The Truth (As I see it)

Select certain sentences -- the post that this is replying to is an example.
offends -- your snarky remarks that you call humor or sacrasm.
talking about something Irrelevant -- the post that this is replying to is an example of you doing that.

There are two possiblities here 1) you really are completely unaware of doing what you claim that I do or 2) you are doing it deliberately. If 1) then it is "breathtakingly moronic" how little you know of yourself. If 2) you're being a jackass and its annoying.

Now on to the serious argument...
Judaism doesn't believe that Gentiles (Non-Jews) are to be held accountable to the Mosaic Law. Instead they believe they are to held accountable to the "Seven Laws of Noah". So as a Gentile Chistian, why should I hold myself accountable to the Mosaic Law?

Second,

HUSBANDS. Not men in general.
My relationship to she-who-will-be-my-wife may or may not be defined by the Head-Body relationship depending on whether or not it can be defined in such a manner that keeps the relationship subject to the law "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" which is the superior law. My relationship with every other woman should be bound by the principals of equality because the verses you quote have no application to any other relationship other than a husband and his wife.

 

Of course; I neglected to mention that you select certain sentences and ignore others, which seem of importance; forgive me for assuming some interpretative comprehension on your part.

I'm not really interested in whatever you think about my manner. However I say what I say, it's as valid or invalid as if it was said any other way; and I don't see that you've shown yourself deserving of any respect whatsoever, in any case.

You'll definitely have to be more specific about that. What I seem to understand from reading it, is that you think my post above was irrelevant; and I know from reading it (and writing it) that my post above was a response to something you wrote about me doing what I've accused you of doing, and about how your arguments are of no consequence because they're weak and fallacious; ipso facto, it is not irrelevant, because a direct response combined with a direct comment on your argument cannot be but relevant.

Or, 3) You don't read good.

I think I already mentioned Matthew 5:17 (or whatever it is); but in any case, if you don't think that certain actions are to be taken by believers in God (there wasn't the distinction of Jews and Christians then, obviously), and that is not specifically mentioned in the Bible (that people who believe in God but also believe in Jesus Christ are exempt from certain laws), then you are reading a fair amount of interpretation into it, the way I see it, because you're picking and choosing parts of the Old Testament to follow and believe in, and arbitrarily ignoring or grossly liberally interpreting others.

So, husbands are superior to their wives? Is that one of the parts of the Old Testament that's real, unlike the unseemly parts? or is that your own personal opinion? If "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is the superior law, in what circumstances do the others (killing people, &c.) apply? Wouldn't they be negated wholly? If the Bible says: "Love your neighbour &c.", and it says all that stuff about wives, which one do you do? What're the criteria? In any case, you do believe that the husband is the superior of the two, and that women should be kept in silent submission?

 

I know I'm a bit late here, but are you saying I'm left wing or liberal?

 

4

 

Ah, I see. Thank you for the clarification sir.

 

While glancing through his post, I thought it read "Saven Laws of North", and I put on Ai O Torimodose. A religion based on Hokuto No Ken seems more fun then a religion based on the Old Testament.

Quick note: if my girlfriend heard me say "women are supposed to be quiet and inferior to their husbands" she'd send me flying through a wall. Generalisation leads to many bad things, like racism and discrimination.

 

But it's in the Bible! The Word of God! (How do I know that? It's in the Bible!)

 

The Bible is also totally okay with slavery.

 

Not with murdering your slaves, though, as I mentioned already. You can only beat them to within an inch of their lives; you can't kill them for no reason. I think the official line is, if they get up after a day or two, no harm done (Exodus 21:20-21, I think...)!

 

Oh well, that makes slavery just fine and dandy then, I mean we wouldn't want those fools dying, but by all means impose brutal physical labor on them and call a human being your property!

 

I'm sure justice is a symptom of piety; so don't worry about it!

 

Not that I've given a shit about this thread in the last 32+ pages, but why is it still going?

 

Multiple possibilities:
1: It really matters.
2: It's fun.
3: We've got nothing better to do.
4: It's derailed to the point where we can discuss anything and everything, which is what we like to do.

5: If you post here you get free candy.

 

And its fun to create theories, then smash them apart and see what remains. (Yip! yip!*) Like kids with building blocks.

I get the pleasure of theorizing, you get the pleasure of taking them apart, and then we all learn from what remains.

*Puppy is loose again.

Science? Science is all theory that has no REAL application to reality. I took Engineering (but didn't finish). In engineering, you learn that 1 has a single significant figure and can equal to as much as 1.49 or 0.50 as expressed with 3 significant figures. And 1.00 (one with three significant figures) can be as much as 1.004 or as little as 0.995 as expressed with four significant figures. So unless you have discovered a device that can accurately measure an ounce of copper to the weight of a single atom in ounces, you WILL have rounding errors. And it those rounding errors that Guarantee that your two pieces of copper are not equal in measure, regardless of how well you measured them.

And doesn't chemistry teach that objects are only in states of equilibrium, which means that as the copper interacts with the air, the number of its atoms is always in a state of flux?

Furthermore, why do you suppose that Ergodic Hypothesis is still called a hypothesis? If it had ANY support from evidence, wouldn't it be called a theory? It probably doesn't have sufficient evidence to be called a theory because it postulates a level of purity that doesn't exist in reality; therefore, reality keeps disproving it.

Finally, if computer chip makers weren't concerned with WHERE the impurities were, we wouldn't have the computer technology that gets them as small as it does (because impurites function like wires on the molecular level).

// One final lesson, you know those "negligible" values of heat that escape into the atmosphere during your chemistry experiments? If you ever do anything with weather or climate, don't maintain the assumption that the atmosphere can absorb an infinite amount of heat.

============

Witty? It was so full of hot air that it passed completely over my head! If an objection it be.

Did you not quote, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man"? Moreover, did not I challenge your preconceived notions of what it means to teach by pointing out the body does not teach the head and yet still informs the head of necessary information? In Jesus’ day, a Teacher was the same as a Master (Think Jedi's system of training, if you will). Therefore, those that taught also had authority that went with it. So the question to apply this doctrine would be "Who Has The Authority?"
Consider this, regardless of whether or not a poster on this forum is male or female, the only authorities that I recognize is the Authority over the site (and thus over whether or not my words are published on this site) and the authority of Knowledge. The authority of the speaker as a dispenser of information I ignore. I feel that a person who is an expert in a field should still be required to provide the basis for the knowledge that comes from that expertise. Therefore, if I ignore the authority of the poster when considering the poster's words, what authority does the poster have over me? None. Therefore, when a poster is female, yet has no authority over me, how can she be my Teacher or Master?

By believing that I have no authority except the authority of Knowledge and treating all others likewise, I maintain the Equality between us by lifting neither others nor myself. The main lesson that I have been learning is that there is difference between what I thought was knowledge and what knowledge actually is.

Where is the word "inferior" used? The verses don't describe inferiority verse supremacy; they describe the relationship in terms of authority:

Since when is the head stronger than the body? Is not the body more skilled than the head? And yet the head possesses the authority over the body.

This verse can actually be used to support my position that women are superior in ability because, being made for man, a woman can possess the abilities that a man does not have. For why would a man need help from one that is inferior in ability?

"Subjection" and "authority" are words that deal with a relationship in terms of authority and not ability.

And in every case when there is a verse that appears to diminish women, it is always in relationship towards her husband. Therefore, these verses apply principally to the husband-wife relationship.

• "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

This verse is best for why a woman's silence in the church deals with her relationship towards her husband. "for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" refers to the husband being shamed by her speaking. Let me elaborate...

According to Judaism, to shame or to embarrass is to cause the blood to leave another's face; that is to say, to Shed the Blood of another's face. Therefore shaming another falls under Thou-Shalt-Not-Murder. (see http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm)
Next comes the question of whether or not this applies to Gentiles, as well as Jews, because if it merely part of the Mosaic Law, it does not apply to non-Jews.
1) Eve's curse includes "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)
2) Noah when shamed by Ham for seeing him naked cursed Canaan, son of Ham. (Genesis 9:22-25)
These two verses suggest that a wife shaming her husband would indeed be immoral and should be applied to Gentiles (as the authority of man is established in Genesis 3 & the wrong doing of causing shame is established in Genesis 9). So every woman should learn if her speaking in church shames him or not. Of course, if a woman feels that she shouldn't speak in church, regardless of whether or not she shames her husband, then she shouldn't, because she believes she shouldn't (Romans 14:20).

However, there is still the question of being an example to others. By this, I mean whether or not it will cause others to stumble. If you attend a church along side others whose wives would be shaming their husbands if they spoke, then it would be a poor example for your wife to speak. If you attend a church that permits women to speak, then it is a poor example to the wives of the men who are shamed. (Romans 14)

As some people feel no shame and others do, shame is a hard concept to evaluate the question of what is moral. For you might shame someone in one case, but not another in a different case. Therefore, Is it better to assume to you will shame a person or to shame them then apologize because you didn't know?

Also, there is a difference between a female without authority speaking and a female with authority speaking. When a female is given authority, that authority gives her liberty to speak. No man feels shame when his wife is hired to do a job and she does it. Likewise, no husband feels shame when his wife is hired by a church to be pastor or a school to be teacher and she limits her use of authority to what she was hired to do. If she exceeds her mandate, then let the ones who hired her determine whether she can keep her authority or not. As a man's relationship with his wife has no bearing on his occupation, neither should a woman's relationship with her husband have any bearing on hers.

• "But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Mark 10:42-45)

 

... :lol:

No.

If the inferior parietal lobule is concerned with mathematical ability and the bigger the better, in this case, then a bigger inferior parietal lobule means better mathematical ability; therefore, if men in general have a larger inferior parietal lobule, then men in general have a more pronounced mathematical ability than do women. On average, men do have a larger inferior parietal lobule; therefore...

Ignoring the fact that this is simply a specious misappropriation of words, wouldn't that mean that women have less authority than men in some circumstances, simply on the basis of their being women, and that you agree with that, because it's in the Bible?

That seems a little hypocritical, considering that all I've observed you doing is spewing dogma.

So the husband holds authority over his wife. Why?

I don't pretend to know exactly what nonsense the Bible is shoving down our throats here; but I do see that it says that man stands to woman, as Christ stands to man, and as God stands to Christ.

Actually, firstly, no it can't be used to support your position, because it's just dogma; secondly, so you believe that women were created for men? What does that mean? Your point about ability seems to suggest that you believe that women were created to serve men.

So a husband has authority over his wife, simply because he's the husband (which is because he's the man)?

So, as I've said already, is it the case that the husband has authority over his wife, and that he can exercise power over her, or do whatever you consider the criterion of authority, and a wife cannot be in that position, simply because it's written in the Bible?

I barely read through that; but, what I think I gathered from it is that you believe, for Jews at least, that it is acceptable, in some circumstances, that a woman should be kept in a place of subjection and silenced, unable to voice her opinion, if and because it pleases her husband.

Conjecture, and most likely untrue.

As above.

"As a man's...": should be "If a man's...".

I don't get what you think the significance is; it doesn't seem to have any relevance, except by some long stretch of the imagination, mixed with some conjecture, and allowing for any interpretation you see fit, whether it be what was intended by the Scripture or not.


In short, what you seem to be advocating is that husbands hold authority over their wives, and that it is immoral for wives to shame their husbands. You claim this knowledge from the Bible, while simultaneously claiming that you value reasons over authority; so, I'm sure we'd all be obliged if you pointed out the reasons given in the Bible for why a wife should apparently be so obsequious to her husband.

Also, I'd like to know if you think it is immoral for a wife to contradict her husband or a friend of his (thereby shaming her husband) because she believes that she has more knowledge than he. A simple yes or no will suffice. What would perhaps make the most sense to me, is if you thought up a scenario where the Bible's doctrine should be observed, and then thought up one where it shouldn't (if you think any such thing exists), and gave the reasons why in each case.

 

It was you who generalised, you said an ounce, I was treating an ounce as an absolute value that can be exactly measured. If you two amounts of copper that you knew where both exactly an ounce (I know, you couldn't ever be that precise) they would both have the same number of copper atoms in them. Also the statement science has no application in reality is just beyond ridiculous; ever heard of medicine? Or wonder what made that computer you're using (you yourself mention computer chips)? Ever wonder how the engine in your car makes it go? Or what magically produced the paint on your walls? I could literally go on forever with real life examples of where science is applied but I won't.

There is proof actually, statistical mechanics can be used to predict values that come from actual measurement in thermodynamics. The Ergodic Hypothesis has nothing to do with purity, I was just applying it to the example you gave. Chemistry does teach that objects are in a state of equilibrium yes, but that's precisely it, just because copper is interacting with the air (producing holes where there weren't any before as a defect, whatever) does not mean that the overall properties of the object change (as the same number of holes that where already present seal up due to movement of the metal atoms). That is what equilibrium is about, though on a microscopic level things are changing dynamically these things are in balance, so overall nothing changes macroscopically and properties of the material remain the same.

Computer chip manufacturers won't care about tiny insignificant differences on the microscopic level. Where impurities are is really macroscopic, and they can easily produce things on the macroscopic level; there will of course be small variations from place to place when you look at these impurities on a microscopic level but these have no bearing on the bulk properties of the material.

 

When the alien overlords come, women will serve men with onions and horseradish.

Unless he's absolutely sure that what he's saying is true, which, I beleive, you could deduct from Xyle's earlier behavior.

Considering this arguing back and forth, I wonder if we aren't performing the exact same experiment over and over, and expecting a different result, like madmen.

 

After reading Xyle's recent essays, I just feel sorry for him. It's like he's trying to be a decent guy and behave in nice way while still adhering to his religion, but really he lacks the intellectual rigor necessary to reach any meaningful conclusions. I have this image of him as a lost child wandering around a world of half-truths. trying to make sense of it, but not being sophisticated enough to discriminate between important sounding empty phrases, and unpleasant but true facts.

Then we all pile on top of him, and he does his best to regurgitate things he's heard from other sources, or interpreted for himself, but without a solid foundation he doesn't really stand a chance.

He's quite harmless really, I just hope he doesn't fall under the influence of any of the more devious representatives of evangelism.

 

To my mind, he's some idiotic, arrogant prick who thinks there's some merit in twisting words. He thinks there's something mystical about it; that he's reaching some 'Truth', as he puts it, whereas he's just viewing things in a certain way to suit himself and then claiming to have some insight because he can't use a fucking dictionary, and barely even knows how to speak, or has a bastardized view of it; and he probably genuinely thinks that his sophistry has some deep meaning that we don't understand; but it's clear to me that's it's all just resultant of the way he was brought up, and that he fancies himself an intellectual who's seen the world and is privy to its arcana, when he's just a close-minded moron who can't lay a hand on his keyboard without fucking up whatever stupid point he thinks he has and prominently exhibiting what an absolute gobshite he is.

Foolish people are one thing; arrogant foolish people are another; but I've never encountered anyone who, not even really possessing the inability to admit that they're wrong, simply can't imagine that they are, and I'd say that from Xyle's attempts to show he's right, if he's for real, it's quite obvious that he's out-straight dull-witted, since he can't see that he's not making sense or answering arguments at all, and he ignores when we mention this because he thinks there's something to what he's saying that we can't see or can't accept.

 

Didn’t your parents ever teach you that you shouldn't insult the dead? It's bad karma and accomplishes nothing.

Have you never heard the childish taunt "I know you are, but what am I?" The faults in we see in others tend to be our own which is why this childish taunt still persists.

=============

How about the simple fact that men don't talk about emotions? [Generalization] (To disprove generalization, talk about your emotions.)

How often does she HIT you? And is she more likely to Hit you before or after she talks to her friends?

Fact: Anger is not a violent act. (And as such I rescind the description "violent emotions" and change it "emotions related to violence".)

----
I concede the points (mostly) that your ladyfriend brought up. (Which leaves a huge whole left to be filled, hence the mostly.)
----

When I used the word Cause, I did not mean Reason. Cause : "a principle or movement earnestly supported"