the context of the Bible, taking it as one unified book from its Author, who is God, then this message does not change. However, there may be certain reasons for certain commands to different people in different times.

There are certain commands which were given to particular people. For instance, the Ten Commandments were meant for ONLY the Jewish nation during the Mosaic Dispensation. While other passages were given to Christians after the church was established. Christians were not (are not) subjected to the Law of Moses, which was only given as a tutor to a race to teach a basic concept of sin. However, the message as a whole is the same.

As far as racism and sexism is concerned, one would have to define what they view as racist and sexist, and how that perspective might be different is coming from a supernatural Creator who made both body and soul. Each soul (apart from the body) has no gender, nor does it have ethnicity, race, or nationality. God has His mind set on things that are spiritual, not those things that are physical. From His perspective, He has set certain things in a certain order to teach mankind. I believe that the Scriptures teach that the role of man (masculine) is representative of the role of God, while the role of woman is representative of mankind. Therefore, when there are Scriptures teach that the woman should be submissive, it is a pattern of a people (both male and female) that should be submissive to God. It also teaches that man (masculine) should be loving and respectful to the wife. These lessons are not about equality, but about roles. We live in a selfish society where the service to self is priority one. It is difficult for these Biblical concepts to be understood in that light.

Concerning the issue of racism, there may be different outlooks considering to which passage that one refers. Again we must remember that we are talking about an infinite God who is spiritual. He had commanded that some ethnic groups be totally wiped out by the Israelite nation. These people who were commanded to be destroyed were going against the nature of God, committing vile evil acts. God then being spiritual was able to take care of the souls and sort out based on His judgment those who He wished to bestow His mercy.

However, there are other passages that were merely accounts of how the Jews had viewed other nations. These views were in fact racist. Consider Jonah's attitude toward the Ninevites. He was mad that God didn't destroy them when they repented. God did not condone this attitude, but He condemned it. Nonetheless, the Bible is written ultimately with a spiritual theme, and there is not gender or race to the spirit, therefore racism and sexism in that respect is a moot point.

[Whifflingpin]

A slightly different perspective, also to answer the query.

When I was a Christian, I was quite happy to recognise that the Bible was a collection of writings by different authors, and that the views expressed in them were not necessarily the views of the Editor.

The books do not represent God's gradual revelation of Himself to men but the changing understanding of God by men. Of course the two may be the same thing, in which case ignore my answer and stick with Bienvenu's - but I think that they are quite different.

Obviously, the Bible changed over time - the books were written over millenia. Calling the the whole work by the honorific "Word of God" signifies its importance, but should be taken to mean "(Definitive & sufficient) collection of writings about God" not "God's revelations of himself, dictated by himself."

The miracle is that out of imperfect human effort, God achieves His purpose. Read the Bible with a view to finding errors and discrepancies, and you will find them. Read it with a view to finding God and you will find Him too. St Paul, as usual, has the telling phrase, loosely translated by Herbert, "A man that looks on glass, on it may stay his eye; or, if he pleaseth, through it pass and then the heavens espy."


And, by the way, Dante was wrong. In God are an infinity of perfections, each perfect and complete.

[JuniperWoolf]

That's why I dislike the Christian religion more than any other religion except for perhaps Islam (I can't know for sure though, since I haven't read the koran yet). Page one: women are partial humans, manipulative and stupid and are the reason for all suffering on earth. Christians can wrap desperately complex pseudo-logic around all of the hatred, racism and misogyny in the bible all they want, most of us non-Christians who actually read the bible aren't buying it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Is not applying the racism and sexism label somewhat anachronistic to something written 2000+ years ago anyway?

[JuniperWoolf]

Is not applying the racism and sexism label somewhat anachronistic to something written 2000+ years ago anyway?

It might have been written 2000+ years ago, but people still live their lives by it today. A disturbing number of people even take it literally and consider it infallable, so discrediting the bible for being sexist, racist and homophobic is still valid. You don't see anyone talking about how sexist Hesiod was, because no one bases their morality on Works and Days.

[G L Wilson]

The Bible is ethically appalling.

[Delta40]

A slightly different perspective, also to answer the query.

When I was a Christian, I was quite happy to recognise that the Bible was a collection of writings by different authors, and that the views expressed in them were not necessarily the views of the Editor.

The books do not represent God's gradual revelation of Himself to men but the changing understanding of God by men. Of course the two may be the same thing, in which case ignore my answer and stick with Bienvenu's - but I think that they are quite different.

Obviously, the Bible changed over time - the books were written over millenia. Calling the the whole work by the honorific "Word of God" signifies its importance, but should be taken to mean "(Definitive & sufficient) collection of writings about God" not "God's revelations of himself, dictated by himself."

The miracle is that out of imperfect human effort, God achieves His purpose. Read the Bible with a view to finding errors and discrepancies, and you will find them. Read it with a view to finding God and you will find Him too. St Paul, as usual, has the telling phrase, loosely translated by Herbert, "A man that looks on glass, on it may stay his eye; or, if he pleaseth, through it pass and then the heavens espy."


And, by the way, Dante was wrong. In God are an infinity of perfections, each perfect and complete.

I think this is an excellent explanation and reveals the imperfection of humankind more than the imperfections of God. It is reasonable that societal attitudes have existed throughout time and are subject to change accordingly. This does not mean that God does, only our interpretations.

[G L Wilson]

It is reasonable that societal attitudes have existed throughout time and are subject to change accordingly. This does not mean that God does, only our interpretations.

There is nothing ethical about a psychopath.

[Whifflingpin]

"A disturbing number of people even take it literally and consider it infallable, so discrediting the bible for being sexist, racist and homophobic is still valid. "

Of course it is. But simply rejecting the rest of it because of that is not. Ezra may be vile, but Amos or Hosea should rank among the world's greater moralists.
The overwhelming message of the New Testament, at least as far as human relations are concerned, is that self-sacrifice is the (I nearly said "crucial") critical requirement. That is a message very hard to find elsewhere.

[G L Wilson]

"A disturbing number of people even take it literally and consider it infallable, so discrediting the bible for being sexist, racist and homophobic is still valid. "

Of course it is. But simply rejecting the rest of it because of that is not. Ezra may be vile, but Amos or Hosea should rank among the world's greater moralists.
The overwhelming message of the New Testament, at least as far as human relations are concerned, is that self-sacrifice is the (I nearly said "crucial") critical requirement. That is a message very hard to find elsewhere.

You can take anything out of the Bible and turn it into a message of hope - that doesn't make it good.

[Whifflingpin]

"You can take anything out of the Bible and turn it into a message of hope - that doesn't make it good."

If the first part of your statement were true, then I think the second part would be false.

[stlukesguild]

You can take anything out of the Bible and turn it into a message of hope - that doesn't make it good.

Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it's a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe.
- Lex Luthor, Superman


The highest as the lowest form of criticism is a mode of autobiography...

All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril. Those who read the symbol do so at their peril. It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
-Picture of Dorian Gray, Oscar Wilde

[cl154576]

That's why I dislike the Christian religion more than any other religion except for perhaps Islam (I can't know for sure though, since I haven't read the koran yet). Page one: women are partial humans, manipulative and stupid and are the reason for all suffering on earth. Christians can wrap desperately complex pseudo-logic around all of the hatred, racism and misogyny in the bible all they want, most of us non-Christians who actually read the bible aren't buying it.

I found this website an interesting read ...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

[ftil]

I find the Bible quite sexist and racist in certain parts (if you disagree I can list them). The religious people I know tell me that that meaning evolves over time and these parts are no longer relevant today, although some people are more rigid in their interpretation.

Dante argues in the Divine Comedy that God, as perfection, is completely unchanging because if perfection were to change its only course could be toward imperfection.

Is this accurate? Can the Word of God ever "change"?

I don’t agree that meaning evolves over time. Religions and are very a powerful tools to shape our reality and influence our consciousness. But I wouldn’t limit it to the Bible as I have found unequal treatment of women in many religions. Somebody who says that it is not relevant today is in a big denial. :lol:


Can the Word of God ever "change"?

It is a very good question. But the word of God in the Bible is very different than words of gods in Buddhism or Hindu religion, for example.We may ask, therefore, where is the truth? Sadly, we have not been raised to question our religious beliefs but blindly follow.

[Drkshadow03]

I don't agree that racism is quite the right term for the events you probably have in mind. There are certainly sexist ideas in the Bible, but again having read some more recent scholarly criticism in Biblical Studies, many of the more well-known sexist episodes such as the supposed inferiority of women found in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 have far more nuance to it.

[G L Wilson]

I don't agree that racism is quite the right term for the events you probably have in mind. There are certainly sexist ideas in the Bible, but again having read some more recent scholarly criticism in Biblical Studies, many of the more well-known sexist episodes such as the supposed inferiority of women found in Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 have far more nuance to it.

Yeah, desire is forbidden - very subtle.

[Drkshadow03]

Yeah, desire is forbidden - very subtle.

Oh? Is that the correct interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3? I suppose one could interpret it that way.

It's more a story about the price of knowledge and growing up and the loss of Utopia and childhood innocence. But I really meant the nuance comment in relation to its supposed sexism. Nevertheless, given that I just showed a bunch of different interpretative angles from the one you offered in what is an extremely short story, yeah, nuance.

[cl154576]

To clarify, I meant sexist and racist by today's standards. I know it was very acceptable then but a lot of the ideas seem outdated – polygamy, incest, women as breeding animals, etc. It makes sense in the context of the stories but it falls short today.

I think there can only be nuance in those respects when one twists the words to what one wishes to see.

[G L Wilson]

Oh? Is that the correct interpretation of Genesis 2 and 3? I suppose one could interpret it that way.

It's more a story about the price of knowledge and growing up and the loss of Utopia and childhood innocence. But I really meant the nuance comment in relation to its supposed sexism. Nevertheless, given that I just showed a bunch of different interpretative angles from the one you offered in what is an extremely short story, yeah, nuance.

Eve is more human than human and then she is turned into a piece of filth by the judgement of a man - it's a flipping feminist text now, is it?

[BienvenuJDC]

Eve is more human than human and then she is turned into a piece of filth by the judgement of a man - it's a flipping feminist text now, is it?

Please explain how you come up with this conclusion.

[G L Wilson]

Please explain how you come up with this conclusion.

Man is supposedly created in the image of God, is he not?

[BienvenuJDC]

Man is supposedly created in the image of God, is he not?

Yes, but that means that 'mankind' is created in the image of God.

[Alexander III]

I agree there is far to much sexism in the bible. I mean, come on guys, there are several scenes with women which DO NOT take place in the kitchen. Seriously? I mean I am a liberal and all, but it's like the Bible is advocating us to let our women outside of the kitchen. Disgusting. And it wont end there, pretty soon they will shove their ideas like "women should not have to make sandwiches for men" down our throats. Absolute filth I say.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, but that means that 'mankind' is created in the image of God.

Is the Lord not a man of war? Is His Will not a necessity?

[ftil]

I agree there is far to much sexism in the bible. I mean, come on guys, there are several scenes with women which DO NOT take place in the kitchen. Seriously? I mean I am a liberal and all, but it's like the Bible is advocating us to let our women outside of the kitchen. Disgusting. And it wont end there, pretty soon they will shove their ideas like "women should not have to make sandwiches for men" down our throats. Absolute filth I say.

What is so disgusting? Are you saying that women should stay in the kitchen and make sandwiches for men? Is it your way of understanding sexism? :lol:

[Drkshadow03]

To clarify, I meant sexist and racist by today's standards. I know it was very acceptable then but a lot of the ideas seem outdated – polygamy, incest, women as breeding animals, etc. It makes sense in the context of the stories but it falls short today.

I think there can only be nuance in those respects when one twists the words to what one wishes to see.

Well, for starters you're confusing a lot of issues. Incest is generally frowned upon in the Bible; it's seen as a negative. Not to mention it's an issue that unfortunately still affects many people in the world today. So outdated is definitely the wrong word here.

Moving on to the two issues that generally people bring up in Genesis 2 and 3. In Genesis 2, many object to the woman (Eve) being created as a helper and believe this implies an inferior status (sort along the lines of a servant). She is just there to help the man. The problem here is the Hebrew word for "helper" is also a word frequently used for God in Psalms and other parts of the Bible. The Hebrew term itself doesn't automatically imply subservience. In fact, I would suggest the term helper implies a partner.

In Genesis 3, the issue that comes up is generally at the end when punishments are being given; although perhaps consequences are a better word. In many translations you get (JPS):


And to the woman He said, “I will make most severe
Your pangs in childbearing;
In pain shall you bear children.
Yet your urge shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” - Genesis 3:16

However, well-respected feminist Biblical scholar Carol Meyers suggests the beginning part of the translation should actually be:


“I will greatly increase your work and your pregnancies; along with work you shall give birth to children.”

There is no denying this is a much softer translation. Likewise, I've read many Biblical scholars who agree that Meyers translation is more accurate and better captures the gist of the Hebrew. The idea of what is taking place changes too. Women who due to nature bear children also have to work to bring in the crop if both men and women (people) want to survive in a desert climate. If we look at the man's punishment, which has to is that the ground is cursed outside the Utopian garden and his toil to plant and survive will be a struggle, it becomes clear they basically have the same punishment, with certain differences in gender being acknowledged. They both can no longer remain in the Garden where planting is easy (the ideal Utopia of a desert community), but must leave to a cursed land (a desert environment) where planting will be difficult and hard work. Since women also have children, they will have double the burden.

The lines that follow for the woman: "Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" is a description of sexual desire in the context of this new turn of events. Even though, it'll be an extreme burden having to work and produce children, even though there is a decent chance the woman might die from childbirth (without modern medicine), she will still have sexual desires for her husband and those desires will rule over her. Now clearly this isn't radical feminism, nor was it meant to be, despite G L Wilson's exasperation over his imaginary strawmen in which in his confusion he thinks that is what we're talking about. In this interpretation, women are still being defined by their procreative ability and it contains a statement that reifies women's sexuality in a very particular way that we might still call sexist.

Nevertheless, when we consider fundamentalist interpretations of lines like "he shall rule over you" as specifically meaning "women should obey men without question and men will make all the decisions" I think most people would agree this a much softer and less sexist understanding of the text, even if it certainly isn't perfect gender relations.

Ultimately, while not a perfect text, I do think the text strives for a certain amount of equality between the man and the woman, more then we tend to notice given the traditional English translations and the long sexist interpretive history. The most poignant moment of the text occurs at the end. In the end, Eve is the first named character in the Bible. It’s not the man who is first named, but the first woman who receives a name. What about Adam? As I understand it, Adam simply is a Hebrew word for "man," and it is only tradition that renders this as his actual name. Every time you see Adam in the Bible what it actually says is "The man did this . . ." Our first woman, on the other hand, is actually named: Eve, the mother of all living. While, yes, it's still focusing on female procreative abilities, it's hard to read this and believe women are being presented as inferior or less than human, that's certainly not what I pick up from the tone. The tone of the ending reads extremely positive to me.

It's not always a matter of twisting words. Rather it is often a process of finding better translations or viable interpretations (which assumes there can be more than one) based on what the text actually says, or a combination of both in some cases.

[G L Wilson]

Well, for starters you're confusing a lot of issues. Incest is generally frowned upon in the Bible; it's seen as a negative. Not to mention it's an issue that unfortunately still affects many people in the world today. So outdated is definitely the wrong word here.

Moving on to the two issues that generally people bring up in Genesis 2 and 3. In Genesis 2, many object to the woman (Eve) being created as a helper and believe this implies an inferior status (sort along the lines of a servant). She is just there to help the man. The problem here is the Hebrew word for "helper" is also a word frequently used for God in Psalms and other parts of the Bible. The Hebrew term itself doesn't automatically imply subservience. In fact, I would suggest the term helper implies a partner.

In Genesis 3, the issue that comes up is generally at the end when punishments are being given; although perhaps consequences are a better word. In many translations you get (JPS):



However, well-respected feminist Biblical scholar Carol Meyers suggests the beginning part of the translation should actually be:



There is no denying this is a much softer translation. Likewise, I've read many Biblical scholars who agree that Meyers translation is more accurate and better captures the gist of the Hebrew. The idea of what is taking place changes too. Women who due to nature bear children also have to work to bring in the crop if both men and women (people) want to survive in a desert climate. If we look at the man's punishment, which has to is that the ground is cursed outside the Utopian garden and his toil to plant and survive will be a struggle, it becomes clear they basically have the same punishment, with certain differences in gender being acknowledged. They both can no longer remain in the Garden where planting is easy (the ideal Utopia of a desert community), but must leave to a cursed land (a desert environment) where planting will be difficult and hard work. Since women also have children, they will have double the burden.

The lines that follow for the woman: "Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" is a description of sexual desire in the context of this new turn of events. Even though, it'll be an extreme burden having to work and produce children, even though there is a decent chance the woman might die from childbirth (without modern medicine), she will still have sexual desires for her husband and those desires will rule over her. Now clearly this isn't radical feminism, nor was it meant to be, despite G L Wilson's exasperation over his imaginary strawmen in which in his confusion he thinks that is what we're talking about. In this interpretation, women are still being defined by their procreative ability and it contains a statement that reifies women's sexuality in a very particular way that we might still call sexist.

Nevertheless, when we consider fundamentalist interpretations of lines like "he shall rule over you" as specifically meaning "women should obey men without question and men will make all the decisions" I think most people would agree this a much softer and less sexist understanding of the text, even if it certainly isn't perfect gender relations.

Ultimately, while not a perfect text, I do think the text strives for a certain amount of equality between the man and the woman, more then we tend to notice given the traditional English translations and the long sexist interpretive history. The most poignant moment of the text occurs at the end. In the end, Eve is the first named character in the Bible. It’s not the man who is first named, but the first woman who receives a name. What about Adam? As I understand it, Adam simply is a Hebrew word for "man," and it is only tradition that renders this as his actual name. Every time you see Adam in the Bible what it actually says is "The man did this . . ." Our first woman, on the other hand, is actually named: Eve, the mother of all living. While, yes, it's still focusing on female procreative abilities, it's hard to read this and believe women are being presented as inferior or less than human, that's certainly not what I pick up from the tone. The tone of the ending reads extremely positive to me.

It's not always a matter of twisting words. Rather it is often a process of finding better translations or viable interpretations (which assumes there can be more than one) based on what the text actually says, or a combination of both in some cases.

A trick, a twist: a tender heart and an unfathomable abyss.

[cl154576]

Well, for starters you're confusing a lot of issues. Incest is generally frowned upon in the Bible; it's seen as a negative. Not to mention it's an issue that unfortunately still affects many people in the world today. So outdated is definitely the wrong word here.

I meant what would be incest today ... marrying cousins, for instance. And what happened with Lot and his daughters. And the Bible does tend to portray its women as being nothing more than reproductive utensils. I am quite disgusted by how promiscuous the women can be in their desire to "continue the family line." Of course these issues were common then, and still affect people today, but the general view has changed.

[Delta40]

There is nothing ethical about a psychopath.

You're a psychiatrist now I see.

[G L Wilson]

You're a psychiatrist now I see.

And what would you call God, honey bunny perhaps?!

[cl154576]

There is nothing ethical about a psychopath.

But there is something ethical about a sociopath ...
What if mankind drove our Creator to madness? That would be quite an accomplishment. It would even off the debt.

[Delta40]

And what would you call God, honey bunny perhaps?!

:lol: You say tomatoe I say tomato... This is your thread so what I call God isn't relevant. I just reckon its pretty hard to offically diagnose a deity

[stlukesguild]

Drkshadow03... you certainly are aware of the documentary hypothesis concerning the various authors of the Torah... as well as the so-called Court Historian. Any number of scholars have explored just what aspects of the Biblical texts are by the so-called J-Author or Jahwist and what was edited or interpolated by later religious scholars. Have you read Harold Bloom's The J Author which suggests that the Jahwist (and possibly the Court Historian) were actually female writers? Part of his argument rests upon the repetitive motif of the flawed male leader and the strong females characters. I must admit that the theory is fascinating... especially when we consider the patriarchal aspects of the Hebrew Bible as a whole as well as the misogyny of a figure such as Paul.

[G L Wilson]

:lol: You say tomatoe I say tomato... This is your thread so what I call God isn't relevant. I just reckon its pretty hard to offically diagnose a deity

I do it all the time, the man's crazy.

[Delta40]

aww! have a hug (and a beer) :grouphug: :cheers2:

[G L Wilson]

Drkshadow03... you certainly are aware of the documentary hypothesis concerning the various authors of the Torah... as well as the so-called Court Historian. Any number of scholars have explored just what aspects of the Biblical texts are by the so-called J-Author or Jahwist and what was edited or interpolated by later religious scholars. Have you read Harold Bloom's The J Author which suggests that the Jahwist (and possibly the Court Historian) were actually female writers? Part of his argument rests upon the repetitive motif of the flawed male leader and the strong females characters. I must admit that the theory is fascinating... especially when we consider the patriarchal aspects of the Hebrew Bible as a whole as well as the misogyny of a figure such as Paul.

I give up, perhaps they were all into sheep. Who knows?

[BienvenuJDC]

Drkshadow03... you certainly are aware of the documentary hypothesis concerning the various authors of the Torah... as well as the so-called Court Historian. Any number of scholars have explored just what aspects of the Biblical texts are by the so-called J-Author or Jahwist and what was edited or interpolated by later religious scholars. Have you read Harold Bloom's The J Author which suggests that the Jahwist (and possibly the Court Historian) were actually female writers? Part of his argument rests upon the repetitive motif of the flawed male leader and the strong females characters. I must admit that the theory is fascinating... especially when we consider the patriarchal aspects of the Hebrew Bible as a whole as well as the misogyny of a figure such as Paul.

Or maybe....just maybe, Moses was guided by Jehovah Himself, and the flawed male is just an accurate account.

[G L Wilson]

Or maybe....just maybe, Moses was guided by Jehovah Himself, and the flawed male is just an accurate account.

And perhaps Moses never was.

[Drkshadow03]

Drkshadow03... you certainly are aware of the documentary hypothesis concerning the various authors of the Torah... as well as the so-called Court Historian. Any number of scholars have explored just what aspects of the Biblical texts are by the so-called J-Author or Jahwist and what was edited or interpolated by later religious scholars. Have you read Harold Bloom's The J Author which suggests that the Jahwist (and possibly the Court Historian) were actually female writers? Part of his argument rests upon the repetitive motif of the flawed male leader and the strong females characters. I must admit that the theory is fascinating... especially when we consider the patriarchal aspects of the Hebrew Bible as a whole as well as the misogyny of a figure such as Paul.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet read Bloom's book, although I'm familiar with it and some of its ideas thanks to Jersea or maybe YesNo or maybe someone else who kept mentioning it(?) during the short-lived Bible Literature Discussion Group. I think anyone trying to study the Bible and understand it accurately needs to be aware of the documentary hypothesis.

[stlukesguild]

Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible takes the Documentary Hypothesis one step further. The J-Writer/Jahwist and the Court Historian are credited with two of the largest portions of the Hebrew Bible... and many (including Bloom) felt that the two were the strongest voices in the early books of the Bible. Bloom, if I recall correctly, suggested that both writers may indeed have been women of the court... aware of each other's work. Friedman suggests the similarity between the two is owed to the fact that they are in reality a single writer. His argument is based greatly upon the use of specific vocabulary and other aspects of the text. If correct, the Jahwist/Court Historian could be credited as virtually the first novelist, having composed a single continuous narrative in which the the history of the Hebrew people would be traced from the very creation of the world on through Saul, David, and Solomon and into the period of decline in which the author/s lived.

[BienvenuJDC]

And perhaps Moses never was.

Perhaps G L Wilson doesn't exist? Maybe it's just the fabrication of artificial intelligence?

[cl154576]

Perhaps G L Wilson doesn't exist? Maybe it's just the fabrication of artificial intelligence?

First, what is G L Wilson? From America, running a Google search the first thing I see is a building company; I would imagine that exists.

[G L Wilson]

First, what is G L Wilson? From America, running a Google search the first thing I see is a building company; I would imagine that exists.

I am very glad that I am a building company, I was worried there for a moment.

[G L Wilson]

Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible takes the Documentary Hypothesis one step further. The J-Writer/Jahwist and the Court Historian are credited with two of the largest portions of the Hebrew Bible... and many (including Bloom) felt that the two were the strongest voices in the early books of the Bible. Bloom, if I recall correctly, suggested that both writers may indeed have been women of the court... aware of each other's work. Friedman suggests the similarity between the two is owed to the fact that they are in reality a single writer. His argument is based greatly upon the use of specific vocabulary and other aspects of the text. If correct, the Jahwist/Court Historian could be credited as virtually the first novelist, having composed a single continuous narrative in which the the history of the Hebrew people would be traced from the very creation of the world on through Saul, David, and Solomon and into the period of decline in which the author/s lived.

And there is absolutely no proof of any of it.

[Delta40]

Perhaps G L Wilson doesn't exist? Maybe it's just the fabrication of artificial intelligence?

Honest to God mate there are ALOT of GL Wilsons in Australia :svengo:

[cl154576]

I am very glad that I am a building company, I was worried there for a moment.

Of course. What is one, without a building company to define one?


We don’t just build structures. We build relationships. We build trust and respect. We build long-lasting friendships.

Here at G.L. Wilson Building Company, headquartered in Statesville, NC, and licensed in 21 states, we believe skill, responsibility and integrity are as important in the construction process as brick, mortar and steel. Since 1945, from the largest industrial complex to the smallest single office structure, we’ve based our business on this belief.

It seems to be working.

When I search my username I only find myself, on this site. Apparently I'm the only one obsessed with 154576. :sad:

[G L Wilson]

Honest to God mate there are ALOT of GL Wilsons in Australia :svengo:

Oh, God, no, now I have multiple personality disorder.

[Stanislaw]

Perhaps G L Wilson doesn't exist? Maybe it's just the fabrication of artificial intelligence?

Perhaps some relation to the infamous CleverBot (http://cleverbot.com/)? :lol:

[Delta40]

Oh, God, no, now I have multiple personality disorder.

:lol: multiple personalities all with the same point of view!

[Drkshadow03]

Richard Elliott Friedman's The Hidden Book in the Bible takes the Documentary Hypothesis one step further. The J-Writer/Jahwist and the Court Historian are credited with two of the largest portions of the Hebrew Bible... and many (including Bloom) felt that the two were the strongest voices in the early books of the Bible. Bloom, if I recall correctly, suggested that both writers may indeed have been women of the court... aware of each other's work. Friedman suggests the similarity between the two is owed to the fact that they are in reality a single writer. His argument is based greatly upon the use of specific vocabulary and other aspects of the text. If correct, the Jahwist/Court Historian could be credited as virtually the first novelist, having composed a single continuous narrative in which the the history of the Hebrew people would be traced from the very creation of the world on through Saul, David, and Solomon and into the period of decline in which the author/s lived.

I find arguments like this fascinating, but they're a bit more speculative than I would prefer. The Documentary Hypothesis is great, but I feel like sometimes scholars can get a little too caught up in trying to argue who composed this portion of the work, while ignoring what this episode in the text means.


I meant what would be incest today ... marrying cousins, for instance. And what happened with Lot and his daughters. And the Bible does tend to portray its women as being nothing more than reproductive utensils. I am quite disgusted by how promiscuous the women can be in their desire to "continue the family line." Of course these issues were common then, and still affect people today, but the general view has changed.

Oh, I don't know CL. It seems to me what happens to Lot and his daughters is presented as negative. And I think there are more diverse portrayals of women in the Bible than they are just genetic receptacles. Although granted that in many cases it is sexual appeal that allow women to enact some of these other behaviors.

[Calidore]

:lol: multiple personalities all with the same point of view!

That would make it easier to win arguments. Even in a one-on-one debate, you'd have them outnumbered.

[ftil]

Oh, I don't know CL. It seems to me what happens to Lot and his daughters is presented as negative. And I think there are more diverse portrayals of women in the Bible than they are just genetic receptacles.

It is negative and I think that it is unreal. Do women have such a strong maternal instinct to act like Lot’s daughter for the sake of satisfying their instinct? I doubt but maybe I am wrong. :D But in the Bible it is not presented as a negative behavior and I am asking who really wrote it.



Although granted that in many cases it is sexual appeal that allow women to enact some of these other behaviors.

I am not sure what have in your mind. I find it quite disturbing that religions tell us what we should do or not to do as if we didn’t have inner values and minds that would guide us but we need external authority to do so. It is very disempowering. It doesn’t only applies to the Bible .

[BienvenuJDC]

I am not sure what have in your mind. I find it quite disturbing that religions tell us what we should do or not to do as if we didn’t have inner values and minds that would guide us but we need external authority to do so. It is very disempowering. It doesn’t only applies to the Bible .

That is interesting...you actually think that an individual's inner self should be solely relied on for the moral guide? In that case, each person will be allowed to guide their own steps...that includes the rapist and murderer.

[Drkshadow03]

It is negative and I think that it is unreal. Do women have such a strong maternal instinct to act like Lot’s daughter for the sake of satisfying their instinct? I doubt but maybe I am wrong. :D But in the Bible it is not presented as a negative behavior and I am asking who really wrote it.

Well, I think you're right that we could definitely question the realism or likelihood of such an act, but the daughters' desires for their father is definitely presented as a negative in the text. As we already covered, they conspire to date rape him (to put it in modern terms). And then the children they produce Moab (father of the Moabites) and Ben-ammi (Father of the Ammonites) are historical enemies of the Israelites who were the audience for this text. Although, at times the Moabites aren't so much enemies as indifferent next door neighbors. The text is one giant slanderous joke at the expense of these traditional enemies/cultural neighbors. Once we recognize this fact, it's obvious incest isn't being presented as a positive, otherwise the slanderous joke fails to work. Even their names are literary jokes: Moab = "from father" and Ben-ammi = "son of my kindred."







I am not sure what have in your mind. I find it quite disturbing that religions tell us what we should do or not to do as if we didn’t have inner values and minds that would guide us but we need external authority to do so. It is very disempowering. It doesn’t only applies to the Bible .

Why do you find that disturbing? You weren't born with inner values and your mind wasn't born ready from the womb to guide you through the world. Your parents taught you these skills, your public or private schools, your religion, your friends, the television, the larger popular culture, your environment, the ideas of other people via books, etc.

[ftil]

Drkshadow03 wrote:

Why do you find that disturbing? You weren't born with inner values and your mind wasn't born ready from the womb to guide you through the world. Your parents taught you these skills, your public or private schools, your religion, your friends, the television, the larger popular culture, your environment, the ideas of other people via books, etc.

Hm…..I wasn’t born with those values. I agree that we have learned those values at home, school, TV, and church. However, I don’t view it as a positive. Schools don’t teach us to question authority. In fact, research has shown that 2/3 of people in US don’t have the ability to think critically at all. The research I have mentioned were done 10 years ago and I am afraid that today the number is higher. Secondly, TV or movies indoctrinate us how we should live our life. Unfortunately, most people accept it without questioning and blindly follow it. Thirdly, church doesn’t teach us to question religious teachings but blindly follow. I grew up in catholic family and those belifes were imposed upon me. I was indoctrinated at home and church to live in fear of God. It is not positive, isn’t it? We don’t learn at school or church to become empowered human beings who have internal locus of control. We are indoctrinated to be followers who don’t think for themselves. In other words, we are programmed to be insecure and insecure people need teachers, authority, or gurus. Otherwise, they are lost. I see it as a very clever way to control us.

Alan Watts said it all.

“Insecure society are the most intolerant….So unsure of the validity of their game rules. Everybody must play the rule. We become conformist ………..Everybody is equally inferior”.


Alan Watts on Hermits and Outcasts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK5RaHpI4M8

[Drkshadow03]

Hm…..I wasn’t born with those values. I agree that we have learned those values at home, school, TV, and church. However, I don’t view it as a positive. Schools don’t teach us to question authority. In fact, research has shown that 2/3 of people in US don’t have the ability to think critically at all. The research I have mentioned were done 10 years ago and I am afraid that today the number is higher. Secondly, TV or movies indoctrinate us how we should live our life. Unfortunately, most people accept it without questioning and blindly follow it. Thirdly, church doesn’t teach us to question religious teachings but blindly follow. I grew up in catholic family and those belifes were imposed upon me. I was indoctrinated at home and church to live in fear of God. It is not positive, isn’t it? We don’t learn at school or church to become empowered human beings who have internal locus of control. We are indoctrinated to be followers who don’t think for themselves. In other words, we are programmed to be insecure and insecure people need teachers, authority, or gurus. Otherwise, they are lost. I see it as a very clever way to control us.

Alan Watts said it all.

“Insecure society are the most intolerant….So unsure of the validity of their game rules. Everybody must play the rule. We become conformist ………..Everybody is equally inferior”.


Alan Watts on Hermits and Outcasts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK5RaHpI4M8

Well, since it's unavoidable I would think it's neither positive or negative. It simply is the way it works. I would think the lack of critical thinking skills in those studies has far more to do with Americans in general not valuing education, except as a means to getting a job.

I agree that schools teach children to obey, to sit their butts in a chair, be quiet, listen, and hopefully learn in the process. But the thing is a five year old doesn't know much about anything, neither does a twelve year old for that matter. You can't be much of critical thinker if you don't have certain basic knowledge to be able to evaluate arguments.

Secondly, to interpret media most people need someone to teach them HOW to interpret media, which means they need to rely on some authority at first to help teach and develop the necessary skills to be autonomous.

Thirdly, I would imagine it all depends on your religion and your parents approach to it. I found my religious experiences to be nothing but positive experiences for the most part.

[cl154576]

A five year old doesn't know much about anything, neither does a twelve year old for that matter. You can't be much of critical thinker if you don't have certain basic knowledge to be able to evaluate arguments.

How is this certain basic knowledge defined?

[ftil]

Drkshadow03 wrote:

Well, since it's unavoidable I would think it's neither positive or negative. It simply is the way it works. I would think the lack of critical thinking skills in those studies has far more to do with Americans in general not valuing education, except as a means to getting a job.


I would argue that. You accept it as it is rather than challenging it. Please don’t forget that critical thinking is a skill that can be learned. If children are not encouraged to question any authority, they become obedient adults who don’t dare to question, either.They will accept any theory that is developed by the authority who has many letters behind his name. They don’t even think about questioning scientists. The changes in educational system were introduced in 50’s. Fortunately, there are people who are aware of the changes in educational system with its consequences as there are research done on this subject.


I agree that schools teach children to obey, to sit their butts in a chair, be quiet, listen, and hopefully learn in the process. But the thing is a five year old doesn't know much about anything, neither does a twelve year old for that matter. You can't be much of critical thinker if you don't have certain basic knowledge to be able to evaluate arguments.

Well, you are talking about children. I talk about adults who can’t think critically. :lol:


Secondly, to interpret media most people need someone to teach them HOW to interpret media, which means they need to rely on some authority at first to help teach and develop the necessary skills to be autonomous.

Yes, and they don’t have anybody who would teach them. No wonder most people are just followers and conformists.


Thirdly, I would imagine it all depends on your religion and your parents approach to it. I found my religious experiences to be nothing but positive experiences for the most part.

I would strongly argue that. I grew in catholic family but later I explored Buddhism, Hindu religion, and New Age. It is the same as we take a deeper look.

[Drkshadow03]

How is this certain basic knowledge defined?

2+2 = 4; Abraham Lincoln was President during the Civil War of the United States; the world's three major monotheistic religions are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; an object at rest stays at rest unless a force acts upon it, while an object in motion stays in motion unless a force acts upon it, and we call this Newton's First Law; a Ferrari is a type of car manufactured in Italy; Babe Ruth was a baseball player who set the home run record.


I would argue that. You accept it as it is rather than challenging it. Please don’t forget that critical thinking is a skill that can be learned.

Oh, but that last sentence in the quote is exactly my point. You can teach critical thinking skills, but in order to teach them in the first place you need to rely on an authority to do the teaching. You need to have basic knowledge about the subject, which ultimately will have been provided to you by an authoritative figure. Before one can engage in critical thinking, one needs to know something about the subject. Critical thinking is not about questioning authority necessarily, although it's possible it can take that form, but rather critical thinking is being reflective about your learning, being careful in evaluating evidence, and knowing how to ask the right questions (not just any question).

Any dope can ask questions that challenge authority. In fact, people do it all the time and come up with the craziest conspiracy theories. I'm sure 9//11 conspiracy nuts and Holocaust deniers all think they're stupendous critical thinkers.

[ftil]

Oh, but that last sentence in the quote is exactly my point. You can teach critical thinking skills, but in order to teach them in the first place you need to rely on an authority to do the teaching. You need to have basic knowledge about the subject, which ultimately will have been provided to you by an authoritative figure. Before one can engage in critical thinking, one needs to know something about the subject. Critical thinking is not about questioning authority necessarily, although it's possible it can take that form, but rather critical thinking is being reflective about your learning, being careful in evaluating evidence, and knowing how to ask the right questions (not just any question).

Any dope can ask questions that challenge authority. In fact, people do it all the time and come up with the craziest conspiracy theories. I'm sure 9//11 conspiracy nuts and Holocaust deniers all think they're stupendous critical thinkers.

Yes, children need teachers to learn critical thinking. My point was that teachers don’t teach them as most of them don’t have that ability. You can’t teach if you don’t know. LOL! Secondly, children and respectively adults don’t question. I agree that critical thinking is different that questioning authority. But we have not been encouraged to question authority and it is necessary to do so. Otherwise, we become followers and repeaters void of creative thinking. Secondly, many so called authorities can’t stand any criticism as they become defensive, discouraging others to further question.

I think that we have a different understanding of what questioning authority means.I will give you an example what I mean by questioning. I have seen Nassim Haramein's a few videos and my intuition was screaming out loud that something is not right. I am not a physicist but I went through a pain of reading discussion of physicists who step by step have showed the absurdity of his theory. My head was spinning as I tried hard to understand higher physics. :lol: Many people have enthusiastically accepted his”groundbreaking’ theory because….it resonated with them. No critical thinking, no asking questions.

I agree that we need to ask questions and we can’t stop asking questions. It requires evaluating all beliefs we hold as truth. Unfortunately, many people never progress in their personal growth but settle down with beliefs that were imposed upon them. It is sad because they will never reach primal creativity but a secondary one. BTW, many scientists have only reached secondary creativity.

Regarding conspiracy theories, I agree that many of them wrongly believe that they think critically which only shows the extent of the problem.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes, children need teachers to learn critical thinking. My point was that teachers don’t teach them as most of them don’t have that ability. You can’t teach if you don’t know. LOL! Secondly, children and respectively adults don’t question. I agree that critical thinking is different that questioning authority. But we have not been encouraged to question authority and it is necessary to do so. Otherwise, we become followers and repeaters void of creative thinking. Secondly, many so called authorities can’t stand any criticism as they become defensive, discouraging others to further question.

I think that we have a different understanding of what questioning authority means.I will give you an example what I mean by questioning. I have seen Nassim Haramein's a few videos and my intuition was screaming out loud that something is not right. I am not a physicist but I went through a pain of reading discussion of physicists who step by step have showed the absurdity of his theory. My head was spinning as I tried hard to understand higher physics. :lol: Many people have enthusiastically accepted his”groundbreaking’ theory because….it resonated with them. No critical thinking, no asking questions.

I agree that we need to ask questions and we can’t stop asking questions. It requires evaluating all beliefs we hold as truth. Unfortunately, many people never progress in their personal growth but settle down with beliefs that were imposed upon them. It is sad because they will never reach primal creativity but a secondary one. BTW, many scientists have only reached secondary creativity.

Regarding conspiracy theories, I agree that many of them wrongly believe that they think critically which only shows the extent of the problem.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, I would add that while I think we should be willing to question all our beliefs and authority, that doesn't always necessarily mean we should do so just to do it.

It turns out with the peer review process, different field's methodologies (such as the Scientific Method, which when practiced correctly should be self-correcting), and how knowledge and understanding changes with time, authorities in their respective fields are often correct. That doesn't mean we should accept the ideas of any authority just because they're authorities. We should accept them because we have evaluated their arguments and found the evidence supports their contentions. In other words, a large part of critical thinking also involves understanding when to accept an authority on a subject and why.

[ftil]

I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, I would add that while I think we should be willing to question all our beliefs and authority, that doesn't always necessarily mean we should do so just to do it.


I would argue that as questioning is an integral aspect of our personal growth. As we progress we have a very different approach to any authority. It is very freeing, indeed.



It turns out with the peer review process, different field's methodologies (such as the Scientific Method, which when practiced correctly should be self-correcting), and how knowledge and understanding changes with time, authorities in their respective fields are often correct. That doesn't mean we should accept the ideas of any authority just because they're authorities. We should accept them because we have evaluated their arguments and found the evidence supports their contentions. In other words, a large part of critical thinking also involves understanding when to accept an authority on a subject and why.


Yes, therefore we have peer review that is published in professional journals so that we can access it and read. It is important to do it as there are many pseudo scientists who push their own theory. For example, some argue that Quantum Physics is involved with consciousness and spirituality. LOL! Recently, I have read a few chapters about plasma weapon from The Electric Universe by David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. I was laughing out loud how the authors made far fetched conclusions that were based on mythology. They think that people are stupid and they can’t look at mythology and verify it. :lol: But perhaps many wouldn’t even bother to do so. I call it a mental paralysis.

[G L Wilson]

The God of the Bible is very tribal, no-one could deny this.

[BienvenuJDC]

The God of the Bible is very tribal, no-one could deny this.

I guess you'd have to elaborate on what you mean by 'tribal'. I may deny it, but like usual your comments are incomplete thoughts without any substantiation.

[G L Wilson]

I guess you'd have to elaborate on what you mean by 'tribal'. I may deny it, but like usual your comments are incomplete thoughts without any substantiation.

Tribal = exclusive, loyal to a group, etc.

[BienvenuJDC]

Tribal = exclusive, loyal to a group, etc.

Ok....then I definitely deny it. The covenant with Israel was only for the purpose of bringing the Christ. If you would actually read books like Jonah & the whole New Testament, you'd see that God's grace is for all mankind.

[G L Wilson]

Ok....then I definitely deny it. The covenant with Israel was only for the purpose of bringing the Christ. If you would actually read books like Jonah & the whole New Testament, you'd see that God's grace is for all mankind.

I don't believe in universals, and if you reassessed, you would say so too.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't believe in universals, and if you reassessed, you would say so too.

You don't believe in lots of things that are true.

[G L Wilson]

You don't believe in lots of things that are true.

LOL. You have a sense of humour after all.

[JuniperWoolf]

That is interesting...you actually think that an individual's inner self should be solely relied on for the moral guide? In that case, each person will be allowed to guide their own steps...that includes the rapist and murderer.

That's right, because there's no such thing as a CHRISTIAN rapist or murderer.

[BienvenuJDC]

That's right, because there's no such thing as a CHRISTIAN rapist or murderer.

You're right, there isn't. Anyone who is ACTING like a Christian doesn't rape OR murder.

[G L Wilson]

You're right, there isn't. Anyone who is ACTING like a Christian doesn't rape OR murder.

Christians can be hypocrites though right?

[BienvenuJDC]

Christians can be hypocrites though right?

I will openly admit that there are MANY MANY MANY hypocritical Christians. They are of varying degrees. But you cannot find anywhere that Christianity condones rape or murder.

[cl154576]

You cannot find anywhere that Christianity condones rape or murder.

... Except when God kills a whole group of people for being un-Christian.
http://drunkwithblood.com/dwb-table-of-Gods-killings.html

[BienvenuJDC]

... Except when God kills a whole group of people for being un-Christian.
http://drunkwithblood.com/dwb-table-of-Gods-killings.html

I don't think that you realize that Christianity was not established during any of this. Since God is the Creator of all of mankind, I don't think that you can equate His actions as murder either. Since the Mind of God is far beyond our comprehension, I cannot even fathom His purposes or His actions. Nevertheless, the purpose of Christianity is not to judge, but to redeem. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind. Judgment is concluded by the nature of sin, and sin itself condemns one to death by separating one from God, who is the source of life. It is sin that corrupts the soul. But it is a hard thing for people to understand spiritual things when they don't want to see spiritual things.

[G L Wilson]

Sin is a very strange thing to corrupt the soul, I must say.

[BienvenuJDC]

Sin is a very strange thing to corrupt the soul, I must say.

Would you agree that "hatred" corrupts the soul? Even if we define the soul as the mind and heart of a person and not an eternal existence.

[cl154576]

Since God is the Creator of all of mankind, I don't think that you can equate His actions as murder either.

Why not?
The torment of murderers may also be beyond our comprehension. That does not exempt them from the death penalty.


But it is a hard thing for people to understand spiritual things when they don't want to see spiritual things.

Religion is not the only spiritualism. I have had many spiritual experiences and I cherish them.

I saw your post on the other thread (How is religion supposed to give meaning to life?). I respect that you are religious. I simply have different views. I don't mean to disrespect your faith or force my opinions on anyone.

[cl154576]

Would you agree that "hatred" corrupts the soul? Even if we define the soul as the mind and heart of a person and not an eternal existence.

Why should it? Who ever lived, without feeling hatred?
Is the soul corruptible?

[BienvenuJDC]

I respect that you are religious. I simply have different views. I don't mean to disrespect your faith or force my opinions on anyone.

And I do appreciate that. I can respect one's belief concerning God, no god, or even some other version of God/god, however they wish to believe. Paul espouses the Buddhist views (either some, most or all), while there are others who have once believed in Christianity may choose to believe only some. We are all different, and we should be able to voice our opinions to one's question without being treated like we are stupid for believing that. I am sometimes as guilty as everyone else concerning this, but this is not my endeavor. I think that we all need to step back and be able to respect each other, while also being able to say, "I don't believe the same, but that's okay."

Thank you for your respect.

[G L Wilson]

Would you agree that "hatred" corrupts the soul? Even if we define the soul as the mind and heart of a person and not an eternal existence.

Ignorance is the only sin that I recognise.

[Drkshadow03]

Ignorance is the only sin that I recognise.

Ah, irony. :rolleyes:

[G L Wilson]

And I do appreciate that. I can respect one's belief concerning God, no god, or even some other version of God/god, however they wish to believe. Paul espouses the Buddhist views (either some, most or all), while there are others who have once believed in Christianity may choose to believe only some. We are all different, and we should be able to voice our opinions to one's question without being treated like we are stupid for believing that. I am sometimes as guilty as everyone else concerning this, but this is not my endeavor. I think that we all need to step back and be able to respect each other, while also being able to say, "I don't believe the same, but that's okay."

Thank you for your respect.

How cute! The religious are always willing to start fights but never finish them.

[G L Wilson]

Ah, irony. :rolleyes:

No, truth.

[Drkshadow03]

No, truth.

Truth or facts require evidence, which none of your posts ever contain.

[BienvenuJDC]

How cute! The religious are always willing to start fights but never finish them.

It doesn't really seem profitable for anyone to start OR finish fights. There are some fights that are worth fighting, but few of them (if any) are here on this forum. It is true that many religious people start fights, but it is not exclusive with them (us).

[G L Wilson]

Truth or facts require evidence, which none of your posts ever contain.

Evidence! Christ, you must be joking.

[G L Wilson]

It doesn't really seem profitable for anyone to start OR finish fights. There are some fights that are worth fighting, but few of them (if any) are here on this forum. It is true that many religious people start fights, but it is not exclusive with them (us).

I cannot see a sacrifice worthy of peace, can you?

[Drkshadow03]

Evidence! Christ, you must be joking.

So then you're not planning to start including evidence in your posts?

[G L Wilson]

So then you're not planning to start including evidence in your posts?

Do you?

[cl154576]

How cute! The religious are always willing to start fights but never finish them.

Religious ideas do not change so easily. I may not respect the ideas themselves, but I respect that I cannot change the people who believe in them. Fighting simply for the sake of fighting is a waste of time. Maybe when I have completely given up on life I would do that, but I hope for your sake that you do not feel that way.

[cl154576]

Truth or facts require evidence, which none of your posts ever contain.

His post – Ignorance is the only sin that I recognise.

Would you contest what he recognizes or does not recognize?

[Drkshadow03]

Do you?

Most of my posts include evidence actually (when relevant), but I know that might confuse you.


His post – Ignorance is the only sin that I recognise.

Would you contest what he recognizes or does not recognize?

Like I said, I find the statement extremely ironic coming from him.

[cl154576]

Most of my posts include evidence actually (when relevant), but I know that might confuse you.

Once more, does he need proof to put forth an opinion as an opinion?

I like the color black. Do I need proof for that?

Unfortunately, G L tends to state a lot of opinions as facts. However, this time he was actually stating it as an opinion, which should be recognized. You can find it ironic but there is no need for evidence until he turns to persuasion.

[Drkshadow03]

Once more, does he need proof to put forth an opinion as an opinion?

I like the color black. Do I need proof for that?

Unfortunately, G L tends to state a lot of opinions as facts. However, this time he was actually stating it as an opinion, which should be recognized.

All I said in relation to that specific post is that I found such a statement extremely ironic coming from his mouth, even borderline comical, not that it wasn't true he believed that ignorance is the only sin (and apparently not rape or murder or genocide) or that I required evidence that he really holds that opinion.

My comment about evidence relates to his five-word rants in general, not that post in particular.

[G L Wilson]

All I said in relation to that specific post is that I found such a statement extremely ironic coming from his mouth, even borderline comical, not that it wasn't true he believed that ignorance is the only sin (and apparently not rape or murder or genocide) or that I required evidence that he really holds that opinion.

My comment about evidence relates to his five-word rants in general, not that post in particular.

What makes you less ignorant than me? Is it not an assumption itself, drawn without evidence, that I am more peasant than gentleman? How am I funny to you? What makes you laugh at me? Do you imagine me standing on my head as I type out these letters? Am I a joke that you find funny? Am I drunk and foolish, crazed enough for you to dismiss me as illogical? Am I like you?

[Drkshadow03]

What makes you less ignorant than me?

I've never claimed "ignorance is the only sin" in a world where people suffer from horrific crimes like genocide, rape, and murder. I've never spouted anti-Semitic racist comments, started threads beginning with sexist remarks about women's intelligence and reading taste, and then called myself a Humanist. I've never compared Disney to Adolf Hitler. I don't assume everyone else in the world should just speak my language and they're elitist for wanting to speak their own. I've never suggested intolerance is a virtue. I'm able to distinguish my own opinion from a fact. Pretty much all that.

[usman.khawar]

May be G L wanted to say that all sins happens due to ignorance. or ignorance is the starting point towards sins. or the root of sins.
well he should explain always, what he says, himself.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've never claimed "ignorance is the only sin" in a world where people suffer from horrific crimes like genocide, rape, and murder. I've never spouted anti-Semitic racist comments, started threads beginning with sexist remarks about women's intelligence and reading taste, and then called myself a Humanist. I've never compared Disney to Adolf Hitler. I don't assume everyone else in the world should just speak my language and they're elitist for wanting to speak their own. I've never suggested intolerance is a virtue. I'm able to distinguish my own opinion from a fact. Pretty much all that.

Good comment!

[G L Wilson]

I've never claimed "ignorance is the only sin" in a world where people suffer from horrific crimes like genocide, rape, and murder. I've never spouted anti-Semitic racist comments, started threads beginning with sexist remarks about women's intelligence and reading taste, and then called myself a Humanist. I've never compared Disney to Adolf Hitler. I don't assume everyone else in the world should just speak my language and they're elitist for wanting to speak their own. I've never suggested intolerance is a virtue. I'm able to distinguish my own opinion from a fact. Pretty much all that.

Ignorance is the root of all evil, the rest of your rant demonstrates this.

[Drkshadow03]

Ignorance is the root of all evil, the rest of your rant demonstrates this.

Yes, it does actually, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

[G L Wilson]

Yes, it does actually, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

Unsubstantiated claims are trash, and the pile on your side is sure building.

[Drkshadow03]

Unsubstantiated claims are trash, and the pile on your side is sure building.

Uh-huh. If you're so inclined you could just click on the link on your own user name listing all your posts and you'll find what you're looking for there. But whatever, do as you wish.

[cl154576]

Please realize – both of you – that you're arguing with an anonymous stranger on the other side of the world. It's rather silly (do you really care if an anonymous stranger likes you?), and whether or not you're the "right" one if this thread gets closed both of you become equally "wrong."

Whoever stops has my personal congratulations.

[Drkshadow03]

Please realize – both of you – that you're arguing with an anonymous stranger on the other side of the world. It's rather silly (do you really care if an anonymous stranger likes you?), and whether or not you're the "right" one if this thread gets closed both of you become equally "wrong."

Whoever stops has my personal congratulations.

Relax, and watch this pertinent video (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6583358/why-religious-people-are-nerds).

Out of curiosity, is there something in your original topic you still wish to explore and discuss?

[cl154576]

Relax, and watch this pertinent video (http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6583358/why-religious-people-are-nerds).


K9 Web Protection Alert - Category Blocked
I hate that thing.


Out of curiosity, is there something in your original topic you still wish to explore and discuss?

Not particularly. Although I probably never will agree with it, I know the religious perspective now. I'm satisfied. Thank you.

[G L Wilson]

According to Christianity, you cannot even think lustful thoughts, a prejudice against the human race if ever there was.

[cl154576]

According to Christianity, you cannot even think lustful thoughts, a prejudice against the human race if ever there was.

Is this supposed to open a discussion on whether a thought can be "bad"?

According to therapy, thoughts, sensations, emotions, and action urges are not dangerous, good, bad, etc., until one translates them into behaviors.

I think no person has ever lived without a lustful thought. There are just some who have reproached themselves for thinking such a thought, some who have acknowledged its presence and then let go of it, and others who have acted on the thought.

[G L Wilson]

Is this supposed to open a discussion on whether a thought can be "bad"?

According to therapy, thoughts, sensations, emotions, and action urges are not dangerous, good, bad, etc., until one translates them into behaviors.

According to therapy, I'm dangerous.

[cl154576]

According to therapy, I'm dangerous.

Therapy happens to preach a lot of good things that no one wants to do.

[G L Wilson]

Therapy happens to preach a lot of good things that no one wants to do.

Well I cannot accept that I am dangerous. When they assessed me, they didn't even bother to examine my ethics; they just said, Here's another one, and threw me in the looney bin.

[cl154576]

Well I cannot accept that I am dangerous. When they assessed me, they didn't even bother to examine my ethics; they just said, Here's another one, and threw me in the looney bin.

When they stuffed me in the program they didn't bother to examine whether I wanted to reduce the intensity of my emotions (mute all of my passions), give up being destructive, or be a happy peaceful person. They just said, "Of course you want to. You don't like your current situation, do you?"

But all of this is quite beyond the topic, if there still is a topic.

[G L Wilson]

When they stuffed me in the program they didn't bother to examine whether I wanted to reduce the intensity of my emotions (mute all of my passions), give up being destructive, or be a happy peaceful person. They just said, "Of course you want to. You don't like your current situation, do you?"

But all of this is quite beyond the topic, if there still is a topic.

Of course it's not beyond the topic, that is how prejudice works: you are strange, you must be changed or destroyed.