"From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth" Tuesday, Sept. 23,

Jun 6, 2013 Full story: Elm Grove 93

Author Kitty Foth-Regner is the featured speaker at the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee's September meeting.

Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#1 Jun 7, 2013
Why should women follow a book that tells them to submit to the tyranny of men?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#2 Jun 7, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
Why should women follow a book that tells them to submit to the tyranny of men?
An excellent question and the answer is.....

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#3 Jun 7, 2013
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent question and the answer is.....
Stockholm syndrome
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#4 Jun 7, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
Why should women follow a book that tells them to submit to the tyranny of men?
(1)What book are you referring to - I assume the Bible based on the heading but one need to clarify this from the start.
(2)why do you suggest that the book tells them to submit to tyranny of men.(i.e. Please provide the background text seen in context)

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#5 Jun 7, 2013
Okay...so which is funnier from this article:

A) the fact that they keep using the phrase "Creation Science"? I mean, why not just call it MagicScience! and be done with it?

or

B) they had to blank out the middle word of "summa cum laude" because it might be perceived as dirty by the religionistas?

LOL

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#7 Jun 7, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
(1)What book are you referring to - I assume the Bible based on the heading but one need to clarify this from the start.
(2)why do you suggest that the book tells them to submit to tyranny of men.(i.e. Please provide the background text seen in context)
Telling wive to submit to their husbands is bad enough.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#8 Jun 9, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Telling wive to submit to their husbands is bad enough.
You work in an organization? Or maybe you know of somebody that does? Is there a boss? If he/she is to take good care of his/her subordinates, and take responsibility for them and serve them(a very strict requirement), would you suggest that it would be improper for subordinates to submit to him/her? I would think not so, to the contrary, people will gladly submit to his/her guidance and care. So the question is actually not submission, but why the man?
Apart from the fact that God ordained it like that, it is most husband's honour to provide for and protect his wife and family. In most cases it seems that a wife responds positively to a husband that takes responsibility for her, protects her and loves her in a "servant" leadership role.(Not as a little grovelling man, but a man of integrity that puts his family's interest before his own.)
It is not implied that a woman is a "lesser" individual. Not so at all. In the eyes of God, every person has the same value. They were not created as lesser beings, but also "in the image of God".
Men have abused the role that God has given them and used the position to dominate woman, often treating them as mere "slaves". This is contrary to the expected proper conduct expected of a Christian man. No wonder woman have reacted negatively to this caricature of woman as a slave.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#9 Jun 9, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You work in an organization? Or maybe you know of somebody that does? Is there a boss? If he/she is to take good care of his/her subordinates, and take responsibility for them and serve them(a very strict requirement), would you suggest that it would be improper for subordinates to submit to him/her? I would think not so, to the contrary, people will gladly submit to his/her guidance and care. So the question is actually not submission, but why the man?
Apart from the fact that God ordained it like that, it is most husband's honour to provide for and protect his wife and family. In most cases it seems that a wife responds positively to a husband that takes responsibility for her, protects her and loves her in a "servant" leadership role.(Not as a little grovelling man, but a man of integrity that puts his family's interest before his own.)
It is not implied that a woman is a "lesser" individual. Not so at all. In the eyes of God, every person has the same value. They were not created as lesser beings, but also "in the image of God".
Men have abused the role that God has given them and used the position to dominate woman, often treating them as mere "slaves". This is contrary to the expected proper conduct expected of a Christian man. No wonder woman have reacted negatively to this caricature of woman as a slave.
You can't lie to us about god and expect us to believe you have higher morals than us.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#10 Jun 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't lie to us about god and expect us to believe you have higher morals than us.


Suggesting higher morals? The fact of the matter is that I am as guilty as you are in terms of the standard for holiness and can not lay any claim to being superior. I am sure that there are many people (including atheists) that live much better lives than I do. But.. we all fail.

It is only by the grace (undeserved merit) of God that we are saved and not by being "good". It is only because of this fact that I have any chance of being justified (making me right with God). If it was up to me? I'll fail as I do every day.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#11 Jun 9, 2013
Sorry, "undeserved merit" should be "unmerited favour". T

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#12 Jun 9, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Suggesting higher morals? The fact of the matter is that I am as guilty as you are in terms of the standard for holiness and can not lay any claim to being superior. I am sure that there are many people (including atheists) that live much better lives than I do. But.. we all fail.
It is only by the grace (undeserved merit) of God that we are saved and not by being "good". It is only because of this fact that I have any chance of being justified (making me right with God). If it was up to me? I'll fail as I do every day.
Why do you paint me with your hallucinated guilt?

You're still lying about god and haven't got any proof.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#13 Jun 9, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Stockholm syndrome
Exactly.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#14 Jun 9, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Suggesting higher morals? The fact of the matter is that I am as guilty as you are in terms of the standard for holiness and can not lay any claim to being superior. I am sure that there are many people (including atheists) that live much better lives than I do. But.. we all fail.
It is only by the grace (undeserved merit) of God that we are saved and not by being "good". It is only because of this fact that I have any chance of being justified (making me right with God). If it was up to me? I'll fail as I do every day.
Nice, blame everyone who isn't as deluded as you for everything. Good example of "morals."
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#15 Jun 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you paint me with your hallucinated guilt?
You're still lying about god and haven't got any proof.
You suggest you have never failed even your own standard of "goodness"? Never lied ?(Unless you believe lying is a virtue)

A good definition of lying I came across is the following:
"I take a lie to be an assertion, the content of which the speaker believes to be false, which is made with the intention to deceive the hearer with respect to that content”(Williams 2002, 96)".
Now according to your claim, I will have to know that Christianity is false and wish to deceive you by claiming it is true.

Never slandered? Claiming somebody is a liar in the absence of proof in an open forum could be construed as slander.(defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed) Unless of course you can prove me to be liar or alternatively you consider slander to be a virtue.

But really, I think the essence of what I was saying is that nobody can claim to be only good, whether you are a Christian or anybody else. To claim the contrary is actually lying.

That is an important aspect of becoming a real Christian - recognising and accepting that we are sinners, repenting of our sins. Taking responsibility for what we have done wrong. Rejecting this does not make us any less guilty - just as a murderer in a court case maintains his/her innocence but still remains guilty. Even the judge declaring the party "not guilty" based on for instance a lack of evidence, still does not make the person "not guilty"

Why the refusal to admit guilt?
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#16 Jun 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice, blame everyone who isn't as deluded as you for everything. Good example of "morals."
You claim you only have only been "good"? Your answer will give a clear indication of what you consider proper morals.

Stating a fact is not poor morals, is it? Especially if you do not judge others and admit to the same errors yourself.

There seems to be somewhat of confusion about "judgment" and stating what one believes to be the proper position. If I were to assert that murder is an offense, do I judge? Would you suggest that cold blooded, premeditated murder of another is OK? Please answer directly.
I expect you to say that it is not OK. That is a standard but you are not the judge. You leave judgement to the person/body that has been given the authority to judge.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#17 Jun 10, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You suggest you have never failed even your own standard of "goodness"? Never lied ?(Unless you believe lying is a virtue)
A good definition of lying I came across is the following:
"I take a lie to be an assertion, the content of which the speaker believes to be false, which is made with the intention to deceive the hearer with respect to that content”(Williams 2002, 96)".
Now according to your claim, I will have to know that Christianity is false and wish to deceive you by claiming it is true.
Never slandered? Claiming somebody is a liar in the absence of proof in an open forum could be construed as slander.(defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed) Unless of course you can prove me to be liar or alternatively you consider slander to be a virtue.
But really, I think the essence of what I was saying is that nobody can claim to be only good, whether you are a Christian or anybody else. To claim the contrary is actually lying.
That is an important aspect of becoming a real Christian - recognising and accepting that we are sinners, repenting of our sins. Taking responsibility for what we have done wrong. Rejecting this does not make us any less guilty - just as a murderer in a court case maintains his/her innocence but still remains guilty. Even the judge declaring the party "not guilty" based on for instance a lack of evidence, still does not make the person "not guilty"
Why the refusal to admit guilt?
By saying that we're both guilty, does not excuse the fact that you are trying to judge me by your standards.

Your hallucinated, evidenceless standards Andre.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#18 Jun 10, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You claim you only have only been "good"? Your answer will give a clear indication of what you consider proper morals.
Stating a fact is not poor morals, is it? Especially if you do not judge others and admit to the same errors yourself.
There seems to be somewhat of confusion about "judgment" and stating what one believes to be the proper position. If I were to assert that murder is an offense, do I judge? Would you suggest that cold blooded, premeditated murder of another is OK? Please answer directly.
I expect you to say that it is not OK. That is a standard but you are not the judge. You leave judgement to the person/body that has been given the authority to judge.
Still don't have any proof of god and don't know when you take your lying cult and f*ck off back to the den of predjucided judgemental inbreds it came from.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#19 Jun 10, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You claim you only have only been "good"? Your answer will give a clear indication of what you consider proper morals.
Stating a fact is not poor morals, is it? Especially if you do not judge others and admit to the same errors yourself.
There seems to be somewhat of confusion about "judgment" and stating what one believes to be the proper position. If I were to assert that murder is an offense, do I judge? Would you suggest that cold blooded, premeditated murder of another is OK? Please answer directly.
I expect you to say that it is not OK. That is a standard but you are not the judge. You leave judgement to the person/body that has been given the authority to judge.
What do you call "proper morals?" Murder is a crime, it's killing against the law, thus, it is a crime. Wrong or not is subjective, just like all "morals."
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#20 Jun 10, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you call "proper morals?" Murder is a crime, it's killing against the law, thus, it is a crime. Wrong or not is subjective, just like all "morals."
You did not answer the question.
Please answer whether you have been only "good". As you will probably know, lying to a friend (or enemy)is not necessarily a crime punishable by law. Would you call lying to friend or anybody else that is not punishable by law wrong or actually not wrong?
By your argument, discriminating against woman in some Islamic countries is quite OK in those country as it not an offense in that country?(A women’s testimony is worth half a man’s in Islam)

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#21 Jun 10, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>You work in an organization? Or maybe you know of somebody that does? Is there a boss? If he/she is to take good care of his/her subordinates, and take responsibility for them and serve them(a very strict requirement), would you suggest that it would be improper for subordinates to submit to him/her? I would think not so, to the contrary, people will gladly submit to his/her guidance and care. So the question is actually not submission, but why the man?
First of all marriage is not a organization. Second, organizations in this country are supposed to give leadership positions based on skills rather than gender. Your bible puts all women under the authority of their husbands regardless of their intelligence.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Apart from the fact that God ordained it like that, it is most husband's honour to provide for and protect his wife and family. In most cases it seems that a wife responds positively to a husband that takes responsibility for her, protects her and loves her in a "servant" leadership role.(Not as a little grovelling man, but a man of integrity that puts his family's interest before his own.)
It is not implied that a woman is a "lesser" individual. Not so at all. In the eyes of God, every person has the same value. They were not created as lesser beings, but also "in the image of God".
Telling a whole group of people that they should be subservient to another group is the same as telling then that they are inferior.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Men have abused the role that God has given them and used the position to dominate woman, often treating them as mere "slaves". This is contrary to the expected proper conduct expected of a Christian man. No wonder woman have reacted negatively to this caricature of woman as a slave.
Too bad the all powerful, all knowing God did not think to establish women's rights. The bible is at the epicenter of the mistreatment of women. According to bible law, women must seek the permission of their husbands before disposing of their property, but no mention is made of men needing consent of their wives to do the same.
In the bible, men are allowed as many wives and concubines as they wish, but women are only allowed one.
In the bible, women must marry their rapist if unmarried.
In the bible, a non virgin daughter is legally condemned to be stoned.
In the bible, the prophet Judah forces his widowed daughter in law,Tamar to stay single so that she can be married to his third son who was only a child at the death of his brother(Tamar's husband) When Judah finds out that Tamar has slept with another man, he orders he to burnt until he finds out that he is the person she slept.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heaven 12 min Richardfs 4
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 44 min Catcher1 228,577
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 1 hr Mr Duplicity 1,010
Our world came from nothing? 5 hr _Bad Company 705
The Dumbest Thing Posted by a Godbot (Jun '10) 12 hr Dally Mama 5,587
Another week, another atheist demands we call h... 16 hr Patrick 7
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 16 hr Patrick 152

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE