I'm just wondering...

[Radical_Dreamer]

By the way, I also read that when the Apollo missions landed on the moon, they had figured the rate at which moon-dust accumulates.  They expected 65M years worth of dust on the moon, which is why they had those huge footpads put on the lunar module (to keep the vehicle from sinking into the dust and just disappearing)...then when Apollo 11 landed, of course we know it was a pretty rocky landing.  They took dust samples and compared it with the rate at which dust accumulates, and I am told they came up with a number around 6000 years.  Can anyone confirm that finding?  It sure does match close with my figures from the Bible...and is even within the 200-year margin of error.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html

Scroll down to Young-earth "proof" #2. It explains the fallacies of that argument.

[teh Schala]

Well I hate to get onto an admin for what he posts, but didn't I just say I don't want this to become a debate thread?  I clicked the link, read the deal.  Interesting, sure, but not convincing.  I won't really go into the details...  But also I don't take my research from biased sources such as the one you pointed out.  Comments such as, "What does it take to get through to Creationists' brains" seemed to show a little bias, note the sarcasm.

Let's stay on topic, please.

[Hadriel]

Well I hate to get onto an admin for what he posts, but didn't I just say I don't want this to become a debate thread?  I clicked the link, read the deal.  Interesting, sure, but not convincing.  I won't really go into the details...  But also I don't take my research from biased sources such as the one you pointed out.  Comments such as, "What does it take to get through to Creationists' brains" seemed to show a little bias, note the sarcasm.

Let's stay on topic, please.

Every source is biased.  That has very little impact on its veracity.

[Lord J Esq]

Well, here’s an interesting topic…

Would I play a game with an overtly Christian theme? I think that’s a slightly misleading question. Hadriel was starting to get on to something interesting with his point that many big-name games already draw on Christianity and other mythology. Everyone here probably knew that already but just hadn’t thought of it before he mentioned it. Yet I also take it to mean that you are talking about a game with a “Christian theme” that goes beyond simply drawing upon religious sources for material, and actually makes an effort to give a sermon—howsoever unassuming, “take it or leave it” you may choose to make that presentation to be.

Do I want to sit down and listen to a sermon? Almost definitely not. It would be a real stretch to say that I would want to do something like that. If the game looked appealing and I heard great things about it, then maybe I’d try it out provisionally…but in all honestly, I know myself, and if I read the word “Christian” in the synopsis, I would just as likely decide summarily that it isn’t worth my time, on the justification that there is enough interesting material in this world that one need not feel guilty at declining an interesting experience because of the risk of an unpleasant undertone. So, for entertainment…the answer is that I would probably not play a Christian game, short of extraordinarily good reviews by the sorts of people whose opinion I value.

On the other hand, if we look at games as an art form rather than an entertainment source—and they are both—then there is a stronger case to be made for playing a good game that also happens to be a Christian sermon. A stronger case, yes, but by no means a strong case. After years of uncomfortable personal enrichment to learn more about the Christian faith, I’ve pretty much gotten a good idea of what people believe Christianity is all about. There’s very little new ground for me to explore. Would this game actually enrich me, then? Very doubtful. And then you might reply that, of course, the game has artistic elements inherent to itself, for its own sake, to which I would reply that I should rather enjoy such things in the context of a game that doesn’t also happen to be a sermon.

And again there is something to be said for the enjoyment of such a game, even from an artistic viewpoint, which is sorely strained by my agreeing to participate in a sermon game. The subject matter of these sermons tends to frustrate me very much. As someone who thinks that the truth rests within evidence and logic, all of this “the Earth is 6000 years old” and “women are second-class citizens” stuff really drives me bonkers. At some point along the diminishing return curve of artistic enrichment versus sheer frustration, I would have to draw the line.

Oh, and a short tangent, if you will humor me. I remember reading Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials quite some time back. It was very well-received in England and America too. Of course it wasn’t on the scale of the Harry Potter phenomenon, but it did very well in absolute terms. And I was surprised by just how many Christians read it, and enjoyed it, even acknowledging that they disliked the intent of the subject matter. What many of them decided to do, was interpret Pullman’s work to fit with their own version of what Christianity is all about. They took Pullman’s message of benevolence and skepticism and knowledge, and assigned it to Jesus’ message of love, fortitude, and wisdom. It was quite unsettling to see how easily people could take the moon and call it the sun, but it does make me think that I could play such a game as yours, and perhaps corrupt your message for my own enjoyment. I don’t know if I could trick myself that thoroughly, knowing full well what your game is supposed to be about, but, then again, here we are on the Chrono Compendium, and some of us are all about interpreting in our own way whatever the developers of these games originally intended for them to be.

The bottom line is that I would probably not play your game. I would almost certainly be put out by the subject matter, frustrated by it, unlikely to learn anything new about it, and unwilling to profit someone whose worldview I emphatically detest. Simply put, there would almost certainly be better ways to spend my time. But I would not rule out the possibility entirely. So there is your challenge, teh Schala. Make a game that even I would play, and you’ll certainly earn the right to feel good about yourself, or about your God…whichever gets you off more. =)

[Daniel Krispin]

As someone who thinks that the truth rests within evidence and logic, all of this “the Earth is 6000 years old” and “women are second-class citizens” stuff really drives me bonkers.

Very few Christians believe the latter - certainly there is no Biblical evidence for it - and most do not believe the former, either (to which, I must say, I would say there is not much Biblical evidence either... see my new thread on these issues.)

Just as a note: truth and logic are extremely prevalent in Christianity. Think of how many of the greatest thinkers, scientists such as Newton, and philosophers and theologians were Christian. Here were men of logic and seeking truth, keener-minded than me, yea, even than you. Yet they held to it. My own father is a theologian, and treats Chrisitian matters and dogma logically (I believe his field is systematic theology, actually.) Do not think, therefore, that Christians go through life thinking with the heart but not the mind. Logic does not preclude Christianity.

To 'teh Schala' I had a long comment on the matter, but in deference to your request of bringing the topic back on track, I have placed it in a new thread to be perused there.

Anyway, on subject again... what was I going to say? Oh, yes. It would be most fascinating, I must say, to see what CuteLucca draws for you. I have ever considered her a very good artist.

[Hadriel]

I actually had a couple of ideas for a story with its roots in Christianity, but that doesn't actively try to convert people.  The basic premise is that a few hundred years in the future, Earth is at war with an expansionistic alien government, but the main protagonist belongs to neither side.  Rather, the protagonists are a group of angels that have been assigned to observe the conflict.  This group of angels isn't just a bunch of random angels; they were previously humans.  They were allowed to become angels because they had never sinned in their lifetimes; they had either died at childbirth or shortly after, before developing sentience.  One of the children is supposed to be the unnamed child that King David had by Bathsheba; others are abortion victims, stillborn, or in some cases, murdered by cruel parents in various ways throughout history.  One of the group of angels was previously an alien hailing from the world Earth is currently at war with; the ailment he fell to plays a key role in the storyline.  This cadre has a mentor; one of the creatures from Revelation who has been "given the right to judge."  Many different outcomes to the war are posited, because the angels can see all the different possible timelines; the dilemma comes from deciding who deserves to win the war, and why.  All kinds of metaphysical stuff happens, from demons getting involved to some mortals finding a way into Hell and Heaven.

[teh Schala]

Anyway, on subject again... what was I going to say? Oh, yes. It would be most fascinating, I must say, to see what CuteLucca draws for you. I have ever considered her a very good artist.

Then have a look.  Let me also include her comments about the piece, so that you know what still needs improvement before we go into the final design.  She just sent this to me about an hour or two ago.

Alright, basic sketch. I know her face and hair are
wrong-- this sketch is just for pose reference. And
the size of the paper is large enough where I have to
get pictures to you through my camera rather than my
scanner, so I do apologize for the poor quality; but
it's easy enough to see, so no worries.

http://www.cutelucca.com/wips/jullinar1.jpg

[Hadriel]

ZOMFG SEPHIROTH LOL

[Lord J Esq]

As someone who thinks that the truth rests within evidence and logic, all of this “the Earth is 6000 years old” and “women are second-class citizens” stuff really drives me bonkers.

Very few Christians believe the latter - certainly there is no Biblical evidence for it - and most do not believe the former, either (to which, I must say, I would say there is not much Biblical evidence either... see my new thread on these issues.)

I’ll agree with you that it is only a minority of Christianity which rejects such sciences not least of which including geology, glaciology, biology, astronomy, and paleontology as would demonstrate the considerably vast age of the Earth beyond a mere few thousand years.

As for that bit about women, I think you know perfectly well what I meant. Whatever term you prefer to use for it, perhaps “Separate But Equal,” the oppression of women under Christianity today and especially in times gone by is simply not disputable in any legitimate theater of debate. There is no greater injustice in history than the crime of sexism, and sexism is the injustice that hurts me more than any other in the world, so that you would do me a good courtesy to refrain from denying the past and present guilt of your religion in its perpetuation. But make that denial, and you assume complicity upon yourself.

Just as a note: truth and logic are extremely prevalent in Christianity. Think of how many of the greatest thinkers, scientists such as Newton, and philosophers and theologians were Christian. Here were men of logic and seeking truth, keener-minded than me, yea, even than you. Yet they held to it. My own father is a theologian, and treats Chrisitian matters and dogma logically (I believe his field is systematic theology, actually.) Do not think, therefore, that Christians go through life thinking with the heart but not the mind. Logic does not preclude Christianity.

That’s a very clever way of putting it. You’re right. Many of history’s great figures were Christian, to some degree. Your mistake—and I can’t help but wonder if you had considered this—is that Christianity was never the actual source of scientific, technological, or philosophical accomplishment. Rather it was the limiting agent thereof. Our human capacity for innovation and speculation is innate; it is not a product of religious subscription. To the extent that Christianity’s social architecture directly inspired people’s creativity to tack whatever course, or funded the same materially, then it deserves credit as a facilitator of human progress—but not as the true source. In fact Christianity imposed great enervation upon the world at large, stifling human progress for centuries, sanctioning only those few commissions of science and art that it felt would glorify God, denying and rejecting anything it perceived as threatening. Who knows what might have come of the Earth, what interesting minds might have arisen, had the Western world as we know it not been under the thrall of the Church for over fifteen hundred years. Yes, I fully grant that some of history’s greatest figures were Christian. But your insinuation that Christianity deserves the credit for their accomplishments…that is beyond belief.

And you are right again that Christianity is not inherently exclusive from logic. But even notwithstanding that logic itself is also not inherently inclusive of the objective truth, there is still the great situational caveat that, when one is operating with the intent to verify a belief as opposed to dissipate an uncertainty, logic is easily corrupted.

I know, I know...teh Schala said not to turn this into a debate topic. But he asked our opinions on his game, and you felt compelled to open a discussion on my response. So here is my reply, and I will leave it at that.

[Daniel Krispin]

Ah, dear me, why are you mangling his thread? This is why I made a new topic. I cannot help but defend myself now.

As for that bit about women, I think you know perfectly well what I meant. Whatever term you prefer to use for it, perhaps “Separate But Equal,” the oppression of women under Christianity today and especially in times gone by is simply not disputable in any legitimate theater of debate. There is no greater injustice in history than the crime of sexism, and sexism is the injustice that hurts me more than any other in the world, so that you would do me a good courtesy to refrain from denying the past and present guilt of your religion in its perpetuation. But make that denial, and you assume complicity upon yourself..

That is a grave assumption. I did not know what you meant, I read it quickly. My mind is not infallable, after all.
The point is, though, you have made grave errors in your logic. I will not press the matter too hard, for as you have said, and as I can see, it strikes you nearly, and I will attempt to respect that. I must vindicate Christianity, however. The times in which women were inferior was not a causeality of religion, but rather of the times and of society. Near every religion did similar things in times gone by - some even worse, as a matter of fact. What freedoms did Greek women have? Christianity, in fact, in its earliest incarnations, moved up the status of women, for they were seen as equal sisters in the family of Christ. No teaching in Christianity devalued women ever. If this was the case, it was because of society, but not the religion. My mother, a devout Christian, has never felt herself to be constrained, for example. And I do not see how any, throughout the middle-ages, were treated in a manner that might be considered any more sexist than any other period of history.

I am pained to write this, as I can see your certain anger on the subject, but I truly do not know what you are speaking of. Moreover, without evidence, I cannot accept it. Logic dismisses it for lack of proof.

Just as a note: truth and logic are extremely prevalent in Christianity. Think of how many of the greatest thinkers, scientists such as Newton, and philosophers and theologians were Christian. Here were men of logic and seeking truth, keener-minded than me, yea, even than you. Yet they held to it. My own father is a theologian, and treats Chrisitian matters and dogma logically (I believe his field is systematic theology, actually.) Do not think, therefore, that Christians go through life thinking with the heart but not the mind. Logic does not preclude Christianity.

That’s a very clever way of putting it. You’re right. Many of history’s great figures were Christian, to some degree. Your mistake—and I can’t help but wonder if you had considered this—is that Christianity was never the actual source of scientific, technological, or philosophical accomplishment. Rather it was the limiting agent thereof. .

I disagree absolutely on this point. On a time, I would have agreed, actually. But I read a most interesting book on the history of technology - written by someone from a non-religious point of view, I must add - that turned it around for me. It is, in fact, one of the great historical misconceptions that religion limited it. In fact, it aided it! It was society, it was the Black Death, it was many things that kept science away at first. Things were not in order. But the Church did not stand again Galileo, you know. Do you know why he was condemned? Not heresy. He had not followed publishing procedure. That is what annoyed the Church. There is, in fact, no evidence to support the hypothesis that Christianity held back advances in science.

Our human capacity for innovation and speculation is innate; it is not a product of religious subscription. To the extent that Christianity’s social architecture directly inspired people’s creativity to tack whatever course, or funded the same materially, then it deserves credit as a facilitator of human progress—but not as the true source. In fact Christianity imposed great enervation upon the world at large, stifling human progress for centuries, sanctioning only those few commissions of science and art that it felt would glorify God, denying and rejecting anything it perceived as threatening. .

Again, this is not right, for the reasons I pointed out earlier. It is a commonly held mis-belief that Christianity stifled progress. But rather, it was society that did so. Printing facilitated much of the advancement. But there was no printing for those centuries. That was a great limiter on advancement. It took a gold-smith who misguidedly attempted to sell relics at a conferenece (misguided because he arrived a year too late) to make this leap. The Black Death made linen, and thus paper, cheap. Very rarely did the Church ever cause human stagnation on a great scale. As I said, it is a commonly held belief, but is not neccessarially truth.

As for as holding some things back, and what it perceived as threatenting... from the view of a history of technology, that is actuually a societal defence, for change causes uncertainty and danger. The limits is what keeps us out of danger. This is not a thing of religion, neccessarially.

Who knows what might have come of the Earth, what interesting minds might have arisen, had the Western world as we know it not been under the thrall of the Church for over fifteen hundred years. Yes, I fully grant that some of history’s greatest figures were Christian. But your insinuation that Christianity deserves the credit for their accomplishments…that is beyond belief..

They do. Christianity is the cornerstone for our modern society, do not forget it. The system of government we have now is based greatly upon Christian ideals. As I have said, there is no documented evidence that on a great scale Christianity held back advancement for fifteen hundred years! Wars between countries, plague, strife... these had their hands in it. Why did not China advance more? Or yet North America? That argument is flawed. Philosophers and thinkers were always welcome in Christian courts. Society was what held things back. After all, the Reniccance was still firmly within the grip of Christendom... it only slipped in the Industrial Revolution. A period, I must remind you, in which wanton pollution became a fact.

Good grief, though. While we're throwing around accusations, let us not forget that Christians are this day one of the most heavily persecuted groups in the world. Moreover, most of the gravest atrocities of the past century can be attibuted to atheists, specifically the dictators Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. The latter was a non-religious state, look how well its freedom of thought fared. Sorry, you're not going to convince me that non-religious is better. History says otherwise.

[Lord J Esq]

Ah, dear me, why are you mangling his thread? This is why I made a new topic. I cannot help but defend myself now.

I see your strategy now. I’ve encountered it before. I cheapen myself to join this argument…but I will accept that if only to stand against the sheer audacity of your statements.

It was not I but you who interrupted the flow of the topic to disagree with my original response to teh Schala’s post. I offered my rebuttal to your interruption. Now you choose to pretend you are “defending yourself.” Very well; but that sort of tactic diminishes your credibility irreparably.

Your strategy, as if you needed to be told, is to make fallacious or deceptive historical claims that require meticulous referential refutation, which in turn will inspire further incorrect claims on your part, et cetera, et cetera, to the grand effect of distracting everyone from the overarching topic and locking your ideological opponent into pointless quibbling over an unending flood of the minutiae of history. And all the while you shall claim “logic” and “evidence” on your behalf, for these are the very words I originally used for myself, and you saw fit to seize upon them as my centerpieces, and make them your own. I can already see it; if I allow you to hijack the discussion in this fashion, we will be arguing about the number of stones on some bridge.

It is a strategy I have encountered before, because it is the strategy of the conservative attack on America perpetrated by the religious right. And now I have my opportunity to oppose it in person. Delightful!

But let me say before I open this stinging counter-counter rebuttal against you—on my strategic terms, thank you—that I would never have insulted your intelligence with such a tactic. I implore you never again to tarnish your good name in the future against people whose enmity you do not wish to earn.

Up to this point, I have given you the benefit of the doubt—both in the thread you started, and in this one. No longer. The doubt is evaporated; the beast is clear to see: You, Daniel Krispin, are a dangerous man.

On the Subject of Women

You chose to reject Christianity’s guilt in the oppression of women both now and in times gone by. You have therefore assumed complicity upon yourself for these unspeakable transgressions, the veritable enslavement of half the human species in the name of an intangible god. I hope you know how much that means to me. I hope you know that you could not possibly have picked an opinion more offensive to me, more obscene before the eyes of rational, aware human beings. I don’t know which injustice in the world you perceive to be the very worst of them all…but imagine the perpetrators of that injustice telling you that there in fact is no injustice at all, and, if there were, it would be anyone’s fault but their own—perhaps even your fault. You feign great empathy and eagerness to see other people’s points of view. Well, that deceit is laid bare here! You surely must know that your religion is not perfect—if for no other reason that that it is run by imperfect people. You could have ceded this one point, this one single point, because not only is it one of Christianity’s most glaring failures in history, but it also happens to be the point your opponent—me—feels the most strongly about. You could have boosted your credibility and earned goodwill. But instead, much like certain national leaders I could mention, you have chosen to deny any and all wrongdoing, both now and yesterday, on all facets of this subject, and paint a picture of veritable female glorification in your Christian heritage. Unbelievable! You have effectively denied the existence of the sun, in broad daylight, and now I am logically obliged to go about proving the obvious. That is your strategy. Incredible!

You have claimed in the past to be a student of history and mythology. Well, now I know better. You are a student of fantasy, a fantasy painted with real names and real dates in history. How many people have you bamboozled in this way? Were it not for my own knowledge of history—lesser than yours in trivialities, but clearer in objectivity—perhaps you might have fooled me too. Your Christian worldview has so corrupted your ability to pursue the techniques of disinterested evaluation that all of human history is wrapped around your contorted image of it. And you chose to make your stand on the issue of the oppression of women…

The point is, though, you have made grave errors in your logic.

This statement is an unsubstantiated claim, let us call it a rhetorical technique; it is not relevant.

I will not press the matter too hard, for as you have said, and as I can see, it strikes you nearly, and I will attempt to respect that.

You will attempt to respect…what? Your own view of things? You have no respect for me whatsoever, to have made the remarks about women that you did. I am not going to pretend you are interested in my welfare in the least. End the charade.

I must vindicate Christianity, however.

You imply that I have slighted your religion. I have spoken the truth about it, and far from a complete truth, at that. The complete truth is that Christianity, second to Islam, is the most evil force humankind has ever conceived—not least of which because it promotes the oppression of women and the denial of that oppression, and even the audacity to claim the oppression as glorification. That is the most odious euphemism since the dawn of time. Your attempts at vindication are nullified. There is nothing to be redeemed.

The times in which women were inferior was not a causeality of religion, but rather of the times and of society.

This is a logical fallacy, the fallacy of distraction. The issue at hand is that Christianity codified and validated whatever existing sexist traditions there were in Christian cultures, and certainly added sexist tradition of its own as time wore on. Furthermore, you speak of the times in which “women were inferior,” falsely implying that that somehow ended once Christianity was entrenched.

Near every religion did similar things in times gone by - some even worse, as a matter of fact.

This is a logical fallacy, the fallacy of reflection. Your claim that Christianity is somehow absolved of any wrongdoing because “near every religion did similar things” does nothing to mitigate the absolute depravity of those innumerable injustices perpetrated in the name of the Christian god for over fifteen hundred years.

What freedoms did Greek women have?

This is a logical fallacy, once again the fallacy of distraction. While the Greeks and just about every other culture in history did indeed oppress women to some degree, the issue at hand is the oppression of women by Christianity—a cultural force which, unlike the ancient Greek society, remains intact and threatening to this very day.

Christianity, in fact, in its earliest incarnations, moved up the status of women, for they were seen as equal sisters in the family of Christ.

Demonstrate to me, then, how those equal sisters achieved equal representation in all aspects of society, including all professions and vocations, and participated in nondiscriminatory ownership of property, leadership of families, and governance of society. Then demonstrate how their presumably equal brothers achieved equal representation in matters previously considered in the female domain likewise, etc. And, once you have used your impressive historical knowledge to cite these societies, then demonstrate to me why accepted history records no such equitable Christian bastions of sexual equality, but instead paints the picture of an entire continent where gender was a principal determining factor of one’s station in life, with women invariably placed beneath men, for over fifteen hundred years. Until such time as you have fabricated sufficient evidence to revise history, your claim here is nullified for lack of supporting evidence and gross abundances of contrary evidence.

No teaching in Christianity devalued women ever.

How dare you!

How dare you! I could find even one example and debunk your premise logically, but instead I will offer for your consideration no less an authority than the New Testament of your Holy Bible.

Matthew

# Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. 5:32, 19:9

# When Jesus' mother wants to see him, Jesus asks, "Who is my mother?" 12:47-49

# Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 19:29

# "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19

# Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridgroom. 25:1

Mark

# Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, "Who is my mother, or my brethren?" when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34

# Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30

# In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17
Luke

# Even Mary had to be "purified" after giving birth to Jesus. Was she defiled by giving birth to the Son of God? 2:22

# Males are holy to God, not females. 2:23

# Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11

# Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21

# Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
John

# Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn't yet ascended -- as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. 20:17

Romans

# Paul explains that "the natural use" of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. 1:27

1 Corinthians

# Paul would prefer that no one marry. but he says "to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife." 7:1-2

# "Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife." 7:27

# Paul says "the head of the woman is the man," meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 11:3

# If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved. 11:5-6

# Men are made in the image of God; women in the image of men. Women were created from and for men. 11:7-9

# Every women should have power on her head because of the angels. 11:10

# Women are commanded by Paul to be silent in church and to be obedient to men. He further says that "if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church." 14:34-35

Ephesians

# Paul orders wives to submit themselves to their husbands "in every thing" as though they were Christ. "For the husband is the head of the wife." 5:22-24

# Wives must reverance their husband. 5:33

Colossians

# Wives, according to Paul, must submit themselves to their husbands. 3:18

1 Timothy

# Women are to dress modestly, "with shamefacedness" -- "not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." 2:9

# Paul forbids women to teach or "to usurp authority over" men. Rather they are to "learn [from men] in silence with all subjection [to men]." 2:11-12

# Men are superior to women in Paul's eyes, since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, Paul says they shouldn't be discouraged because they shall "be saved in childbearing." 2:14-15

# "A bishop must be ... the husband of one wife." Apparently, it's OK for laymen to have several. 3:2

# Real widows are "desolate" and pray "night and day." But those widows that experience pleasure are "dead while [they] live." 5:5-6

# You should help a widow only if she 1) is over 60 years old, 2) had only one husband, 3) has raised children, 4) has lodged strangers, 5) has "washed the saints feet," 6) has relieved the afflicted, and 7) has "diligently followed very good work." Otherwise, let them starve. "But the younger widows refuse [to help]: for ... they will marry; having damnation." Besides the young widows are always idle tattlers -- "busybodies, spreading things which they ought not." He adds that "some are already turned aside after Satan." 5:9-15

2 Timothy

# In the last days, "silly women" who are "ever learning" will be "led away with divers lusts." 3:6-7

Titus

# A bishop should have only one wife. I guess it's OK for laymen to have several. 1:6-7

# "Teach the young women to be ... obedient to their own husbands." 2:4-5

1 Peter

# Peter orders all wives to be "in subjection" to their husbands. 3:1

# Wives are to use "chaste conversation, coupled with fear." They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any "apparel." They are to do these things in imitation of the "holy" women of the Old testament who were "in subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord." 3:2-6

# In relation to her husband, the wife is "the weaker vessel." 3:7

2 Peter

# Lot, who in Gen.19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapers and later (19:30-38 ) impregnates them, was a "righteous man." 2:8

Revelation

# Jezebel (whom God had thrown off a wall, trampled by horses, and eaten by dogs [2 Kg.9:33-37]) is further reviled by John, saying "that woman Jezebel" taught and seduced God's "servants to commit fornication." 2:20

# Jesus will "cast her [Jezebel] into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her." 2:22

# Only 144,000 celibate men will be saved. (Those who were not "defiled with women.") 14:1-4

# Drinking the wine of her fornication. 14:8

# The great whore has "committed fornication" with all the kings on earth. Everyone else is "drunk with the wine of her fornication." She sits on a scarlet colored beast with the usual 7 heads and 10 horns. She carries a cup full of the "filthiness of her abominations" and has a big sign on her forehead saying: "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth." You'll know her when you see her. 17:1-5

# "And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs." 17:6

# "All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her." 18:3

# The "great whore" corrupted the earth with her fornication. 19:2

I doubt there is a more authoritative source at the heart of Christianity than the New Testament, but if you would rather consult the Old Testament, or the literature produced by the great figures in Christian history like St. Augustine or St. Aquinas—just to name a couple—or the various writings of popes and bishops and priests through the first and second millennia, you will find there to be no shortage of instances where men are elevated above women, or women lowered beneath men.

I would also like to point you in the direction of English Common Law. If you’re not familiar with it, you might review the stipulations of the marriage contract and the rights of women that follow.

“Equal sisters” indeed! That’s so much revisionist garbage. For goodness sake, man! They burned women as witches in the name of the Lord! Did the churches fight it? The churches sponsored it! Women were nothing, chattel, property for over fifteen hundred years thanks to your horrid religion. My only regret is that I don’t have enough time to personally go through the sum of recorded Christian history and write down every last instance of oppression of women so that I could post it here for you and the entire Chrono Compendium and the whole Earth to see.

If this [devaluing of women] was the case, it was because of society, but not the religion.

I beg your pardon. From roughly the middle of the first millennium to nothing less than the Age of Enlightenment over one thousand years later, the Church and then later the various churches of Protestant denominations were the society. You are trying to claim that somehow the Christian religion was insulated from this “society,” as though “society” were a big bad bogeymen which Christianity had nothing to do with. That’s an outright lie, hidden between much more egregious lies perhaps in your hopes of getting a few lies through the radar. What gall!

Notwithstanding the ongoing competition between the secular monarchies and the religious authorities, and later on the companies, Christianity was always the glue of western European society, and much of the time it was the religious leaders who were directly in control of political affairs as well as cultural sponsorship. Here, now, in the year 2005, you might make the case that Christianity has only a limited control over “society.” But back then, Christianity was synonymous with the society. The religion was everything. Often people’s only break from the grueling physical monotony of that horrid, Christian-dominated life was the opportunity to go pour out their guilt and sinfulness at church functions. Churches were the center of people’s lives. Everyone looked to that Christian god of yours to light their path. It was a miserable, cold existence for hundreds of millions of people for over fifteen hundred years. Don’t buy in to the romantic portrayal of medieval history by fiction writers. It was hell on Earth, in God’s name, for over a millennium.

And, just because I’d like to reinforce it a third time in case you missed it the first two times around, you cannot claim that Christianity and the Christian establishments were disparate from “society.” They were the society. At the very least, they were a central pillar of society.

My mother, a devout Christian, has never felt herself to be constrained, for example.

This is a logical fallacy. Implying that your mother, a willing participant in the Christian oppression of women, therefore as a willing participant somehow has the authority to erase the existence of that oppression by power of her opinion alone…is poppycock! Why? Because she does not speak for history. The objective facts speak for history. And sexism the way it is defined in every book but yours paints a very sexist picture indeed of the human past, made possible beneath the auspices of Christ. Tell me, when you deny that women were ever oppressed by Christianity, do you do this for His glory…or for yours?

Your mother—oh, this isn’t going to end up anywhere good…but you are the one who used her example—your mother was brainwashed from the moment she was born to settle into prescribed female gender roles that almost certainly discouraged and ultimately annihilated her human qualities that could have given her a life as free and open as a man’s. Her entire life, society and her Christian religion painted a picture of what women are supposed to be—and, brother, that picture doesn’t say a damn thing about sexual equality. Her humanity was diminished by those discriminatory gender roles, just as it was for those BILLIONS of women from the dawn of Christianity through the present day who preceded her. You see, Daniel, part of the reason (but hardly the entire reason) that sexism is the worst crime in human history is simply because of the numbers of people involved—that is, half the human species. And Christianity’s share of this pie is no smaller than the borders of every Christian state!

Suppose your mother wanted to be a pastor? Do you know how impossible that would have been for her in times gone by? Even today, she’d have to find a pretty liberal church to become a pastor and thereby enjoy the same right that men do. And since you say that religion is so important, and so central to your life, I find it doubly suspicious that the key religious roles are explicitly closed to women. So where are the women, exactly? At home being pregnant in the kitchen? Holy moly, Daniel Krispin, how dare you deny that Christianity is a crime against women!

I’ve known many religious people who tried to at least come halfway by espousing some foolish “Separate But Equal” doctrine. But you allow no such compromise. No…your folly is absolute.

And I do not see how any, throughout the middle-ages, were treated in a manner that might be considered any more sexist than any other period of history.

I don’t know what you think the middle ages are…

But, once again, this is a logical fallacy on you’re part, the fallacy of reflection. “Tu quoque.” We’re not talking about the other parts of history. We’re talking about Christian history. The actions of other aspects of history do not mitigate the crimes against humanity committed by people and agencies fervently indoctrinated by the tenets of Christianity.

I am pained to write this, as I can see your certain anger on the subject, but I truly do not know what you are speaking of.

And now the liar’s lie is laid before the light of sun, for the sun is shown to exist, and the liar is trapped and unrepentant to the last.

I have written hundreds of pages on women’s rights over the years. I don’t rank this effort as particularly academic. Nevertheless, your position is so weak that it undercuts itself with the slightest push. I can indulge in an emotional component along with my logical progressions. The only thing missing is devastating historical citation. But you know what? People know the sun shines down on them. They don’t need me to point. I will let the modest citation I have offered stand without decisive reinforcement. Your strategy, as I explained it at the beginning, would only seize upon such examples in hopes of obfuscating the subject. Do I need to provide you with a list so that, in a few hours, you can regurgitate more historical revisionism? Pah! You know, I could play the game the same way you do. I could just plain make shit up. And you’d be logically obliged to disprove it. I could say the Church declared in 585 A.D. that women have no souls, and you’d have to refute that. And you could, but it’d take your sweet time, and it would cost me credibility among anyone else reading this article—the very same sort of credibility that you have forfeited by using that strategy yourself, and making these outrageous historical claims. For the sake of my own reputation, I can’t bring myself to stomach that sort of academic indecency. Maybe you’d be the only one who noticed it…but then again, maybe not.

So, you “do not know” what I am speaking of. Well. Let me spell it out to you in no uncertain terms. From the conflict between Lilith and Adam at the dawn of time, to the conflict between women and James Dobson raging in this very day, Christianity has decreed that women are subservient to men. In its best hours, this subservience has passed for complementariness. In its worst hours, women were sold as property and burned alive. Women have been denied everything that men value most, from the inception of the religion. Women have been herded like cattle into a narrow, neurotic set of gender roles that confine them and their human ambitions and curiosities and dreams to the mundane life of domestic servitude. Women have had few rights throughout history, and to have any power at all they have maneuvered within the few corridors open to them. All the stereotypes our societies today harbor about men and women, were reinforced from almost two thousand years of Christian rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if women have become the victims of cultural evolution, and have become physically weaker and less healthy, and less mentally capable over the generations due to their status as second-class citizens, and to the preference of men for women less able-bodied than they themselves…the grotesque fruit of cultural selection.

Do you know why sexism is the worst crime? Because when I look at my life, and all the freedoms I enjoy thanks to the fact that history unfolded the way it did, with industry finally conquering the stranglehold of Christianity, I realize that all the things I love were forever beyond the reach and even the imagination of women, throughout history, thanks to your god. So many women were born, lived, and died, never knowing what they had missed. All those souls wasted—if you believe in souls. And if you don’t, then the only life they ever had, or will ever have, was taken from them by a man who bows down to the same god you do.

Moreover, without evidence, I cannot accept [your views]. Logic dismisses it for lack of proof.

I hereby turn your words back upon you, where they belong. The farce is done; your strings are broken.

And the Rest

And as I look upon the rest of your imprudent, topic-hijacking counter-rebuttal…I can’t help but wonder. You say your father was a theologian—you mention that with great pride in many threads. No doubt you own a good part of your Christian zeal to him. I can see that I am not going to change your mind about anything. You will go right on believing however you like. And in a few years, perhaps sooner, you will have forgotten all about me.

I don’t think I care to address the rest of your counter-rebuttal in direct fashion. Goodness knows almost everything you said was wrong. The logic of my original post withstood every argument you made. You say the black plague fettered society…even though the Dark Ages had already come and gone by that point in time. You got your dates plain wrong. You say that Galileo’s science was not opposed by the Church, that he had a publishing error that brought about his downfall. You say that there is no evidence that Christianity held back scientific advances. You say a lot of interesting things, Daniel Krispin. Do I need to prove the sun exists every time you open your mouth? Is that your only argument, to deny history outright, and make nonsense up in its place? For someone as smart as you, that’s a terribly cheap ploy.

Of course, a couple of paragraphs later you abandon the lie that Christianity didn’t hold back science—it is hard to keep track of lies, isn’t it?—to say that the Church was good and virtuous for “holding some things back.” So…the Church never stifled progress, but when it did it was out of the goodness of its heart. You sound like the damned Iraqi Information Minister. Remember him?

You say, why didn’t China advance more? I say, China was once among the most powerful empires on the planet, and there was an admiral by the name of Cheng Ho, who sailed the ocean with an enormous treasure fleet in the fifteenth century, long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. I say, China was such a resilient power that it resisted subjugation by the colonial empires of pre-industrial Europe, and in our century China will become the strongest nation in the world. Without your god’s help.

You say the Industrial Revolution brought about the birth of pollution. I say the human waste and other filth that made cities and towns so disgusting and disease-ridden came thousands of years before the steam engine. And, furthermore, I say that the Age of Enlightenment, together with the Industrial Revolution, were the powers that finally broke Christianity’s back, and delivered Europe and the West into a golden age that has yet to end. For all my environmentalist tendencies, it was worth every piece of soot in the air, and every black lung in the mines, to destroy Christianity’s stranglehold. Pollution we can and will address in this century, wherever the liberal governments find themselves in power. Thank god for the Industrial Revolution? I think not. Thank humanity. We created Christianity, and we’re the only ones who will be able to destroy that Frankenstein’s monster once and for all. The factory is how we did it.

And, last of all, with a fake apology about throwing around accusations, you say that all the twentieth century’s best criminals were atheists. “Atheist” must be a pejorative term in your book. Hitler’s Christianity took a second seat to the religion of state-worshipping fascism—that’s how militaristic nationalism can get, sometimes. But don’t try to pawn that man off as an atheist. He was one of you.

But you know what? You’re right. By the twentieth century Christianity was losing its fangs in the developed world, and many of the really nasty people didn’t need Church sponsorship. Fortunately, with the rise of education and human decency that coincided with the decline of Christianity, the liberalization of society has continued at a good clip, and the bad eggs have been put out with the garbage time and again. A thousand years ago, they’d have been given manorial deeds and plum appointments in the Church.

We owe our modern quality of life to science, industry, and technology, all of which the Christian institutions stifled for over fifteen hundred years. Christianity introduced guilt and sin and joylessness into the world, from Ireland to Indonesia. Christianity told us that humanity is the evil and God is the good, told us that we must never glorify ourselves but instead dedicate our lives and livelihoods to the Lord, told us that women are dirty…and useful only for rearing young. Christianity was a prison and we were both warden and inmate at the same time. Then technology revived, rationalism thrived, steam power lit up the world and blew the darkness away. Oh, it was a painful process…but in the end, look where it got us? The modern world…the best century there ever was, if you’re fortunate enough to be living in a Western country. No Christian church to burn heretics at the stake. No religious indoctrination of young children in every school. People can have sex with one another for sheer pleasure, no strings attached, and the Bible be damned. You know marriage for love? Secular society did that. You know emergency healthcare and guaranteed education for all? Secular society did that. All those things, we owe to industry, which you apparently disparage. No surprise; you’re a Christian! But for those of us outside that dead god’s thrall, the long night is over, and I hope it never returns. If we can bring this to the developing world in our century, and turn back the entrenchments of Christianity and Islam there as well…I will call it an outstanding century.

I’m out of here. I leave the arguments I have already made both in this post and in my last one to stand on their own, and I leave your previous arguments, in all their grotesque inanity and logical incompetence, to speak for themselves. I need a shower.

[AuraTwilight]

Woah.....pwnt.

[V_Translanka]

You see what religion does to people? Can't you see it's tearing us apart! They're just ideas people! Not concrete rules to live by!

Go agnostic...uh...ism...w/e...

[Daniel Krispin]

Woah.....pwnt.

Hardly. He is a good rhetoratician, I will give him that, far better than I could ever claim to be. More than that, I will say, extremely good. I was dismayed at the way he presented them, for he did exactly what rhetoric was meant to: make a weak argument the stronger. My flaw is cannot juggle my words in analytical discussion nearly so well, and so I am overshadowed. I will give him supreme credit for effort, this is worthy of Cato - Delenda Est Carthago he cried, Carthage Must be Destroyed! Not true, perhaps, yet such was his power of oration, that people listened. Hitler, too, was quite the orator, and people listened well to his stance. But this did not make him right. Give me a few hours after work is complete; I shall have a reply. Not scathing, not wrathful - I will make every effort to stay away from such anger as he shows - but statements of refutation. I will make certain, even as he has done, to point out his logical fallicies, and there are many shadowed behind the veil of his excellent speech. Ad Hominem, I think, is most startlingy plain to me in it. But patience, and I will point these things out, even as he was inclined to do for me. I am not doing this out of anger - he has his belief, and I can see it as stern and ardent as my own, and thus it will not change - but rather out of a dismay over the confusion this may wrought. And also: I did not do well in maintaining a coherent point in my last reply, leaving my open to this.

But know, Lord J Esq, by what I will reply in the other thread, that I hold no enmity against you personally, nor even your critisisms of me, when they hold truth - which I have found they have. Only do not use your wit as a sword of insult - you have tarnished yourself as deeply as you claim I did to myself, and have strayed far from logic.

[teh Schala]

Chill out, Esq...  Daniel initially just wanted to clarify that none of us said women are 2nd-class citizens.  I believe that was something you mentioned as an example.  Now, I have had my own words twisted around before and someone mentioned something as an example (just as you did) and later people started thinking I said it and I took a fall for it.  I think that's all Daniel initially wanted to do, was just to clarify that neither he nor I said such a thing.

Let me also point out that Daniel is staying pretty calm here, when in contrast you're retorting with "How dare you" and "what gall..."  If you want to flame him, take it to a PM.  Personally, I'm going to ask for your post to be deleted.  Daniel's bad about hijacking threads, yes.  He rambles and goes off on a tangent.  But no one forced you to reply to his statements.  That was your choice.

Returning to the TOPIC, clearly it looks like the game would spark a firestorm of controversy, and that's something I'm not afraid of.  If I ever get the chance to make this thing, I certainly am going to.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Bible study to do.