Is it acceptable to be disrespectful to the Christian faith

[DeletedUser]

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon are all considered cannon; however Sirach is not. Therefore The book of wisdom is as a collection is not considered cannon in its entirety by the majority of Christians.

Lol, really? Well that's easy to dispute.

OVER HALF of all Christians are Roman Catholic. So, on Roman Catholics alone, the MAJORITY of Christians DO consider the Book of Wisdom of Solomon to be canon.

And yeah, you keep spelling it wrong... oh, and yeah, Sirach is not the Book of Wisdom of Solomon. You are referring to the Book of Wisdom of Sirach. Once again, the least you could do is know what you're talking about if you're going to attempt to argue your own religion with me.

You speak of disrespect but your understanding is flawed. There is a difference between respect and permissiveness. <...> Disagreeing or defending one's beliefs is not the same as disrespect.

I see you're resorting to dictionary definitions as a means to muddy your behaviors. It's a common debate tactic, but not a good one. But, just to play this game, which one do you think you are --- disrespectful or intolerant (the antonym of permissive) and what makes you think such?

Again, to play your game, being intolerant, or even tolerant, of a group, gender, or otherwise doesn't make you respectful of them. In the case of intolerance, it's an extension of disrespect because you enforce your beliefs upon others. In the case of tolerance, it's still an extension of disrespect, as you "encroach" your beliefs upon others. Active or passive condemnation of gender, genetic and/or chromosomal differentiation is indeed disrespect and becomes particularly obvious when the evidence of genetic/chromosomal differentiation is presented.

Oh, and as to your example, that was largely a joke taken out of context (and you recognized such in your response to it here). Regardless, it does go inline with Abrahamic teachings that all things created on Earth were created for the express purpose of accommodating Man, and that such is plentiful (despite evidence to the contrary, as witnessed through species extinctions, resource depletion, and similar). Once again, not disrespect but a tongue-in-cheek presentation of species-destructive behavior, particularly if you examine the Armageddon arguments and the notion of Salvation.

It reminds me of the time I was alongside another person as we bobbed up and down in the waters of the Pacific, after we were pulled a mile+ from shore due to a rip current. He was panicked and kept screaming, "help me! help me! I'm drowning!" and as a result he was taking in a lot of water, thrashing about wasting his energy, and making it impossible for me to even get near him to save him without drowning myself. Eventually I got frustrated and yelled at him, "shut up and get on your back, nobody is going to save your ass except you!"

Luckily, he complied and made it. Anyway, that was the basis for the joke I posed in that other thread, in that many Abrahamic denominations advocate waiting until Someone comes around and saves them from their own irresponsible gesticulations when, ultimately, we really need to just save ourselves, our species, and stop expecting "divine intervention."



Where We Stand -- So here it is Willy, I repeatedly provided evidence to support my assertions. I twice asked for you to provide evidence to support your assertions and you have failed. Bring it or concede.

 

[DeletedUser]

Lol, really? Well that's easy to dispute.

OVER HALF of all Christians are Roman Catholic. So, on Roman Catholics alone, the MAJORITY of Christians DO consider the Book of Wisdom of Solomon to be canon.

And yeah, you keep spelling it wrong...


I see you're resorting to dictionary definitions as a means to muddy your behaviors. It's a common debate tactic, but not a good one. But, just to play this game, which one do you think you are --- disrespectful or intolerant (the antonym of permissive) and what makes you think such?

Okay canon... The Roman Catholic does not represent Christianity as a whole, they are just one denomination regardless of population. That like saying China represents the world because they have the most people.

There is a difference to respecting some one and being tolerant of their bad behavior. If a teacher asks a student to leave the room because he is being disruptive that is not disrespectful. If a judge has to expel a defendant from the court room because his behavior is disruptive that is not disrespectful. You are saying that the bad behavior is their right and the moral authority has no right to say otherwise. That is not the case.

Again, to play your game, being intolerant, or even tolerant, of a group, gender, or otherwise doesn't make you respectful of them. In the case of intolerance, it's an extension of disrespect because you enforce your beliefs upon others. In the case of tolerance, it's still an extension of disrespect, as you "encroach" your beliefs upon others. Active or passive condemnation of gender, genetic and/or chromosomal differentiation is indeed disrespect and becomes particularly obvious when the evidence of genetic/chromosomal differentiation is presented.

You are still laboring under the false pretense that regardless of someone's beliefs they have the right to behave however they want. Contrary to this falsehood, society enforces rules based on societies' moral outlook. This can be oppressive at times when the society has different laws for different classes of people; however in the US the rights are uniform for everyone (although enforcement favors the wealthy, politically influential, and the celebrity). No one is enforcing their views on others but the laws are based on the overall moral outlook of the nation.

Oh, and as to your example, that was largely a joke taken out of context (and you recognized such in your response to it here). Regardless, it does go inline with Abrahamic teachings that all things created on Earth were created for the express purpose of accommodating Man, and that such is plentiful (despite evidence to the contrary, as witnessed through species extinctions, resource depletion, and similar). Once again, not disrespect but a tongue-in-cheek presentation of species-destructive behavior, particularly if you examine the Armageddon arguments and the notion of Salvation.

Even though you say something as a joke can still be offensive.

It reminds me of the time I was alongside another person as we bobbed up and down in the waters of the Pacific, after we were pulled a mile+ from shore due to a rip current. He was panicked and kept screaming, "help me! help me! I'm drowning!" and as a result he was taking in a lot of water, thrashing about wasting his energy, and making it impossible for me to even get near him to save him without drowning myself. Eventually I got frustrated and yelled at him, "shut up and get on your back, nobody is going to save your ass except you!"

Luckily, he complied and made it. Anyway, that was the basis for the joke I posed in that other thread, in that many Abrahamic denominations advocate waiting until Someone comes around and saves them from their own irresponsible gesticulations when, ultimately, we really need to just save ourselves, our species, and stop expecting "divine intervention."

If you are relying on science or politics to save you, how has that worked out so far? The majority (if not all) of the problems stem from science and the political system. Have you stopped to think about the pattern of the overall direction that humanity is heading in? I bet your friend was praying internally the whole time. while he was struggling to stay afloat.

I'm not saying you should stop trying to save your self but you also should not rely on your own abilities and discount the higher power. At least that is my belief, you are free to make up your own mind as always... I don't want you to think i'm forcing my beliefs on you

Where We Stand -- So here it is Willy, I repeatedly provided evidence to support my assertions. I twice asked for you to provide evidence to support your assertions and you have failed. Bring it or concede.

I have presented evidence and you have ignored it and I have called your evidence into question and you have ignored that also. Debating with you is not productive. Even after your assertions are called into question you just repeat them as if you point was proven even though you addressed nothing.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

ive come in late here , but in my opinion its fine to be disrespectful of the church (they have made blunder after blunder ) however bieng disrespectful of someone's personal faith which is more what the question implies is wrong .
It's akin to racism , or any dumb predigist based on differnce (except for predgidist against journo's ,that's completely acceptable

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay canon... The Roman Catholic does not represent Christianity as a whole, they are just one denomination regardless of population. That like saying China represents the world because they have the most people.

Seriously? I effectively disputed your assertion of, "The book of wisdom is as a collection is not considered cannon in its entirety by the majority of Christians."

That's it, that's all. Gameplay all you want, but you were wrong. Look Willy, I presented 44 passages (of which I could have provided more) as supporting evidence to my assertions and you're sitting here failing miserably to dispute just one of those passages. Give it up already.

There is a difference to respecting some one and being tolerant of their bad behavior. If a teacher asks a student to leave the room because he is being disruptive that is not disrespectful. If a judge has to expel a defendant from the court room because his behavior is disruptive that is not disrespectful.

In both your examples, the actions intruded on others. Homosexuality doesn't intrude upon you, marriage of same-sex partners does not intrude upon you. You choose to take offense to the notion, but there is no intrusion. What occurs between them has no impact on you or anyone outside of said respective relationships. As well, we present the refusal for women to be treated equally.

Ultimately, your argument is based on a false premise. Women and homosexuals are not "bad behavior."

You are still laboring under the false pretense that regardless of someone's beliefs they have the right to behave however they want.

Nope, strawman argument (fallacy). I do not hold to such a pretense. I hold to the notion of real world, "middle earth" consequence. I do not hold to the notion of fantasy world, "afterlife" consequence.

If you are relying on science or politics to save you, how has that worked out so far? The majority (if not all) of the problems stem from science and the political system. Have you stopped to think about the pattern of the overall direction that humanity is heading in?

Lol, and you think that's because of scientific discovery?!? Ridiculous, it is a denial of scientific evidence that is resulting in many of our present problems. Also, I think you're conveniently forgetting how things were during Christian rule in the Dark Ages.

I have presented evidence and you have ignored it

What evidence!?! Sheesh, sometimes your desperation comes out in the most ridiculous of claims.

And now, for the third time, provide evidence to support your assertions. A failure to do so, imposition of further excuses into this discussion, will result in your having conceded by default.

 

[DeletedUser25606]

Originally Posted by WillyPete
If you are relying on science or politics to save you, how has that worked out so far? The majority (if not all) of the problems stem from science and the political system. Have you stopped to think about the pattern of the overall direction that humanity is heading in?


i'd strongly disagree with that , id say religons (all religons) have had a fair bit to play in the camps of genocide , prejidice and the like ,although i'd be quick to point to the majority of people aligned to those faith's would be against those actions.

Christinanity (and this is just for example ,but i can cite the violence of hindu/muslim india circa 1920 , or islam extremists ad nausim) killed more people than the nazi's did in the middle ages , weather reffering to the spanish inquasition (i think over 7million from rough memory but some estimates put it in the double figures) or the crusades ,and while we're on the nazi's .,the church's "neutral position" when there's a lot to point to that the church knew very well that they were extreminating the jewish population in europe .
Let alone (in australia ) the 4000 odd comvictions for pedaphilia (and that's just convictions in a very hard to prove crime) , yes im completely disrespectful to an institution that owns prime real estate in every major city in the world ,let alone the vast amounts of wealth it has but lets people starve TODAY but says peace to fellow man and the rest of it's dribble ,however , the faith and the principles of that faith in context of living a good life and respect to your fellow man id never be disrespectful to someone who chose to follow that doctrine .

 

[DeletedUser]

Seriously? I effectively disputed your assertion of, "The book of wisdom is as a collection is not considered cannon in its entirety by the majority of Christians."

That's it, that's all. Gameplay all you want, but you were wrong. Look Willy, I presented 44 passages (of which I could have provided more) as supporting evidence to my assertions and you're sitting here failing miserably to dispute just one of those passages. Give it up already.

I don't need to dispute every passage 1 by 1. The premise you are using for those passages is taken out of context, and as I stated does not apply currently to Christianity. You are using rules from the old testament and questionable scripture from a book not widely used. If you had demonstrated anything other than a ignorant hate speech I might be patient enough to research each scripture and point out to the context of each one; however frankly I have better things to do with my time.
"Wisdom, Book of - One of the deutero-canonical writings of the Old Testament, placed in the Vulgate between the Canticle of Canticles and Ecclesiasticus"-Catholic Encyclopedia

"deutero-
— combining form
1. second or secondary: deuterogamy ; deuterium" -World English Dictionary

Secondary, meaning not the primary canon; strait from the Catholics themselves.
"Catholics can believe and practice things that are obviously not found in the Bible."
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-tradition.htm

Matthew 15:3 "Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?'"

"Testament, New - Jesus Christ uses the words 'new testament' as meaning the alliance established by Himself between God and the world, and this is called 'new' as opposed to that of which Moses was the mediator"-Catholic Encyclopedia (since you seem to like the Catholics so much...)

Do you really need evidence that most common bibles do not contain the book of wisdom? Go to a Target or Walmart or any general store and open up a Holy Bible and see for yourself.

In both your examples, the actions intruded on others. Homosexuality doesn't intrude upon you, marriage of same-sex partners does not intrude upon you. You choose to take offense to the notion, but there is no intrusion. What occurs between them has no impact on you or anyone outside of said respective relationships. As well, we present the refusal for women to be treated equally.

Ultimately, your argument is based on a false premise. Women and homosexuals are not "bad behavior."

Ultimately, your argument is based on a false premise.

Does marrying a animal, inanimate objects, under age, or multiple partners "intruded on others?" No, but these things are generally considered morally wrong. There are reasons society (not me) puts moral and legal restrictions on marriage, among other things. Generally society regards marriage to be between a man and a woman. If you can convince society as a whole to change that then so be it, but it is not a right to marry any one you want. Society in general considers homosexual sex as unnatural and wrong in many (if not most) places.

Do you need evidence to support its generally illegal to marry your dog or a group of ppl?

Where exactly did women come into this discussion???

Nope, strawman argument (fallacy). I do not hold to such a pretense. I hold to the notion of real world, "middle earth" consequence. I do not hold to the notion of fantasy world, "afterlife" consequence.

Lol, and you think that's because of scientific discovery?!? Ridiculous, it is a denial of scientific evidence that is resulting in many of our present problems. Also, I think you're conveniently forgetting how things were during Christian rule in the Dark Ages.

I am not saying that science is the bad guy just that ppl have misused technology as well as politics to their personal ends in opportunistic fashion and that's not changing anytime soon.

Do you need evidence that man has misused technology and politics for profit?

What evidence!?! Sheesh, sometimes your desperation comes out in the most ridiculous of claims.

And now, for the third time, provide evidence to support your assertions. A failure to do so, imposition of further excuses into this discussion, will result in your having conceded by default.

What evidence do you want? You want evidence that God exists? You already know there is no way to prove or disprove any argument to that affect so really its pointless to go down that road. I can say however that the argument that the universe popped up out of mere chance is an impossibility. That would be like putting the raw materials to a engine, and fuel, in a box and shacking it for billions of years and expecting that your eventually going to get a running engine out of it. Things that exist in nature are far more complex than that.

 

[DeletedUser]

yes im completely disrespectful to an institution that owns prime real estate in every major city in the world ,let alone the vast amounts of wealth it has but lets people starve TODAY
[/I]

That describes the governments, Microsoft, Mac Donalds, Starbucks, ect... If you really want some one to blame for famine look no further than the local corrupt governments that took all the poor farmer's land and gave it to the profiteering western conglomerate for their own selfish concerns. Don't get me wrong I'm not siding with the profiteering religious conglomerate either.
Matthew 10:8 (second part)
New International Version (©1984)
Freely you have received, freely give.
I have heard of Priest selling their prayers and actually tell their congregation that if they don't buy those prayers that their recently deceased loved ones will go to hell.

 

[DeletedUser]

You are using rules from the old testament and questionable scripture from a book not widely used.

As previously indicated, I also provided New Testament passages and can provide more.

Do you really need evidence that most common bibles do not contain the book of wisdom? Go to a Target or Walmart or any general store and open up a Holy Bible and see for yourself.

Anecdotal. As previously stated, over 51% of all Christians are Catholic, an additional 4-8% are Orthodox, and others follow similarly. The majority of Christians utilize Bibles that include the Book of Wisdom. And, once again, I provided a historical examination as to "why" the Book of Wisdom was not included in the "present" version of many "English" translated Bibles (this is the part of cognitive dissonance you present). Catholics deem it as canon, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox deem it as canon, other denominations deem it as canon.

Does marrying a animal, inanimate objects, under age, or multiple partners "intruded on others?" No, but these things are generally considered morally wrong.

No, they are deemed legally wrong and for good reason. An animal does not have the ability to "choose" to marry, nor do inanimate objects. Minors do not have the ability to "choose" to marry, for the simple fact they are incapable of making such decisions "legally." As to multiple partners, it falls under the context of what is deemed a legal contract. A legal contract is between two parties. Getting married a second time, while still married, is a breach of the previous contract.

Your interpretation of marriage is skewed by your misunderstandings. A marriage is a legal agreement. If the parties involved are to enter into such a legal agreement, they must be legally able to enter into such (of sound mind, body, etc). For the same reason you cannot marry a person who is deemed mentally incompetent, despite being of legal age and of the opposite sex, you cannot marry the above examples you posed. The contract must be signed by two parties that are full cognizant of their decision to sign, and are recognized as legally capable of signing an agreement.

Better luck next time you try and muddy up the waters.

If you really want some one to blame for famine look no further than the local corrupt governments that took all the poor farmer's land and gave it to the profiteering western conglomerate for their own selfish concerns. Don't get me wrong I'm not siding with the profiteering religious conglomerate either.

No, blame it on consumerism that dictates the behaviors of corporations. Consumer ethics, look it up.

Where exactly did women come into this discussion???

Seriously? You don't know your own Bible again? Women are repeatedly addressed as property in the Bible, and as subordinate to Men. If that's not disrespect, I don't know what is.

I am not saying that science is the bad guy just that ppl have misused technology as well as politics to their personal ends in opportunistic fashion and that's not changing anytime soon.

And people have misused the religions "to their personal ends in opportunistic fashion and that's not changing anytime soon." As such, as long as there are people willing to utilize their religion (Christianity, in the context of this debate) to disrespect others, they do not warrant respect.

If you had demonstrated anything other than a ignorant hate speech I might be patient enough to research each scripture and point out to the context of each one; however frankly I have better things to do with my time.

And that's yet another example of disrespect. I "bothered" to give my time to you, to discuss this issue and to provide evidence, but you can't be bothered to do the same and instead resort to ad hominems, insults?

Face it Willy, you can't assert your position through evidence, you must instead assert it through fallacious reasoning (false logic) and cognitive dissonance (ignore what is factual, yet unappealing).

What evidence do you want?

Evidence in support of your assertions that being disrespectful to Christians is not acceptable, despite they being disrespectful to others, and/or evidence disputing the evidence I already provided that affirms the position that disrespectful Christians warrant disrespect.

Here it is, you have been provided more than three opportunities to provide evidence but failed to do so and instead continue to argue your point with hyperbole and false logic. Your desperate tactics amply demonstrate you lost this debate.

 

[DeletedUser]

Does marrying a animal, inanimate objects, under age, or multiple partners "intruded on others?" No, but these things are generally considered morally wrong. There are reasons society (not me) puts moral and legal restrictions on marriage, among other things. Generally society regards marriage to be between a man and a woman. If you can convince society as a whole to change that then so be it, but it is not a right to marry any one you want. Society in general considers homosexual sex as unnatural and wrong in many (if not most) places.

it is perfectly alright for two men or two women to marry each other. but that belongs to another thread.

are you honestly resorting to bringing in an irrelevant issue to attempt to resolve your pathetic argument?

I don't need to dispute every passage 1 by 1.

Hellstromm never implied that. you are taking his comments out of context. once more you are being hypocritical.
Hellstromm is merely saying that you have not disproved any of his 44 passages.

Do you need evidence that man has misused technology and politics for profit?

once more you wander hopelessly off topic.

What evidence do you want? You want evidence that God exists? You already know there is no way to prove or disprove any argument to that affect so really its pointless to go down that road. I can say however that the argument that the universe popped up out of mere chance is an impossibility. That would be like putting the raw materials to a engine, and fuel, in a box and shacking it for billions of years and expecting that your eventually going to get a running engine out of it. Things that exist in nature are far more complex than that.

once more you are off topic!

Hellstromm is saying that you have not presented any evidence to show that it is not acceptable to insult christianity.
at every turn you have steered the argument in a different direction in a pointless ramble.

IF YOU CANNOT PRESENT SOLID EVIDENCE THAT IT IS INTOLERABLE TO INSULT CHRISTIANITY THEN YOU HAVE LOST. END OF.

 

[DeletedUser]

As previously indicated, I also provided New Testament passages and can provide more.

EDIT: If you wish to re-post those text that apply I review them.

Anecdotal. As previously stated, over 51% of all Christians are Catholic, an additional 4-8% are Orthodox, and others follow similarly. The majority of Christians utilize Bibles that include the Book of Wisdom. And, once again, I provided a historical examination as to "why" the Book of Wisdom was not included in the "present" version of many "English" translated Bibles (this is the part of cognitive dissonance you present). Catholics deem it as canon, Eastern & Oriental Orthodox deem it as canon, other denominations deem it as canon.

I don't consider it canon as a whole and so do many others...
I am not going to defend something I don't agree with. As I stated Catholics view Traditions as more important than biblical teachings and this went against what Jesus taught so I do not consider that teaching to be Christian as it has other origins.

No, they are deemed legally wrong and for good reason. An animal does not have the ability to "choose" to marry, nor do inanimate objects. Minors do not have the ability to "choose" to marry, for the simple fact they are incapable of making such decisions "legally." As to multiple partners, it falls under the context of what is deemed a legal contract. A legal contract is between two parties. Getting married a second time, while still married, is a breach of the previous contract.

Your interpretation of marriage is skewed by your misunderstandings. A marriage is a legal agreement. If the parties involved are to enter into such a legal agreement, they must be legally able to enter into such (of sound mind, body, etc). For the same reason you cannot marry a person who is deemed mentally incompetent, despite being of legal age and of the opposite sex, you cannot marry the above examples you posed. The contract must be signed by two parties that are full cognizant of their decision to sign, and are recognized as legally capable of signing an agreement.

con·tract   [n., adj., and usually for v. 15–17, 21, 22 kon-trakt; otherwise v. kuhn-trakt] Show IPA
noun
1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified. -dictionary.com

No, blame it on consumerism that dictates the behaviors of corporations. Consumer ethics, look it up.

Consumerism did not force the companies and governments act as they have. It only provided incentive.

Seriously? You don't know your own Bible again? Women are repeatedly addressed as property in the Bible, and as subordinate to Men. If that's not disrespect, I don't know what is.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

And people have misused the religions "to their personal ends in opportunistic fashion and that's not changing anytime soon."

Very true; however this is not a biblical teaching and therefore I don't consider it Christian.

Evidence in support of your assertions that being disrespectful to Christians is not acceptable, despite they being disrespectful to others, and/or evidence disputing the evidence I already provided that affirms the position that disrespectful Christians warrant disrespect.

Here is the problem with this statement. If you are disrespectful to Christians as a whole regardless if they are true Christians or false then that is just prejudiced. If you are only disrespectful to those who are disrespectful to you then you are only fortifying their position of disrespect. Fighting fire with fire only causes a larger fire.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hellstromm never implied that. you are taking his comments out of context. once more you are being hypocritical.
Hellstromm is merely saying that you have not disproved any of his 44 passages.

As I stated before, the Mosaic laws do not apply to Christianity.
I do not consider the book of wisdom to be entirely applicable so I do not defend it.
You cannot post anything that Jesus said (not taken out of context) that would excuse the disrespect of his followers.

If you disrespect others what good will come of it?

 

[DeletedUser]

As I stated before, the Mosaic laws do not apply to Christianity.

What's the point of the Old Testament, then?

 

[DeletedUser]

What's the point of the Old Testament, then?

It is provided as semi-historical context and unfulfilled prophecies.

EDIT: If you wish to re-post those text that apply I review them.

No need to repost, they're there earlier in this thread.

I don't consider it canon as a whole and so do many others...
I am not going to defend something I don't agree with. As I stated Catholics view Traditions as more important than biblical teachings and this went against what Jesus taught so I do not consider that teaching to be Christian as it has other origins.

No true Scotsman fallacy (look it up). Also, while you're entitled to your opinion, that particular point wasn't about opinion, it was about fact. You claimed the majority of Christians don't consider it canon, I demonstrated your claim to be incorrect simply by pointing out that the majority do indeed consider it canon.

Consumerism did not force the companies and governments act as they have. It only provided incentive.

No, it forces them, otherwise they go out of business. If one company does it and another doesn't, the one that doesn't is unable to compete and goes out of business. However, as tigermite firmly indicated, this is off-topic.

1 Peter 3:7
Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

Selective reading there buddy ---

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." (1 Corinthians 11:3-7)

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:12-14)​

Those four passages came from the New Testament, and there's plenty more but that should be sufficient to make my point that yes, by default, Christianity disrespects women.

Very true; however this is not a biblical teaching and therefore I don't consider it Christian.

Once again, the No true Scotsman fallacy.

Here is the problem with this statement. If you are disrespectful to Christians as a whole regardless if they are true Christians or false then that is just prejudiced. If you are only disrespectful to those who are disrespectful to you then you are only fortifying their position of disrespect. Fighting fire with fire only causes a larger fire.

By your inane argument, you're saying that we should allow you to disrespect women, homosexuals, non-Christians, atheists, etc. It is these and other passages that for centuries prevented women from being provided equal rights, including the right to vote.

Look Willy, i'm going to be rather blunt. When there are Christians (and people of other Abrahamic religions) imposing their beliefs upon others, when those beliefs constitute disrespecting others, either through denial of equality or direct maltreatment, it is not acceptable to stand on the sidelines and allow such to continue. The means to end such is to stand up against it, and the means to do so is to state it is wrong. Unfortunately, stating scripture is wrong is deemed disrespectful by those of the respective religion(s) and thus we're tasked to state the respective individuals are wrong, which is still deemed as being disrespectful.

It's a no choice situation. You cannot reason with an abuser.

 

[DeletedUser]

No true Scotsman fallacy (look it up). Also, while you're entitled to your opinion, that particular point wasn't about opinion, it was about fact. You claimed the majority of Christians don't consider it canon, I demonstrated your claim to be incorrect simply by pointing out that the majority do indeed consider it canon.

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

"But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man." (1 Corinthians 11:3-7)

"For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." (1 Timothy 2:12-14)​

Those four passages came from the New Testament, and there's plenty more but that should be sufficient to make my point that yes, by default, Christianity disrespects women.

By your inane argument, you're saying that we should allow you to disrespect women, homosexuals, non-Christians, atheists, etc. It is these and other passages that for centuries prevented women from being provided equal rights, including the right to vote.

Look Willy, i'm going to be rather blunt. When there are Christians (and people of other Abrahamic religions) imposing their beliefs upon others, when those beliefs constitute disrespecting others, either through denial of equality or direct maltreatment, it is not acceptable to stand on the sidelines and allow such to continue. The means to end such is to stand up against it, and the means to do so is to state it is wrong. Unfortunately, stating scripture is wrong is deemed disrespectful by those of the respective religion(s) and thus we're tasked to state the respective individuals are wrong, which is still deemed as being disrespectful.

1) No true Scotsman does not apply. I referenced specific rules. If some one does not follow the rules set by Christ such as following traditions instead of the word of God, they are not what they say they are. Refer to my previous example if a person eats meat they are not a vegetarian even if he/she says he/she is a vegetarian.

2) You are saying that a woman being in submission to a man is disrespectful; however you missed the part where man is in submission to Christ. Being in submission is not disrespect, the bible also says to be in subjection to the governmental authorities. Christ is a perfect example of how women should be treated in how he treated women and also how he treated the his followers who were in submission to him.

 

[DeletedUser]

What's the point of the Old Testament, then?

The Old Testament is the history of Gods dealings with humans. While the rules under the mosaic law and Jewish system no longer apply under the Christian system, the rules do show how God views issues on how he dealt with the Jews. They provide principles that were clarified Under the new covenant. The new covenant is not the final one either, it is just a temporary system in preparation for the return of Christ.

Rev 20:12
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

 

[DeletedUser]

So that means the Ten Commandments don't apply either?

 

[DeletedUser]

So that means the Ten Commandments don't apply either?

Just to address this, despite it being off-topic and warrants a different thread altogether, Mosaic law comprises of three codex. The 10 commandments is the moral code, then there's the spiritual and the social. In Galatians 5:18, it is indicated that if you are "led by the Spirit, you are not under the law," with the law pertaining to all three codex. The core argument in this is that if you violate any of the laws (codes), you demonstrate that you are not led by the Spirit, so go figure that entertaining contradiction --- and then take it to a different thread.

 

[DeletedUser]

So that means the Ten Commandments don't apply either?

It depends on what you mean by apply. It applies as a principle to follow but it is not part of a legal system with a set punishments as it was with the Jews. To be led by spirit the principles should be followed and to be counted as a true disciple of Christ; however breaking the rules won't result in immediate punishment by God, but you will be liable to him eventually, not to mention things like murder and theft are punishable by the secular authority.

Also Christians are instructed to turn away from unrepentant sinners and not to mix company with such ones. It is not a Christian's obligation to punish any one as punishment belongs to God, and the bible says do not judge or you will be judged...

So anyways if you are going to disrespect some one because they are Christian at least you should attempt to understand the actual tenets of what Christ teaches, and not just the flood of misinformation spread by anti-theists, who goal is the undermining of religion.

Edit: if you actually read the Ten commandments they are Addressed to the Israelites, and Christians don't observe number 4 regarding the Sabbath. Colossians 2:16; Galatians 4:9-10; Romans 14:5

Romans 7:6 New International Version (©1984)
But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

PS: Here http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheism-ritual-human-sacrifice-in-bible_15.html is a full address to the evilbible.com where Hellstromm is apparently getting his misinformation from.

 

[DeletedUser]

Sirach is not the Book of Wisdom of Solomon. You are referring to the Book of Wisdom of Sirach. Once again, the least you could do is know what you're talking about if you're going to attempt to argue your own religion with me.

I stand corrected there are seven "wisdom books" Wisdom of Solomon aka wisdom, job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Song of Songs), and Sirach. Wisdom and Sirach are not primarily canon. One of the reasons why it is not considered canon could be it takes heavily from Greek philosophy of the time.

 

[DeletedUser]

Also Christians are instructed to turn away from unrepentant sinners and not to mix company with such ones. It is not a Christian's obligation to punish any one as punishment belongs to God, and the bible says do not judge or you will be judged...

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like active discrimination!
effectively you are saying that Christians are instructed to cast all 'sinners (i.e: anyone who isn't Christian)' out of society.

So anyways if you are going to disrespect some one because they are Christian at least you should attempt to understand the actual tenets of what Christ teaches, and not just the flood of misinformation spread by anti-theists, who goal is the undermining of religion.

A religion which actively discriminates 'sinners'? (see above)

I rest my case.