Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Richard Dawkins stripped of 1996 Humanist of the Year Award...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    Rev 7 - 9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

    “Salvation belongs to our God,
    who sits on the throne,
    and to the Lamb.”
    That's a fair answer.

    Thanks!

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=seer;n1264948]Not all his views echo the Stoics,[/QUOTE] I never wrote that they did.

      However, the Stoic school was an extremely important philosophical school in the Roman world by the end of the first century CE.
      Of course we we cannot with absolute certainty contend that Paul was definitely influenced by the Stoic school of thought but his attitudes do have echoes of aspects of that branch of philosophy as well as other ancient ideas and opinions. He was certainly not alone in his views.

      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Never mind the fact that Paul often uses desire in a good sense.
      I have no idea what you understand by the phrase “in a good sense”. As already stated he only uses the word ‘επιθυμία [desire] positively in a morally neutral sense, never about sex, marriage, or physical intimacy between a husband and wife.


      Originally posted by seer View Post
      That is false - he only condemns it as it leads to sexual immorality or sin. He never says a thing about desire in marriage.
      I recommend you read I Corinthians 7. The first nine verses are from the male perspective and in the very first verse notes "It is well for a man not to touch a woman".

      Marriage is recommended as a way to deal with sexual immorality and at verse 9 he suggests for those who lack self control they would be better to marry than to to “be aflame with passion”.

      Clearly being aflame with passion was something to be avoided so how would Paul have viewed a man who was “aflame with passion" for his wife or a wife for her husband? Would Paul have viewed that inflamed passion to be acceptable? He certainly never tells us.

      At verse 26 [regarding virgins] he considers that because of the present άνάγκην (necessity) “it is well for you to remain as you are and at verse 29 he then advises that, let even those who have wives be as though they had none. [NRSV translation] So, for Paul, it is better for those who are married to live as if they were not married, i.e. celibate


      Originally posted by seer View Post
      It is true that an unmarried person can devote more time and energy to God than a married person. But that has nothing to do with the question at hand.
      From his writing Paul clearly regarded celibacy and virginity as the preferred states. Marriage was something he [grudgingly] permitted to those who could not control themselves but he makes it clear he is not overly enthusiastic about physical and sexual unions.

      And I repeat he never uses the word passion when discussing marriage.


      However, we have now been around this a few times and will have to agree to disagree. It is certainly clear that notions of celibacy and virginity as the ideal and idealised state were at the basis of Pauline Christianity. I once again recommend you read some of the Christian Apocrypha as well as Jerome and Augustine on the topic of virgin states and sex.


      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        [QUOTE=seer;n1264948]Not all his views echo the Stoics, I never wrote that they did.

        However, the Stoic school was an extremely important philosophical school in the Roman world by the end of the first century CE.
        Of course we we cannot with absolute certainty contend that Paul was definitely influenced by the Stoic school of thought but his attitudes do have echoes of aspects of that branch of philosophy as well as other ancient ideas and opinions. He was certainly not alone in his views.

        I have no idea what you understand by the phrase “in a good sense”. As already stated he only uses the word ‘επιθυμία [desire] positively in a morally neutral sense, never about sex, marriage, or physical intimacy between a husband and wife.

        I recommend you read I Corinthians 7. The first nine verses are from the male perspective and in the very first verse notes "It is well for a man not to touch a woman".

        Marriage is recommended as a way to deal with sexual immorality and at verse 9 he suggests for those who lack self control they would be better to marry than to to “be aflame with passion”.

        Clearly being aflame with passion was something to be avoided so how would Paul have viewed a man who was “aflame with passion" for his wife or a wife for her husband? Would Paul have viewed that inflamed passion to be acceptable? He certainly never tells us.

        At verse 26 [regarding virgins] he considers that because of the present άνάγκην (necessity) “it is well for you to remain as you are and at verse 29 he then advises that, let even those who have wives be as though they had none. [NRSV translation] So, for Paul, it is better for those who are married to live as if they were not married, i.e. celibate


        From his writing Paul clearly regarded celibacy and virginity as the preferred states. Marriage was something he [grudgingly] permitted to those who could not control themselves but he makes it clear he is not overly enthusiastic about physical and sexual unions.

        And I repeat he never uses the word passion when discussing marriage.


        However, we have now been around this a few times and will have to agree to disagree. It is certainly clear that notions of celibacy and virginity as the ideal and idealised state were at the basis of Pauline Christianity. I once again recommend you read some of the Christian Apocrypha as well as Jerome and Augustine on the topic of virgin states and sex.

        Once again, nothing here tells us that Paul believed normal sexual desires between a man and wife is unacceptable.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post

          Once again, nothing here tells us that Paul believed normal sexual desires between a man and wife is unacceptable.
          And nothing in Paul's authentic letters where he encourages or condones it.
          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            And nothing in Paul's authentic letters where he encourages or condones it.
            Why would he need to? Let nature take its course...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post

              No it doesn't: Offspring : the product of the reproductive processes of an animal or plant . So is the fetuses the product of the reproductive processes?
              “Offspring" - Oxford Dictionary: "A person's child or children”. In common usage this does not refer to insensate fetuses in their first trimester - which is when over 90% of abortions occur. It is deliberately manipulative language on your part.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                Funny how a leftwing atheist can grumble about "what took you so long" wrt abolishing slavery when folks like him get in control they reinstitute slave labor. Can you say "re-education camp"? No? How about "gulag"? In 2018, the Global Slavery Index estimated that there are approximately 3.8 million people enslaved in China, and that number has been rising. What is wrong with you leftwing atheists? What is it about enslaving people that y'all find so compelling?
                Nevertheless, in the majority Christian societies of the West – which is what we are talking about - slavery was commonplace and left unchecked for several centuries until social values evolved and changed. These values were reflected by the abolitionists and Civil Rights movements as embodied by the likes of Martin Luther King and by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

                I find today's struggle against the mass murders regularly conducted today against the unborn as instructive. While most folks who call themselves Christian and even a number of denominations accept this abominable practice, those who oppose it are overwhelmingly Christian. Eventually, people will start waking up, and slowly but surely this atrocity to will start being erased from the earth.
                “Mass murders?” Come now.

                Throughout most of Judeo-Christian history a fetus has not been viewed as a person nor accorded citizenship rights. This is a relatively new phenomenon and one not accepted by the majority of the population nor is it likely to be – especially with regard to first-term abortions.

                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                Comment


                • "This is a relatively new phenomenon and one not accepted by the majority of the population nor is it likely to be – especially with regard to first-term abortions."-Tassman

                  You're definitely right about that. There is not the same knee jerk reaction to abortions when the fetus still looks undifferentiated. It's all visual.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                    “Offspring" - Oxford Dictionary: "A person's child or children”. In common usage this does not refer to insensate fetuses in their first trimester - which is when over 90% of abortions occur. It is deliberately manipulative language on your part.
                    I just quoted Webster's that fits for a fetuses. Which I would also call it an unborn child.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                      “Offspring" - Oxford Dictionary: "A person's child or children”. In common usage this does not refer to insensate fetuses in their first trimester - which is when over 90% of abortions occur. It is deliberately manipulative language on your part.
                      Of course half way through that first trimester the baby has it's own heartbeat and brain waves. It is deliberately manipulative language on your part as you hide behind the excuse that most abortions take place during the first trimester

                      And again as we have seen, the left is not at all satisfied with that. They want every state doing like New York and legalizing abortion right up to the moment of birth. And you have the governor of Virginia talking about allowing "after-birth abortion" as well (straight up infanticide). In fact, Obama supported that position.

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Let's just say for a moment that abortions were limited to the morning after pill. That is pregnancies were terminated within a few days after the egg had been fertilized.

                        Do you think the unseen philosophical notions of life could sustain the anti-abortion movement? How much do you think this movement is motivated by visuals of dismembered hands, feet, heads and torsos?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                          Let's just say for a moment that abortions were limited to the morning after pill. That is pregnancies were terminated within a few days after the egg had been fertilized.

                          Do you think the unseen philosophical notions of life could sustain the anti-abortion movement? How much do you think this movement is motivated by visuals of dismembered hands, feet, heads and torsos?
                          Given the original Hippocratic Oath contained a part about not doing abortions I highly doubt not having access to sonograms and the like would have been a hindrance to being anti-abortion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                            Given the original Hippocratic Oath contained a part about not doing abortions I highly doubt not having access to sonograms and the like would have been a hindrance to being anti-abortion.
                            Yet many doctors have performed abortions [often illegally]
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              Yet many doctors have performed abortions [often illegally]
                              All that shows is that many doctors broke the Hippocratic Oath.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                                Yet many doctors have performed abortions [often illegally]
                                Some even experimented on living patients. That hardly makes doing so right.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Starlight, 07-24-2021, 09:58 PM
                                137 responses
                                559 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by seer, 07-20-2021, 12:05 PM
                                182 responses
                                909 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 07-16-2021, 07:39 AM
                                76 responses
                                422 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Mountain Man, 07-05-2021, 04:27 PM
                                74 responses
                                445 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by tabibito, 06-30-2021, 02:53 AM
                                50 responses
                                336 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X