927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
“running a wordpress blog on the internets gives you no added credibility to pronounce anything as valid or invalid Nate. Thats one of your fallacies. Carmen was lying for the most part. i have never concealed neither has anyone had to figure out it was me posting on this blog.” – ABlacksmanagain
likewise, commenting on a wordpress blog on the internet gives you no added credibility to pronounce anything as valid or invalid, mike.
“Still its hilarious you still claiming i am abrasive with grlll spewing out obscenities and you even thanking his posts where he does.. perfect hypocrisy”
translation: “it’s okay to do it if someone else does it, even if they didn’t appear until after I first arrived.”
@ABlacksmanagain Been there. Suffered that. Back 20 or 30 years ago I spent some weird time on a Libertarian forum (libertarians: a political cult). And about 10 years ago I was being skinned alive on a UU forum for suggesting that “marriage” might not be the best word (I had been in favor of domestic partnerships since college, but was thrown for a loop when the UU insisted upon redefining marriage rather than equalizing rights. What can you do?
“Just a couple of verses later in 1 Cor 11, Paul says this:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
That’s a pretty clear difference”
Is it that your eyes just coincidentally glaze over when you quote mine or is it deliberate? just a couple verses later….
“. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”
No inequality. Another slash out quote mine defeated
and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???
Maybe you can jump in and help out William because differences in roles, anatomy and makeup don’t even begin to make the argument men and women are not equal in the NT.
the only thing you can really point to is that women are told not to usurp authority and teach. NO matter how you interpret that you have to first show that a role where women are not allowed the role to do just that (but prophecy and speak otherwise – prophecy being directly talking as the voice of God) equals one gender being over another in importance.
You cant really make the point so you are reduced to telling me about how people feel rather than whats true.
“@ABlacksmanagain Been there. Suffered that. Back 20 or 30 years ago I spent some weird time on a Libertarian forum (libertarians: a political cult). And about 10 years ago I was being skinned alive on a UU forum for suggesting that “marriage” might not be the best word”
LOl…I can imagine. Heres the other thing they are not telling you. When I came on this blog the first time i didn’t come in insulting and giving better than I get. No I made the alleged “mistake” of saying something like “Atheists tend to”
and the same William you see giving lectures on being civil with some others (with Nate’s tacit approval) were the ones to blast me for the very idea of saying something to that effect.
whatever your views on the issues I trust you can see the irony of this blog getting their backs up at the idea of saying atheist tend to do something when the blog and its readers are almost entirely on what Christians tend to do.
OF course at the time they thought I would slink away…and on that mistake well……. the rest as they say is history…..lol
No inequality. Another slash out quote mine defeated
You’re simply wrong, Mike. 1 Corinthians has to be taken in its entire context. When taking chapter 11 as a whole, it’s obvious that Paul is teaching that there’s a notable difference between men and women, and he’s not talking about biology. Women were made FOR men, according to him.
As William has said, 1 Cor 14 says this:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
So whatever Paul means about women praying and prophesying, it has to be understood alongside statements like this. It’s a complex issue with some nuance. But to just make a blanket statement that men and women are obviously equals in Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest.
Look, these exchanges don’t have to be so hostile. No one here is an expert on everything. You may know some thing that I don’t, and vice versa. It’s okay to sometimes say:
Hmm, that’s a pretty good point. Hadn’t considered it before. Let me think on that a bit and get back to you.
Now maybe you haven’t seen any points yet that make you question your position. But some of your comments sound more like desperation than thoughtful discourse. Not trying to sound insulting, so forgive me if it comes off that way. I just wish we could get along better.
“and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???” – ABlacksmanagain
who said this?
who?
no one.
it’s like me saying, “peanut butter on rice is dumb, mike – therefore, i’m right and you’re wrong… in order to have a debate with me, you’ll have to show how peanut butter on rice isnt dumb…”
none of us know what you’re talking about and we keep trying to steer you back to what what’s being discussed. c’mon man. you have it in you, but it’s like you’re doing this on purpose, this stupid and obnoxious act… why? for real, why?
we are talking about:
speaking in the church compared to not being allowed to speak in the church – how is that equal?
women not being allowed to teach men compared to men being allowed to teach women – how is that equal?
it would be better than saying so and so is stupid or dishonest or bad with women or whatever. It’s also better than discussing things that aren’t the points.
lol, i still think this is likely some joke – like a prank phone-caller. the amount of time makes me think maybe not, but then it also makes it funnier if it is all a farce…
Frankly I don’t think any of us are winning friends or influencing people with the toxic dynamic that’s going on here. For the record, unless it’s people who have been around a long time and know the history of how any of this got started they aren’t going to know who threw the first mud pie. So I think it’s rather pointless to keep an argument going just for the sake of the argument because our wee little feelings got hurt.
That was my take, too, but it comes with a problem: it assumes religious belief is generally open to ‘new’ morals rules. this is the exception – usually from the tiny minority that are extraordinarily liberal denominations. The good being done by people from these denominations stands on its own merit and doesn’t require any addition from the religious beliefs. Painting the religion to be responsible for these actions is the same reasoning used to paint the the doctrine of the Catholic Church as that practiced by priestly pedophiles. To be consistent in one’s thinking, i one accepts the former, one must also accept the latter.
I don;t think it’s true.
The problem with associating moral behaviour to some god is that it shifts responsibility from the practitioner operating autonomously to this nebulous notion of some ‘god’ directing good but not bad behaviour. And that’s why there’s so much confusion when true believers ‘just following divine orders’ is compared to good little Nazis just following their Dear Leader’s orders. You see the problem… immoral behaviour is not just hidden but excused by this belief in god. Religious belief in practice – even if producing good works – is actually immoral for just this reason: it eliminates personal moral autonomy.
I give a good hearty “Amen” to Ruth. Let’s cut this nasty food fight off, not by banning anyone, but by not responding to the taunts. Let’s stop rewarding bad behavior.
Great. Got proof? show it from the text. I would think by now you know neither one of us are going to take each others opinions.
” 1 Corinthians has to be taken in its entire context. When taking chapter 11 as a whole, it’s obvious that Paul is teaching that there’s a notable difference between men and women, and he’s not talking about biology. Women were made FOR men, according to him.”
and? whats even the point Nate ? Genesis already records that Eve was made to be a partner FOR Adam. So yes Eve was made for Adam. Nothing remarkable in the NT affirming Adam and Eve. Do tell. However as the passage then points out (and you conveniently left out) every man after that came from a woman so – equality regardless now on that issue. Apparently you didn’t even read the verse you let out quoting. Its pefectly within context.
“As William has said, 1 Cor 14 says this:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”
Sure but thats where your whole “have to look at the whole context” claim falls apart. Its QUITE obvious you never have for either Corinthians passage or you would have known the verse you left out. let me give you a hint. It didn’t apply to every meeting of the church thats where chapter 11 comes in
“So whatever Paul means about women praying and prophesying, it has to be understood alongside statements like this.”
Great so ummm why don’y you do that? Instead you wish to navigate around what Chapter 11 OF THE SAME BOOK SAYS. Why because it tends to weaken you claim that women should always be silent and no again if you knew the context and had a clue about the early church 14 doesn’t say that.
” It’s a complex issue with some nuance. But to just make a blanket statement that men and women are obviously equals in Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest.
Look, these exchanges don’t have to be so hostile.”
Nate I don’t think I could come up with a greater example of your obvious dis ingenuity and duplicity. In one sentence you claim I am ignorant or dishonest but in the VERY NEXT next claim that from now on I shouldn’t be hostile when what you usually call hostile is me pointing out your own ignorance and dishonesty.
Pretzels don’t do more twists…..Sheesh. You are certainly not fooling me with that double talk. Try the faithful who will rubber stamp anything you say.
Second I didn’t make a blanket statement. You are fibbing The new testament makes the claim itself and I showed the passages that show how a woman is one and therefore equal with man. its the NT teaching that Women and men are equal in Christ. Even the passage I cited on racism says the exact same thing. You are desperate to show otherwise after a long line of blunders on what the Bible actually teaches.
Meanwhile Neither you or WIlliam have given even a SLIVER of evidence that even if a woman were never ever to talk in any meeting of the church (which 11 proves incorrrect on your part) that would mean the NT teaches that one gender is greater than another. It would no more than saying my wife is superior to me because God willed her give birth to our Children but gave me no abilities to partake in that.
Different roles no more make me less nor more valuable or inequal than on the job where another might speak for the company in the PR department and I work for a department that doesn’t.
““and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???” – ABlacksmanagain
“who said this?
who?
no one.”
William blurts
ROFL…….The rubber stamping doesn’t get more any entertaining than that.
Nate I have made myself PERFECTLY clear from the moment I come back. You can always take me at my word 😉
Unless you do a 180 on your previous definitions of what you define as cordial, acceptable and unacceptable I have no intentions of abiding by your bias. You are going to reign in on Arch, Ark and company when they spew? How? Your bias always has allowed you to classify those on your own side of the issue differently. I’ll believe that when I see it so do what you wish and I will do accordingly. Apparently we are both prepared to follow through. the last time you modded I abided by my part of the deal and you never did to your side. Don’t even try to ask me to trust you again on that. .
Besides if your last post before these was any indication Whats there to change? You felt it was fine to claim i was ignorant or dishonest. Basically my message in a nutshell to a lot of things. you say.
Ruth is about the only one in this thread that walks your talk.
Like I said to Marvin, I’m torn between two opposing desires: to keep unmoderated conversation moving on this blog and to keep things cordial. That’s a very hard balance to strike.
The guys you mentioned have definitely crossed the line before, and so have others (myself included). However, whenever I’ve asked them to stop, they’ve typically complied. And most other commenters here have been gracious enough to ignore them as needed. This isn’t the first time I’ve asked you to take a kinder tone, and you’ve usually refused whenever I’ve asked. Or at least, it’s seemed that way to me. I’m hoping things can be different this time.
I’m not too interested in rehashing everything that’s come before, but since you’ve mentioned this:
the last time you modded I abided by my part of the deal and you never did to your side
more than once, I’ll offer a reply.
You have been referred to a couple of times since you were banned, but I can’t think of a time when it was by name, and you were never the actual subject of the conversation. It was a passing reference — sort of an inside joke for those of us who were around back then. I don’t really see that as a violation of our agreement — but at the same time, it’s not like we’re talking about an actual contract. Nevertheless, if that bothered you, then I apologize. At the same time, try to understand that you made a big enough impression at the time that it would be hard to expect anyone to never refer to you again.
Regardless, I hate arguing. I much prefer having polite conversations that honestly deal with a particular subject. Are you willing to look past any slights and start over?
Finding Truth 
“running a wordpress blog on the internets gives you no added credibility to pronounce anything as valid or invalid Nate. Thats one of your fallacies. Carmen was lying for the most part. i have never concealed neither has anyone had to figure out it was me posting on this blog.” – ABlacksmanagain
likewise, commenting on a wordpress blog on the internet gives you no added credibility to pronounce anything as valid or invalid, mike.
LikeLike
“Still its hilarious you still claiming i am abrasive with grlll spewing out obscenities and you even thanking his posts where he does.. perfect hypocrisy”
translation: “it’s okay to do it if someone else does it, even if they didn’t appear until after I first arrived.”
LikeLike
@ABlacksmanagain Been there. Suffered that. Back 20 or 30 years ago I spent some weird time on a Libertarian forum (libertarians: a political cult). And about 10 years ago I was being skinned alive on a UU forum for suggesting that “marriage” might not be the best word (I had been in favor of domestic partnerships since college, but was thrown for a loop when the UU insisted upon redefining marriage rather than equalizing rights. What can you do?
LikeLike
Thanks, Nate.
LikeLike
“Just a couple of verses later in 1 Cor 11, Paul says this:
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
That’s a pretty clear difference”
Is it that your eyes just coincidentally glaze over when you quote mine or is it deliberate? just a couple verses later….
“. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman.”
No inequality. Another slash out quote mine defeated
and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???
Maybe you can jump in and help out William because differences in roles, anatomy and makeup don’t even begin to make the argument men and women are not equal in the NT.
the only thing you can really point to is that women are told not to usurp authority and teach. NO matter how you interpret that you have to first show that a role where women are not allowed the role to do just that (but prophecy and speak otherwise – prophecy being directly talking as the voice of God) equals one gender being over another in importance.
You cant really make the point so you are reduced to telling me about how people feel rather than whats true.
LikeLike
“@ABlacksmanagain Been there. Suffered that. Back 20 or 30 years ago I spent some weird time on a Libertarian forum (libertarians: a political cult). And about 10 years ago I was being skinned alive on a UU forum for suggesting that “marriage” might not be the best word”
LOl…I can imagine. Heres the other thing they are not telling you. When I came on this blog the first time i didn’t come in insulting and giving better than I get. No I made the alleged “mistake” of saying something like “Atheists tend to”
and the same William you see giving lectures on being civil with some others (with Nate’s tacit approval) were the ones to blast me for the very idea of saying something to that effect.
whatever your views on the issues I trust you can see the irony of this blog getting their backs up at the idea of saying atheist tend to do something when the blog and its readers are almost entirely on what Christians tend to do.
OF course at the time they thought I would slink away…and on that mistake well……. the rest as they say is history…..lol
LikeLike
You’re simply wrong, Mike. 1 Corinthians has to be taken in its entire context. When taking chapter 11 as a whole, it’s obvious that Paul is teaching that there’s a notable difference between men and women, and he’s not talking about biology. Women were made FOR men, according to him.
As William has said, 1 Cor 14 says this:
So whatever Paul means about women praying and prophesying, it has to be understood alongside statements like this. It’s a complex issue with some nuance. But to just make a blanket statement that men and women are obviously equals in Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest.
Look, these exchanges don’t have to be so hostile. No one here is an expert on everything. You may know some thing that I don’t, and vice versa. It’s okay to sometimes say:
Now maybe you haven’t seen any points yet that make you question your position. But some of your comments sound more like desperation than thoughtful discourse. Not trying to sound insulting, so forgive me if it comes off that way. I just wish we could get along better.
LikeLike
“and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???” – ABlacksmanagain
who said this?
who?
no one.
it’s like me saying, “peanut butter on rice is dumb, mike – therefore, i’m right and you’re wrong… in order to have a debate with me, you’ll have to show how peanut butter on rice isnt dumb…”
none of us know what you’re talking about and we keep trying to steer you back to what what’s being discussed. c’mon man. you have it in you, but it’s like you’re doing this on purpose, this stupid and obnoxious act… why? for real, why?
we are talking about:
speaking in the church compared to not being allowed to speak in the church – how is that equal?
women not being allowed to teach men compared to men being allowed to teach women – how is that equal?
LikeLike
Wow, Mike. Talk about ‘spin’. . . you’re making me laugh, now!
LikeLike
mike, you’re welcome to address the points.
it would be better than saying so and so is stupid or dishonest or bad with women or whatever. It’s also better than discussing things that aren’t the points.
LikeLike
lol, i still think this is likely some joke – like a prank phone-caller. the amount of time makes me think maybe not, but then it also makes it funnier if it is all a farce…
LikeLike
Frankly I don’t think any of us are winning friends or influencing people with the toxic dynamic that’s going on here. For the record, unless it’s people who have been around a long time and know the history of how any of this got started they aren’t going to know who threw the first mud pie. So I think it’s rather pointless to keep an argument going just for the sake of the argument because our wee little feelings got hurt.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Point taken, Ruth.
LikeLike
well, okay, ruth. okay.
LikeLike
@William re comment to Marvin
That was my take, too, but it comes with a problem: it assumes religious belief is generally open to ‘new’ morals rules. this is the exception – usually from the tiny minority that are extraordinarily liberal denominations. The good being done by people from these denominations stands on its own merit and doesn’t require any addition from the religious beliefs. Painting the religion to be responsible for these actions is the same reasoning used to paint the the doctrine of the Catholic Church as that practiced by priestly pedophiles. To be consistent in one’s thinking, i one accepts the former, one must also accept the latter.
I don;t think it’s true.
The problem with associating moral behaviour to some god is that it shifts responsibility from the practitioner operating autonomously to this nebulous notion of some ‘god’ directing good but not bad behaviour. And that’s why there’s so much confusion when true believers ‘just following divine orders’ is compared to good little Nazis just following their Dear Leader’s orders. You see the problem… immoral behaviour is not just hidden but excused by this belief in god. Religious belief in practice – even if producing good works – is actually immoral for just this reason: it eliminates personal moral autonomy.
LikeLike
I give a good hearty “Amen” to Ruth. Let’s cut this nasty food fight off, not by banning anyone, but by not responding to the taunts. Let’s stop rewarding bad behavior.
LikeLike
I agree. Let’s also give Mike a chance to reset too.
Everyone game for clearing the slate and moving forward with kinder conversation?
LikeLike
“You’re simply wrong, Mike.”
Great. Got proof? show it from the text. I would think by now you know neither one of us are going to take each others opinions.
” 1 Corinthians has to be taken in its entire context. When taking chapter 11 as a whole, it’s obvious that Paul is teaching that there’s a notable difference between men and women, and he’s not talking about biology. Women were made FOR men, according to him.”
and? whats even the point Nate ? Genesis already records that Eve was made to be a partner FOR Adam. So yes Eve was made for Adam. Nothing remarkable in the NT affirming Adam and Eve. Do tell. However as the passage then points out (and you conveniently left out) every man after that came from a woman so – equality regardless now on that issue. Apparently you didn’t even read the verse you let out quoting. Its pefectly within context.
“As William has said, 1 Cor 14 says this:
Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.”
Sure but thats where your whole “have to look at the whole context” claim falls apart. Its QUITE obvious you never have for either Corinthians passage or you would have known the verse you left out. let me give you a hint. It didn’t apply to every meeting of the church thats where chapter 11 comes in
“So whatever Paul means about women praying and prophesying, it has to be understood alongside statements like this.”
Great so ummm why don’y you do that? Instead you wish to navigate around what Chapter 11 OF THE SAME BOOK SAYS. Why because it tends to weaken you claim that women should always be silent and no again if you knew the context and had a clue about the early church 14 doesn’t say that.
” It’s a complex issue with some nuance. But to just make a blanket statement that men and women are obviously equals in Christianity is either ignorant or dishonest.
Look, these exchanges don’t have to be so hostile.”
Nate I don’t think I could come up with a greater example of your obvious dis ingenuity and duplicity. In one sentence you claim I am ignorant or dishonest but in the VERY NEXT next claim that from now on I shouldn’t be hostile when what you usually call hostile is me pointing out your own ignorance and dishonesty.
Pretzels don’t do more twists…..Sheesh. You are certainly not fooling me with that double talk. Try the faithful who will rubber stamp anything you say.
Second I didn’t make a blanket statement. You are fibbing The new testament makes the claim itself and I showed the passages that show how a woman is one and therefore equal with man. its the NT teaching that Women and men are equal in Christ. Even the passage I cited on racism says the exact same thing. You are desperate to show otherwise after a long line of blunders on what the Bible actually teaches.
Meanwhile Neither you or WIlliam have given even a SLIVER of evidence that even if a woman were never ever to talk in any meeting of the church (which 11 proves incorrrect on your part) that would mean the NT teaches that one gender is greater than another. It would no more than saying my wife is superior to me because God willed her give birth to our Children but gave me no abilities to partake in that.
Different roles no more make me less nor more valuable or inequal than on the job where another might speak for the company in the PR department and I work for a department that doesn’t.
Does not logically follow
LikeLike
“That’s a pretty clear difference” – Nate
““and who claims there is no difference between men and women. You are i believe married and with children to boot. Never noticed differences???” – ABlacksmanagain
“who said this?
who?
no one.”
William blurts
ROFL…….The rubber stamping doesn’t get more any entertaining than that.
LikeLike
Mike, I’ll let you get caught up with all the comments before responding.
LikeLike
I am all caught up Nate. Don’t see anything noteworthy more to respond to
LikeLike
Are you also on board with trying to carry things forward more cordially?
LikeLike
Nate I have made myself PERFECTLY clear from the moment I come back. You can always take me at my word 😉
Unless you do a 180 on your previous definitions of what you define as cordial, acceptable and unacceptable I have no intentions of abiding by your bias. You are going to reign in on Arch, Ark and company when they spew? How? Your bias always has allowed you to classify those on your own side of the issue differently. I’ll believe that when I see it so do what you wish and I will do accordingly. Apparently we are both prepared to follow through. the last time you modded I abided by my part of the deal and you never did to your side. Don’t even try to ask me to trust you again on that. .
Besides if your last post before these was any indication Whats there to change? You felt it was fine to claim i was ignorant or dishonest. Basically my message in a nutshell to a lot of things. you say.
Ruth is about the only one in this thread that walks your talk.
LikeLike
Don’t
feed
the
____!
LikeLike
Mike,
Like I said to Marvin, I’m torn between two opposing desires: to keep unmoderated conversation moving on this blog and to keep things cordial. That’s a very hard balance to strike.
The guys you mentioned have definitely crossed the line before, and so have others (myself included). However, whenever I’ve asked them to stop, they’ve typically complied. And most other commenters here have been gracious enough to ignore them as needed. This isn’t the first time I’ve asked you to take a kinder tone, and you’ve usually refused whenever I’ve asked. Or at least, it’s seemed that way to me. I’m hoping things can be different this time.
I’m not too interested in rehashing everything that’s come before, but since you’ve mentioned this:
more than once, I’ll offer a reply.
You have been referred to a couple of times since you were banned, but I can’t think of a time when it was by name, and you were never the actual subject of the conversation. It was a passing reference — sort of an inside joke for those of us who were around back then. I don’t really see that as a violation of our agreement — but at the same time, it’s not like we’re talking about an actual contract. Nevertheless, if that bothered you, then I apologize. At the same time, try to understand that you made a big enough impression at the time that it would be hard to expect anyone to never refer to you again.
Regardless, I hate arguing. I much prefer having polite conversations that honestly deal with a particular subject. Are you willing to look past any slights and start over?
LikeLike