Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you're saying that Christ had sex with the church? (Just trying to get some clarification here.) You believe that a wife is to submit herself to her husband, server as his helper? I don't see how that is being an equal. I'd also say that behavior like that could cause you to spend a LOT of nights sleeping on the couch in many American households.
Quote:
"A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."
The above is based on Eph. 5.
The husband is to love his wife to the point of giving his life for her (as Christ did for us). He is to make sure he provides for the needs of his wife and family, along with their protection. This is what the term "servant leadership" means. A married man must be willing to sacrifice for the good of his wife and family.
As we (believers) submit to the authority of Christ and His Word, wives must submit to the authority of her husband, assisting him in the running of the family, and the raising of any children. Any husband who loves his wife as Christ loves the church, will not be domineering or abusive.
Someone must be the leader in a family. 50/50 works fine, until there's a disagreement. Then who decides? God has ordained the man to take this role.
Btw, I'm truly sorry if all of us atheists' obviously higher levels of intelligence overwhelms your collective minds to the point that, instead of participating in an honest debate with any of us, you take to classless schoolyard bully types of "Nyah Nyah!" commentary.
If you have to tell us your smarter than we are, then maybe you're not. Your arguments should confirm that point. You know they don't, so you feel the need to tell us. Then, you add snarky comments, bolded for emphasis, with a few color-coded areas, to make it look fancy.
Every person is just as entitled to the basis for their subjective determination of what is "good" and what is "bad"...as any other.
Many (and I mean MOST) for all of human history, use theology, culture, and tradition, as a basis for their subjective view of morality.
Using these as a basis has no less merit that any other basis.
Why is it sanspeur can loath (read:hate) people who "use religion" as their basis for determining "right from wrong"...but not okay for the religious to have a biased opinion (even to the point of "loathing") of the determinations others make from whatever basis that they use to make them, if it violates the moral standards that doctrine puts forth?
Everyone thinks that those who do not meet the moral standards set by whatever basis they use are "less moral" then those that do...that is no reason to "loath" them.
"*The people* who use religion" for their moral determinations are 99.999% the religious themselves...and sanspeur "loathes" (hates) them.
Translation: sanspeur hates the religious.
His statements here contradict any claim he doesn't...despite your attempt to disguise that in your post.
Oh, look, another person with reading comprehension issues. I went on a real tear talking about how I agreed with sanspeur and that everything he said was absolutely true now didn't I?
What I did was point out that someone quoted his post and either had serious reading comprehension problems or intentionally skewed his words to mean something else. Rather than debate the points, he tried, as has been done on a number of other threads by that same poster, to skew someone's post into meaning something very different than what was implied. Kind of like how you're trying to put words in my mouth.
But, since you so graciously opted to read my mind and dictate to me what my thoughts on the subject were, allow me to point out a few problems with your mind-reading abilities:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Let me "break it down" to you.
Every person is just as entitled to the basis for their subjective determination of what is "good" and what is "bad"...as any other.
I never said they didn't. I never implied they didn't. In fact, it's the very concept of the person making their subjective determination of "good" and "bad" that I try to point out to the religious It's also the concept in sanspeur's post that you completely missed. The thing loathed is when people inject their personal, self-opined bigotry and racism into their supernatural views and use it to cause harm or to minimize others. For example, when was the last time you met someone who was personally for gay marriage and had no problems supporting it but they knew God wouldn't be happy so they just can't support it? I'm sure, back in the 50's and 60's, when the race wars kicked up there were a lot of people who loved blacks and other minorities but, again, that pesky holy book of theirs limited them from holding those views.
The point being that it's pretty disgusting when someone abandons responsibility for their personal viewpoints, actions and behaviors and relinquishes it onto some book or some belief so as to detach themselves from the decision making process. "Well, I's personally am all for them thar gay folk and them gettin' wedded and stuff. But, welp, ya' know, God jus'... Well, he don't like it none and so I jus' can't give 'em nuttin'." was said - NEVER.
If people want to rationalize their moral codes this way then why don't they just say the following: "I am incapable of deciding right and wrong. I therefore refer to the Holy Book and whatever my preacher tells me is right and wrong about the subject." But, they don't. I could actually respect that. I may not think the person is very wise or astute. I may even wonder about their reasoning capabilities. But, at least they'd be honest about it. Instead, we get a million different religious viewpoints from a million different people who all worship a deity who just so happens to agree with that individual's moral standpoint - to a tee. Isn't that interesting?
So, rather than defend bigots and racists hiding behind a Holy Book, it's probably better to call them out for the cowards they are and/or mock them. Don't you find it interesting that the people who have lovely, nice deities are also lovely, nice people themselves? And those who worship miserable codgers infatuated with authoritarian rule and severe punishment also fit a very distinctive personality type?
I could be way off base here but, if I had to guess, people model their Gods after themselves. Hmm... I would be so shocked if that ever happened.
Oh, look, another person with reading comprehension issues. I went on a real tear talking about how I agreed with sanspeur and that everything he said was absolutely true now didn't I?
What I did was point out that someone quoted his post and either had serious reading comprehension problems or intentionally skewed his words to mean something else. Rather than debate the points, he tried, as has been done on a number of other threads by that same poster, to skew someone's post into meaning something very different than what was implied. Kind of like how you're trying to put words in my mouth.
But, since you so graciously opted to read my mind and dictate to me what my thoughts on the subject were, allow me to point out a few problems with your mind-reading abilities:
I never said they didn't. I never implied they didn't. In fact, it's the very concept of the person making their subjective determination of "good" and "bad" that I try to point out to the religious It's also the concept in sanspeur's post that you completely missed. The thing loathed is when people inject their personal, self-opined bigotry and racism into their supernatural views and use it to cause harm or to minimize others. For example, when was the last time you met someone who was personally for gay marriage and had no problems supporting it but they knew God wouldn't be happy so they just can't support it? I'm sure, back in the 50's and 60's, when the race wars kicked up there were a lot of people who loved blacks and other minorities but, again, that pesky holy book of theirs limited them from holding those views.
The point being that it's pretty disgusting when someone abandons responsibility for their personal viewpoints, actions and behaviors and relinquishes it onto some book or some belief so as to detach themselves from the decision making process. "Well, I's personally am all for them thar gay folk and them gettin' wedded and stuff. But, welp, ya' know, God jus'... Well, he don't like it none and so I jus' can't give 'em nuttin'." was said - NEVER.
If people want to rationalize their moral codes this way then why don't they just say the following: "I am incapable of deciding right and wrong. I therefore refer to the Holy Book and whatever my preacher tells me is right and wrong about the subject." But, they don't. I could actually respect that. I may not think the person is very wise or astute. I may even wonder about their reasoning capabilities. But, at least they'd be honest about it. Instead, we get a million different religious viewpoints from a million different people who all worship a deity who just so happens to agree with that individual's moral standpoint - to a tee. Isn't that interesting?
So, rather than defend bigots and racists hiding behind a Holy Book, it's probably better to call them out for the cowards they are and/or mock them. Don't you find it interesting that the people who have lovely, nice deities are also lovely, nice people themselves? And those who worship miserable codgers infatuated with authoritarian rule and severe punishment also fit a very distinctive personality type?
I could be way off base here but, if I had to guess, people model their Gods after themselves. Hmm... I would be so shocked if that ever happened.
Here's the deal Troop...none have "reading comp issues".
But some have "posting honesty issues".
Don't try to say you didn't post so as to boost sans as, "Not hating the religious".
MOF...you got sooooooo into it...he couldn't have purchased a more devoted effort.
Bottom Line: There are people that hate (loath) those who use some theological doctrine (however they interpret and adopt whatever doctrine they subscribe to) as a basis for their "moral compass"...and that view the "most moral" as those that follow that subjective moral standard...and those who don't to be "immoral".
Those same people don't loath others for founding their "moral compass" upon any other basis. BECAUSE: They hate religion and the religious.
No "spin", "skew", or "twist" needed. The post said it all...in no uncertain, simple to understand, terms.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how that is being an equal. I'd also say that behavior like that could cause you to spend a LOT of nights sleeping on the couch in many American households. 
