Southern Baptist Convention says "no" to women pastors

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.
Yes, some of the points that I read I feel are either, insignificant, a non sequitur, inaccurate, or implausible.
And, therefore, I dismiss the argument in a manner that I believe that the guilty party should have known better to employ such reasoning, that they did.
I get exasperated with atheist's world views.

Then you should be able to refute them easily if that was the case. I do not see you doing that to even the supposed easy ones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is. I am to judge, to the best of my ability, when a charlatan walks into the room, and warn others accordingly.
I am to judge who the real Christians are, and I must be under the same scrutiny.

You could then also be judged by them. If you were to claim that others were not true Christians they would probably be justified to claim the same about you.

 

[metis]

Yes, it is. I am to judge, to the best of my ability, when a charlatan walks into the room, and warn others accordingly.
I am to judge who the real Christians are, and I must be under the same scrutiny.

And yet you claim to believe Jesus when he said "Judge ye not...". What other teachings of his do you just blow off?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you.
Yes, some of the points that I read I feel are either, insignificant, a non sequitur, inaccurate, or implausible.
And, therefore, I dismiss the argument in a manner that I believe that the guilty party should have known better to employ such reasoning, that they did.
I get exasperated with atheist's world views.

That was part of my observation. You're very quick to dismiss and denigrate.

If, as you say,, "atheist's world views" are exasperating and atheist's points are implausible, inaccurate and just plain wrong, then it should be super easy for you to point that out to us silly atheists exactly where we've gone wrong. You know, like we do with your arguments.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then you should be able to refute them easily if that was the case. I do not see you doing that to even the supposed easy ones.

Ah, beat me to it!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am to judge who the real Christians are, and I must be under the same scrutiny.

You are. You are also being judged, albeit by humanist standards. So is the church.

Yes, some of the points that I read I feel are either, insignificant, a non sequitur, inaccurate, or implausible.
And, therefore, I dismiss the argument in a manner that I believe that the guilty party should have known better to employ such reasoning, that they did.

That's about the weakest form of dissent. The highest is rebuttal, or falsification. It says not just that one disagrees, but explains why the rebutted claim must be wrong. Nothing else if of any value in dialectic. After that, we find dissent accompanied by what is believed instead but no counterargument. After that, we find things like your hand-waving answers and ad hominem responses, which provide even less.

I get exasperated with atheist's world views.

What's so exasperating? Being disagreed with? I don't find your thinking exasperating. That's a great asymmetry of this activity - the way the two sides understand and react to one another. You read words like unfounded and incoherent, and the skeptic reads words like attack, evil, and hating God. It's emotional posting versus the posting in the demeanor of academia.

 

[DNB]

You could then also be judged by them. If you were to claim that others were not true Christians they would probably be justified to claim the same about you.

like i said, i get exasperated .
Why are you repeating what I already stated, in the 2nd clause, of the 2nd sentence?

 

[DNB]

And yet you claim to believe Jesus when he said "Judge ye not...". What other teachings of his do you just blow off?

Are we going in circles, or do you just answer without reading anyone else's posts?
...we already discussed what Jesus meant by 'do not judge'. I was correct, and you were not.

 

[DNB]

That was part of my observation. You're very quick to dismiss and denigrate.

If, as you say,, "atheist's world views" are exasperating and atheist's points are implausible, inaccurate and just plain wrong, then it should be super easy for you to point that out to us silly atheists exactly where we've gone wrong. You know, like we do with your arguments.

That's my point - you do not refute my arguments, you simply rebuttal with non-sequiturs.
That is, if you've even understood the point - I can't get past first base with you people. For me to attempt to establish a predicate that all humans are spiritual creatures, not one of you seem to comprehend what that means?
Every time that I say that humans have searched out the transcendent from the beginning of history, and due to that, we can establish an intrinsic attribute in regard to man's ontology, I am told by atheists that religion is merely a concession in order to keep society from devolving into chaos.

How do you explain the billions of dollars spent on religious edifices, religious education, religious literature, religious debates, etc...
How do you explain men going to the flames for their religious beliefs, the factions and dissentions within families, the honour killings, the sacrifices, the wars, etc, all in the name of religion?

Does this sound like a fairy tale in men's minds, simply to stabilize society?


...you're going to make me regret this, aren't you?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

like i said, i get exasperated .

Yes, you did say you get exasperated with atheists' world views. Does that mean that you think that the only correct "world view" is yours? What does that mean regarding your acceptance of the notions of freedoms of thought, religion, speech and so on? That "they're all okay, as long as they agree with me?" Are you all-wise?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That's my point - you do not refute my arguments, you simply rebuttal with non-sequiturs.
That is, if you've even understood the point - I can't get past first base with you people. For me to attempt to establish a predicate that all humans are spiritual creatures, not one of you seem to comprehend what that means?
Every time that I say that humans have searched out the transcendent from the beginning of history, and due to that, we can establish an intrinsic attribute in regard to man's ontology, I am told by atheists that religion is merely a concession in order to keep society from devolving into chaos.

How do you explain the billions of dollars spent on religious edifices, religious education, religious literature, religious debates, etc...
How do you explain men going to the flames for their religious beliefs, the factions and dissentions within families, the honour killings, the sacrifices, the wars, etc, all in the name of religion?

Does this sound like a fairy tale in men's minds, simply to stabilize society?


...you're going to make me regret this, aren't you?

You should regret it. Because you make a lot of claims: "ALL humans are spiritual creatures," just for example. I am human (you'll have to take my word on that), and I am not anything like what I would consider "spiritual." You say that "humans have searched out the transcendent from the beginning of history" I can tell you that (yes, I'm still human) I have not searched out the transcendent -- because I feel that it is nonsensical and an attempt to make the reality that we all know (we all go to funerals, we all suffer sometimes) not be the reality you want to accept. You don't like that reality, so you look for something else, and when you don't find it -- well, you just make it up.

How do you explain the many, many more billions of dollars spent on sports edifices, sports education, sports literature, sports debate etc.? What is the great "transcendent" prize we get from all that?

You ask, finally -- and this is the most important -- "How do you explain men going to the flames for their religious beliefs, the factions and dissentions within families, the honour killings, the sacrifices, the wars, etc, all in the name of religion?

And my answer to that? Stupidity. Killing yourself for a belief ends your belief -- because you're dead. Honour killings are purest evil, only slightly worse than sacrifices and wars in the name of religion. Here's an example: try to justify for us, in your own words, how cutting the heart out of a living human being makes for good religion.

 

[DNB]

You are. You are also being judged, albeit by humanist standards. So is the church.

That's about the weakest form of dissent. The highest is rebuttal, or falsification. It says not just that one disagrees, but explains why the rebutted claim must be wrong. Nothing else if of any value in dialectic. After that, we find dissent accompanied by what is believed instead but no counterargument. After that, we find things like your hand-waving answers and ad hominem responses, which provide even less.

What's so exasperating? Being disagreed with? I don't find your thinking exasperating. That's a great asymmetry of this activity - the way the two sides understand and react to one another. You read words like unfounded and incoherent, and the skeptic reads words like attack, evil, and hating God. It's emotional posting versus the posting in the demeanor of academia.

I can't get past first base with you people, ever.
Not one single predicate can be established with atheists, like man having a spiritual dimension within his constitution. What can be more axiomatic than this - where in the world is their a culture or society without a religion i.e. men appealing to the transcendent? Absolutely nowhere.
Thus, either I get accused of arguing from an ad populum position (right over their heads), or this phenomenon is ascribed to being a contrived fallacy, that was fabricated in order to functionalize society.
... Imagine that, all the scholarship on morality, doctrine, liturgy, polemics, apologetics, soteriology, theology, eschatology, angelology, etc... , and the billions of dollars spent on such matters, all based on a legend, knowingly derived by man, for a reason that has nothing to do with God. Absolutely oblivious!

I will gladly engage you on any matter, IANS, provided you could at least claim that man is not comprised of solely physical matter, but has a dimension within him that transcends the secular.

 

[DNB]

Yes, you did say you get exasperated with atheists' world views. Does that mean that you think that the only correct "world view" is yours? What does that mean regarding your acceptance of the notions of freedoms of thought, religion, speech and so on? That "they're all okay, as long as they agree with me?" Are you all-wise?

Basic principles do not need to be debated upon, as atheists incessantly do. Humans have a spiritual image, for the landslide majority of men and societies are religious.

Do you think I can get a single atheist to accept, or more correctly, to even perceive, this fact?
Yes, absolutely exasperated with the dullness, ... and especially, the defiance!

 

[DNB]

You should regret it. Because you make a lot of claims: "ALL humans are spiritual creatures," just for example. I am human (you'll have to take my word on that), and I am not anything like what I would consider "spiritual." You say that "humans have searched out the transcendent from the beginning of history" I can tell you that (yes, I'm still human) I have not searched out the transcendent -- because I feel that it is nonsensical and an attempt to make the reality that we all know (we all go to funerals, we all suffer sometimes) not be the reality you want to accept. You don't like that reality, so you look for something else, and when you don't find it -- well, you just make it up.

How do you explain the many, many more billions of dollars spent on sports edifices, sports education, sports literature, sports debate etc.? What is the great "transcendent" prize we get from all that?

You ask, finally -- and this is the most important -- "How do you explain men going to the flames for their religious beliefs, the factions and dissentions within families, the honour killings, the sacrifices, the wars, etc, all in the name of religion?

And my answer to that? Stupidity. Killing yourself for a belief ends your belief -- because you're dead. Honour killings are purest evil, only slightly worse than sacrifices and wars in the name of religion. Here's an example: try to justify for us, in your own words, how cutting the heart out of a living human being makes for good religion.

Men are spiritual - it manifests itself in many forms. Are you moral, then you're spiritual.
You may not be religious, but every culture and society throughout history, were.
Again, you're just not flippin' getting the point.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Basic principles do not need to be debated upon, as atheists incessantly do. Humans have a spiritual image, for the landslide majority of men and societies are religious.

Do you think I can get a single atheist to accept, or more correctly, to even perceive, this fact?
Yes, absolutely exasperated with the dullness, ... and especially, the defiance!

Men are spiritual - it manifests itself in many forms. Are you moral, then you're spiritual.
You may not be religious, but every culture and society throughout history, were.
Again, you're just not flippin' getting the point.

And you are also not getting the message. You claim that all humans are spiritual -- and the actual evidence you personally possess is that you are "spiritual." But here's a challenge. Define "spiritual." What it actually means, how it can be identified, how you can tell when it is not present.

Let me provide a little book that might help you undestand, by the French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville, called "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality." I know it quite well, by the way. (I won't provide a link, because you'll suppose I've chosen a supportive source.)

Now, the actual challenge is this: demonstrate how your view of "spirituality" must include the magic of a God or gods, and why Comte-Sponville's view of a godless spirituality must therefore be wrong.

See -- the real reason you are getting frustrated here is very simple: you have accepted as axiomatic that there is only one correct world-view -- and it is, by your own definition, your world-view. So when anybody disagrees with you, rather than look at why they disagree, you just punch back with another left-hook-spiritual to the jaw, and hope they'll fall to the mat.

Guess what -- the count hasn't even gotten to 1 yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

like i said, i get exasperated .
Why are you repeating what I already stated, in the 2nd clause, of the 2nd sentence?

Because you did not seem to understand your own post. You cannot even say how you would judge others except to use a hand waving argument. That is not very convincing. it indicates to many that your reasoning is anything but sound when you cannot state your standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Men are spiritual - it manifests itself in many forms. Are you moral, then you're spiritual.
You may not be religious, but every culture and society throughout history, were.
Again, you're just not flippin' getting the point.

What is "spiritual"? From what I have seen one be rational and be moral. There does not appear to be any need to be spiritual. One can achieve morals far superior to those of the Bible by using enlightened self interest as a basis for morality.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are also not getting the message. You claim that all humans are spiritual -- and the actual evidence you personally possess is that you are "spiritual." But here's a challenge. Define "spiritual." What it actually means, how it can be identified, how you can tell when it is not present.

Let me provide a little book that might help you undestand, by the French philosopher Andre Comte-Sponville, called "The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality." I know it quite well, by the way. (I won't provide a link, because you'll suppose I've chosen a supportive source.)

Now, the actual challenge is this: demonstrate how your view of "spirituality" must include the magic of a God or gods, and why Comte-Sponville's view of a godless spirituality must therefore be wrong.

See -- the real reason you are getting frustrated here is very simple: you have accepted as axiomatic that there is only one correct world-view -- and it is, by your own definition, your world-view. So when anybody disagrees with you, rather than look at why they disagree, you just punch back with another left-hook-spiritual to the jaw, and hope they'll fall to the mat.

Guess what -- the count hasn't even gotten to 1 yet.

Darn it beat me to it. But so far for debate, like you I have only seen empty claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's my point - you do not refute my arguments, you simply rebuttal with non-sequiturs.

You're describing yourself here.

That is, if you've even understood the point -

Ah, now a fun insult. Just as predicted.

I can't get past first base with you people. For me to attempt to establish a predicate that all humans are spiritual creatures, not one of you seem to comprehend what that means?

Perhaps you need to explain yourself better and maybe answer questions posed to you about your beliefs instead of just dismissing them as "non sequiturs," which they are not.

Every time that I say that humans have searched out the transcendent from the beginning of history, and due to that, we can establish an intrinsic attribute in regard to man's ontology, I am told by atheists that religion is merely a concession in order to keep society from devolving into chaos.

So rebut that argument then.

How do you explain the billions of dollars spent on religious edifices, religious education, religious literature, religious debates, etc...

How to explain them? Um, people erected them. What's to explain?

How do you explain men going to the flames for their religious beliefs, the factions and dissentions within families, the honour killings, the sacrifices, the wars, etc, all in the name of religion?

What's to explain? Why did 900 Heaven's Gate members kill themselves and their children because Jim Jones claimed to be the messiah?
Human beings do irrational things all the time.

Does this sound like a fairy tale in men's minds, simply to stabilize society?

I don't understand the question. Could you elaborate?

...you're going to make me regret this, aren't you?

You're in control of your own feelings. Not me.

 

[metis]

Are we going in circles, or do you just answer without reading anyone else's posts?
...we already discussed what Jesus meant by 'do not judge'. I was correct, and you were not.

Nah, you just believe in yourself as we've seen as you have judged against Jesus' teachings on that, thus you simply are not telling the truth.

So, I guess we're done-- at least as far as I'm concerned.