You’re the one who hates Bells.
I have no reason to hate anybody. You do
Wasn’t it you whining about how your man cheated on you?
I’m going to be nice (unlike you), and not offer up suggestions as to what could have lead to his actions.
Religion and women.
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
- Status
I have no reason to hate anybody. You do
Wasn’t it you whining about how your man cheated on you?
I’m going to be nice (unlike you), and not offer up suggestions as to what could have lead to his actions.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
Well, in order not to cause jealously between you and Tiasaa, I will grant my blessing on both. I'm not often this generous with my blessings.
I'm not up on the latest blessing doctrines but I'm guessing that blessings can be split without diminishing either segment - like love can be split between two children.
Not at all! You just explained that calling people "weak" "hateful" "misogynist" etc are not attacks, so you haven't been victimized at all. (Unless, of course, you need to play the victim to make yourself feel better about yourself.)
Once again you’ve been caught lying
It’s sad and unfortunate that you people cannot, for whatever reason, be truthful.
Actually it should have been a rhetorical question. I know the condescending/sarcastic overtone of that expression.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
That's the last time I bless you.
foghorn
Valued Senior Member
My blessings are something like those loaves and fishes handed out of that basket sometime back.
Only in your mind, Jan. Only in your mind.
Er... no
It right there in black and white.
You’ve been caught again
If you’re still having trouble remembering you habitual lying, I will be glad to break it down for you.
So your sarcasm was aimed at me!
Wow I would never have guessed.
Are you woke?
woke -
- alert to injustice in society, especially racism.
"we need to stay angry, and stay woke"
You have such an . . . active imagination. Bless your heart.
You go girl!"Woked for Jesus"
Gonna' get that on a T-Shirt.
This is actually an example of the problem you present. "You folks"? It's not that you forgot who you're talking to, but that you, like anyone else, have a finite number of tools in your rhetorical kit. "What do you think religion actually is?" you ask, but it's actually a fascinating discussion for those willing to have it. It's easy enough to miss↗, around here, but one thing that stands out about such discussions is the idea that they might make any atheist so nervous as they do around here.
Meanwhile, your snip is a change of subject:
Not every theist sees it that way. Inasmuch as it's your perspective, it seems more a rhetorical turn styled relative to some necessity you perceive in the moment.
So if we rewind to consider what you left out: However, if one intends to criticize, perhaps they ought to know something about the object of their criticism.
Thing is, whatever your reason for skipping over that part in order to preach on about whatever, one of the effects is, well, okay, nearly. Colloquially, this is where people do that thing sucking air lightly through grimaced teeth and then say, "So close."
When you said, "always want cite 'religion'", you were, indeed, very close to the point you skipped over.
Because it's true. Simply living one's life and not thinking about God at all is what it is, and one needs know nothing about religion in order to tell the evangelists to stop knocking on their door.
However, the atheist in that particular story happens to include crackpottery in his critique against religion, requiring a redefinition of the word, "religion", that is even more reckless than your pretense to represent theists. That's actually what makes him a good example. If he's just going through his life and, well, whatever, and happens to be an atheist, then the answer to his question is he doesn't really need to know a thing about religion. To the other, if he intends to soapbox and tell us what's wrong with religion, it really doesn't seem unfair to expect that he has a clue, or that what he has to say isn't crackpottery.
Or, perhaps, imagine two similar misrepresentations of Scripture by which someone has come to demand that believers commit acts of harm. If I ask you the difference between the two, it doesn't actually matter on this occasion that I haven't told you how the misrepresentations work; they can actually be the same argument. In this case, the difference between the two is that one of the zealots pushing religious crackpottery is an atheist, so that means he's right even if he's misrepresenting the source. And I wish that was a dumbassed joke, but circumstance is not nearly so accommodating. Still, the difference also highlights a point; another ahteistic version of that argument involved state-sanctioned violence, which is generally considered less unacceptable than advocacy of terrorism. And you know that other one because, like I said, if Jan Ardena is scoring a point, the other is doing it wrong.
But here's a quandary: These are allegedly smart people. They claim to know what they're talking about. That would mean they know they're misrepresenting scriptural sources. Why would they knowingly misrepresent, or what are the implications of such accidents?
One aspect, though, of us folks is that despite some other people's (¿political?) confusion, you're not unaware of that basic orientation. And I've kind of been explicit about it↗: When it comes to "the point where their unsupported beliefs start having detrimental impacts on other people", I'm not looking forward to figuring out how to get through to [a particular zealot] or her congregation, but perhaps [someone] might explain just how it is [they] think asking her to submit to [an atheist's] judgment per mocking, fallacious, self-satisfying criteria, will do anything useful toward attending the harms she might bring to herself or others.
And, inasmuch as religion, religious beliefs, and religious people can present a threat of harm, certain responses just aren't helpful, and can become part of the problem.
But that's also one thing that seems pretty common, perhaps even essential, to an ongoing back and forth between religious zealots: Consider the propositon that one might happen to agree with Principle A, disagree with subsequent Action B, and, furthermore, find Justification C problematic; and then take a moment to wonder why this very idea might confuse anyone.
Well, the one thing about you that actually seems sincere is your provocative insincerity. Compared to once upon a long ago, when pretenses of rational discourse allegedly mattered, you've never really made the cut. But inasmuch as we might pretend to worry about suppressing political views, it's true there comes a point at which the most part of religious advocates at Sciforums would have failed to make this or that cut.
But if I might chuckle at an atheist pathetically mislabeling you in order to fit the desired criticism, it's not exactly a great mystery, in some cases, why that happens. You're noncommittal, vapid, self-centered, and truculent. In all your time here, if people still don't know what you affirmatively stand for, it's because you still haven't bothered with making any of that clear; it just hasn't been that important to you. And, yes, over the years, the pointless lack of integrity is actually problematic, a bad thing.
Like this:
It's easy enough, sometimes, to disagree with others about what someone said or how to read a string of words, but then there are times when, no, it's absolutely clear what someone said.
• "If I said that a female dressed in scanty clad is an excuse for her to be abused and/or raped. You would probably conclude that the problem lies with me, rather than the scantily clad woman."
Yes, actually, the problem does lie with you. Did you mean something different? Were you trying to bait someone with a provocative word game?
There isn't really much question about what you said: "If I said that a female dressed in scanty clad is an excuse for her to be abused and/or raped". I would absolutely say the problem lies with you if you are willing to say that a female's attire is an excuse for sexual abuse and rape. You can try telling us you meant something else, but that is what you wrote.
In fact, trying to use that particular point was such an extraordinarily stupid decision we cannot help but wonder what is wrong with you.
But, to circle 'round, that's actually part of that one point. The "intelligent community"? The "science site"? Actually compelling you to get a point might require some of your detractors to put more effort into figuring out when and how you are completely full of shit; as it is, like I said a couple years ago↗, you're one some folks think they can take in a fight. A community given to rational discourse has no real obligation to endure your manner of provocative insincerity, which, in turn―... yeah, Jan, you're an example of what we traded the "intelligent community" for. And whatever people think of those results, they have every reason to have even less confidence in you.
Try it this way: If we rewind to #1454↑, in re #1452↑, which we follow back through the drama to your post at #1423↑, yes—("I dropped links where in some parts of the world men's persecution of witchcraft outnumbered the women's. Why was that if it was misogynistic?")—that, again, was an extraordinarily stupid decision. People disdain your behavior, Jan, because it reeks of bad faith. And, let's face it, nigh on twenty years in, people are accustomed to not expecting any better.
History.
(I know she's smarter than that.)
Meanwhile, 'tis also true it probably is a little more obscure, and thus not something others are necessarily explicitly aware of, just how poorly I regard you, Jan. Some things, one way or another, are best left unsaid. But those who might think my whipping idol critique goes too easy on you should observe that within that framework you're nothing more than other people's pathetic excuse. Y'know. Just, for instance.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
......
Tiassa said:
If I may add that theists have been killing each other over their interpretation of God and his commands, and one would assume that in this case each side would know what they're talking about.
So, Jan, please explain how it is logically possible that debate by theists of different denomination often ends up in slaughtering each other, demonstrating that neither has a clue what they're talking about, something which is never heard of between theist and atheist debate? Is it possible that atheists know more about God than theists?
Who Knows What About Religion
https://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/
Atheists @ 82% !!!!! How is that logically possible?
Jan, it appears that most theists are least qualified to speak about theism.
A "confounding of language"?
Bells
Staff member
I guess this is what we get when you try to score political points instead of addressing the obvious.
On the issue of misrepresenting scriptural sources? To which are you referring?
The passages of Deuteronomy 22:28–29 that was discussed at length earlier in the thread? How was that misrepresented? The passages themselves were misogynistic and as was established earlier in the thread, was designed to maintain a patriarchal order at the cost of the woman's autonomy. If the woman was not married or betrothed or promised to another man, she was sold to her rapist. Her word on the matter amount to nothing. Her bodily integrity means nothing and she has no rights. That isn't a misrepresentation.
In order to properly discuss the scope of the law, the extent of the patriarchal context of ancient Israel must be determined. In Israel, like many other ancient cultures, “violence and domination [were] central to the discursive production of the gender subject,” that is, the male subject.5 Consequently, the Deuteronomic law, having been produced in such a cultural milieu, seems to understand rape as what Harold Washington considers an inevitable expression of masculinity since it needs to be addressed in the first place and only refers to the case of a male committing such an act.6 This is also reflected in the retribution of rape, which changes according to the way a woman is (or is not) attached to a man, always serving to protect the male’s entitlements and privileges.7 In this way, injury to a woman was primarily viewed as an injury to her father, husband, or fiancé.8
In the case of an engaged woman who had been raped, the consequence for the perpetrator was always death (Deut 22:23–27). This is due to the fact that the bride-price had already been paid for the woman, which meant that the act of rape was a direct affront to the reproductive “rights” of the man who “possessed” her by paying her bride-price.9 In the case of an unattached virgin, the act of rape did not affront any man except her father. In this case, the only “right” taken away was the father’s “right” to his daughter’s bride-price, which could be settled by the payment of fifty pieces of silver (Deut 22:29). Notice, the settlement is made between two men without acknowledgment of the woman except for the fact that she had to marry her attacker without the possibility of him divorcing her.10 Arguably, the economic profitability of the victim’s virginity, fifty pieces of silver, is intended to outweigh the violation, humiliation, and injury suffered by the victim.11 Albeit, the rape of a virgin in the Exodus code allowed the woman’s father to refuse the marriage but maintain the bride-price (Exod 22:6–17); nevertheless, the father remained in control of the woman’s future and the Deuteronomic code leaves this rather significant stipulation out. This observation leads to a secondary patriarchal theme that is maintained by Deut 22:28–29: placing concern for the wellbeing of the male above and instead of the female.
In the case of an engaged woman who had been raped, the consequence for the perpetrator was always death (Deut 22:23–27). This is due to the fact that the bride-price had already been paid for the woman, which meant that the act of rape was a direct affront to the reproductive “rights” of the man who “possessed” her by paying her bride-price.9 In the case of an unattached virgin, the act of rape did not affront any man except her father. In this case, the only “right” taken away was the father’s “right” to his daughter’s bride-price, which could be settled by the payment of fifty pieces of silver (Deut 22:29). Notice, the settlement is made between two men without acknowledgment of the woman except for the fact that she had to marry her attacker without the possibility of him divorcing her.10 Arguably, the economic profitability of the victim’s virginity, fifty pieces of silver, is intended to outweigh the violation, humiliation, and injury suffered by the victim.11 Albeit, the rape of a virgin in the Exodus code allowed the woman’s father to refuse the marriage but maintain the bride-price (Exod 22:6–17); nevertheless, the father remained in control of the woman’s future and the Deuteronomic code leaves this rather significant stipulation out. This observation leads to a secondary patriarchal theme that is maintained by Deut 22:28–29: placing concern for the wellbeing of the male above and instead of the female.
As Morgan Reinhart suggests, Deuteronomy “could have ordered that a rapist cannot marry his victim, but must provide financial support for her for his entire life . . . or have ordered that rape victims are in no way sullied or unmarriageable, while their attackers are both.”29 We must finally admit that “justice” for the virgin is actually a life sentence of pain, not redemption. With this attitude of repentance the church might move forward in the way it handles cases of sexual assault and rape, giving women a safe place to heal from male-instigated trauma, and a platform to be taken seriously.
But it does not, does it?
Instead, the Church has protected a patriarchal view of women, limiting our choices and our rights.
You mischaracterise us "atheists" of misrepresenting biblical text, when what we did was the opposite.
To criticise the text is not to misrepresent it. It is to criticise the basis of the text which the Catholic Church and many Christian organisations base their current ideology on and from. Instead, questions should arise as to why Jan was so eager to defend it.
I suppose we should all be thankful that we did not use Judges 19 from the Hebrew Bible as an example.. Because given Jan's performance throughout this thread and historically on this site, one can unfortunately imagine how that one would go.
The story of Levite's concubine is one of the texts of terror for women.. And rightly so. She was given over to protect her husband's/master's reputation (after she was apparently unfaithful and had returned to her father's home), gang raped and abused and killed, her husband then hacked her body into 12 pieces and sent it to the far corners to tell of the tale and to send a message. The story was historically used to project onto women the need to remain chaste and faithful.. But it was also a warning of sorts. If women do not comport themselves in the manner in which men demand of them, then they are nothing more than whores and sluts and death and damnation awaits them. Levite's concubine remained unnamed in the story, which further illustrates how little she and her body was valued and is valued.
The basis of Jan's argument for women is that we are somehow special because we can make babies and thus, should be protected. That is our value. If we wear short skirts and get drunk and are raped, then it's our fault, according to Jan.. That's our damnation.
And this is what you chose to empower, and painting him as the victim and for what? To score a political point:
And it is at this point where I say a giant fuck you.
The "history", as you so put it and the perception that I am somehow performing (in this thread of all places - really, timing and place is astonishing).. You leave that quite vague, don't you? Ironically, in response to the guy who's spent pages slut shaming women.
So let's just have it out. The so called history is my having become somewhat fed up with being stuck in the middle of two warring factions. A place I had repeatedly advised I did not wish to be in. So I found myself defending you to him and him to you. For years.
I voice my opinion and here we are, in a thread about religion and women, where you come out empowering a misogynist to score a political point.. All for the sake of politics. And why? Because you cannot seem to fathom that I might actually disagree with you and you immediately lump me in with James.
That disagreement has historically led to your alluding to 'something' going on.
Remember this Tiassa? "Look, whatever it is between you two, that's fine, but you tell me more about what isn't.".. If you want to know why I'm angry and fed up, just read that fucking sentence over and over again.
It is an age old tactic, used by men to shut women up - to put us on the back foot having to defend our virtue. Congratulations! You acted like a fucking typical male when confronted with a woman who disagreed with you. That the reason I could possibly disagree with you about something must have been been because something could possibly be going on. It's not the first time you've done it. But I can assure you it will be the last.
That, Sir, is the fucking history.
And just for the record. When I defended you to him and when I vehemently disagreed with him about something, at no time, not once, has he ever alluded to or made me feel uncomfortable about why I was doing it. Do you know why? Because he understands that I am an individual with opinions of my own.
So your "right on cue" snide comments and "history" in connection to my performing whatever it is you think I'm performing can basically go and jump off a very tall cliff. I'm over it. I'm over the snide bitchiness and at times open hostility. My disagreeing with you has nothing to do with James or anyone else. It's simply because I think you're wrong. And I swear to god, don't ever, and I mean ever, try to pull that kind of crap with me again.
Last edited:
Try looking at that quote without adding connotations and you will see it is nothing more than exactly what it says. As far as I can tell, everyone here is in basic agreement that I am a misogynist, therefore “you folks/people” means just that.
Every theist believes in God.
You can’t truthfully comprehend that.
So you don’t know what every theist sees, you can only speculate from an absolutely negative perspective. Because for you, and every single atheist that has ever been, and yet to come, there is no God.
Not sure what “skipped”.
But I can understand how you could possibly see me as “skipping” over something when it comes to inserting God and theism into the equation.
You fail to see how everything is linked, because for you, or any atheist, there is no God.
Are you saying there are some theists that don’t believe in God? That precisely what theism is, and as such there is nothing to represent. A theist will know another theist soon enough in a conversation, there is no need of representation.
That is your thinking, because you are atheist.
An atheist is nothing more than a person for whom there is no God. And they try to comprehend God from that perspective
There is a lot of what you write that I don’t get, so sorry if there are chunks that I don’t address.
You’ll get better dialogue with me if you keep your point short and to the point.
Can you give a simple example?
Can you cite an example of a discourse I had that wasn’t rational?
That was an analogy.
As the problem would be with me, if I abused that woman (not the womans), in that scenario. The problem is with those you mentioned who indulge in poor behaviour
You’re judgment is clouded, because you already profiled me. So everything I say is going to be filtered through those classification lens.
You should learn to think for yourself, first and foremost. This is why there is an increasing loss of communication between people. In short, you’re brainwashed.
That is because you aren’t thinking.
You’re reacting.
While you’re in this mode, nothing I say will make proper sense to you
They don’t know how to fight.
Just look at the conversations in this thread,
Look at Bells attempt at an explanation for her silly outbursts regarding me.
Not one ounce of fight.
So far all I see is a bunch of weak people incapable of thinking for themselves.
Prove me wrong.
Explain how anything I have said can be construed as hatred for women/girls.
For all your fancy writing, you have yet to offer any explanation of any of your accusations.
This is because you are a weakling.
You don’t have the ability to engage in ordinary discussion.
Again just read through this thread, point out where any of you people actually discuss anything. All you do is defend
No you don’t.
She ticks certain boxes that allow to think she is smart. So when she says dumb stuff you make excuses. It has nothing to do with her, and everything to do with your own mindset.
Despite you going off on these people, using me to do do, you accept these people because there id a core thread of understanding that connects you all. I aim for that, which is probably why you sense me as being provocative.
Which theists?
Theism isn’t based on “denominations”
Impossible
It’s not “logically possible”.
This is not one of those dumb “I identify as a theist, therefore I am a theist” scenarios.
You have to be a “theist” to know about God.
What is the value in “speaking about theism.
Anybody can speak about anything if they want to. Atheists can speak all they want about theism. But they don’t have a clue what theism is.
You’re a liar.
To take hold of a woman does not mean he is raping her. Plus you seemed to bypass the actual law that states if a man forced himself on a woman, he and he alone is to be put to death.
What choices and rights?
I haven’t given any argument for or against women in this thread.
It’s not that women are “special” because they carry babies. It is that they carry babies, period.
Only a female can naturally do that.
Maybe you’ve never been in a relationship where the man naturally is inclined to protect you when he senses danger. Or where you naturally feel secure that this man has your back.
If you had, you would know what I mean by “naturally”.
You are a liar!
Show where I’ve said anything like this.
I said that if abuse did come to mind, it is on the abuser.
Liar!
I don’t know what Tiassa’s gig is, but playing the the victim, a symptom of your feminist/woke/whatever culture, is different from being being victimised.
“Slut shaming”!
Another lie!
Another lie!
I’m not a misogynist, and you have yet to show what makes me one.
You stupidly called me a racist too.
Where is the evidence of that? Liar!
I know why you’re angry and fed up.
Because you are morally bankrupt, and averse to truth.
There is no virtue in lying.
You put yourself on the back-foot every time you do so. You are your own worst enemy.
- Status