100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: IS GOD RESPONSABLE FOR EVERYTHING OR NOT | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. Now don’t go putting words in my mouth.  I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist.  I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this. No argument there at all.  I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7? I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go. Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs? I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species. "For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrelevant." I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever. If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you? The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female? We're just plain not communicating here. Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places: "simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own" “females to subjugate themselves to the will of men” “female subordinace to males” “subjugation of women by males” And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction. The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”. If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction. However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me? Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value. Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that. Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This occurs due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species. But thank you for clarifying your definition and purpose of "debate". I now see that you are right as to the "obedience debate". I have no evidence to present and no argument worthy of debate. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist. I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this. No argument there at all. I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7? I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go. Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs? I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species. "For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrelevant." I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever. If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you? The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female? We're just plain not communicating here. Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places: "simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own" “females to subjugate themselves to the will of men” “female subordinace to males” “subjugation of women by males” And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction. The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”. If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction. However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me? Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value. Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that. Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This occurs due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species. But thank you for clarifying your definition and purpose of "debate". I now see that you are right as to the "obedience debate". I have no evidence to present and no argument worthy of debate. Well its a shame you feel that way as I was finding the discussion quite fascinating but if that is your decision than nothing I can do about it. Carry on.  No, I wont always agree with someone. Thats not the point. I wont beat someone into "submission" but instead will gently "poke" them to explain and support their own position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist. I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this. No argument there at all. I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7? I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go. Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs? I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species. "For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrelevant." I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever. If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you? The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female? We're just plain not communicating here. Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places: "simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own" “females to subjugate themselves to the will of men” “female subordinace to males” “subjugation of women by males” And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction. The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”. If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction. However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me? Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value. Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that. Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This occurs due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species. But thank you for clarifying your definition and purpose of "debate". I now see that you are right as to the "obedience debate". I have no evidence to present and no argument worthy of debate. Well its a shame you feel that way as I was finding the discussion quite fascinating but if that is your decision than nothing I can do about it. Carry on. No, I wont always agree with someone. Thats not the point. I wont beat someone into "submission" but instead will gently "poke" them to explain and support their own position. K, is that why your here for debate? I mean when you look thru the threads is that what your intentions are is to find something to debate about? or are you looking to learn from others reponses also? just wondering? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist. I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this. No argument there at all. I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7? I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go. Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs? I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species. "For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrelevant." I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever. If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you? The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female? We're just plain not communicating here. Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places: "simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own" “females to subjugate themselves to the will of men” “female subordinace to males” “subjugation of women by males” And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction. The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”. If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction. However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me? Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value. Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that. Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This occurs due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species. But thank you for clarifying your definition and purpose of "debate". I now see that you are right as to the "obedience debate". I have no evidence to present and no argument worthy of debate. Well its a shame you feel that way as I was finding the discussion quite fascinating but if that is your decision than nothing I can do about it. Carry on. No, I wont always agree with someone. Thats not the point. I wont beat someone into "submission" but instead will gently "poke" them to explain and support their own position. K, is that why your here for debate? I mean when you look thru the threads is that what your intentions are is to find something to debate about? or are you looking to learn from others reponses also? just wondering? I enjoy debate and I deliberately seek out conflicting positions and ideas than that of my own and challenge them. In this manner I can begin to understand why someone feels the way they do on a particular topic. If they can not support their position or refuse to for some reason, there is no point in my attempting to continue that particular debate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Skyhook, Im not really certain when, at any point in history it would have been advisable to simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own. That to me sounds defeatist. Now don’t go putting words in my mouth. I only said “obey”, not “obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own”. When you spin it that way I would agree that it sounds defeatist. I will say that “follow” is probably a much better term to use than “obey”. I would think an egalitarian or a partnership society would be far more successful over the long haul. In fact, archeological evidence indicates this. No argument there at all. I suppose you could make the argument that women menstruate and as a consequence of this become overly aggressive and emotional during this span of time thus effecting their capacity for judgment in social matters. Well dont men behave that way 24/7? I don’t see menstruation as being much of an issue at all. However, as you implied, there seems to be a natural difference in makeup between men and women. Male = aggressive, female = passive. This seems to me to just naturally result in aggressive=lead, passive=follow. I’m not trying to argue for any kind of chauvinistic thing. Just taking the logic where it naturally seems to go. Maybe the key question would be something like this: What would be the evolutionary benefit to having this male=aggressive, female=passive state of affairs? I have some uninformed opinions, but you’re much more knowledgeable in the areas necessary to fully and correctly answer that question. I just suspect that the answer to that question points directly to why a “male=leader, female=follower” situation would ever have been beneficial to the survival of the species. "For example, the consideration that it was “good” for a woman to obey her man actually does have some logical survival-related benefits in a very primitive society. But in a technologically advanced, socialistic society, pretty much all of those reasons are completely irrelevant." I merely disagree with this viewpoint and found your logic to be considerably flawed. Not only that, you are attempting to make some kind of point without supplying any supportive evidence for your claim whatsoever. If you would like to do that on your next post, then by all means please do. Right now all I am hearing is in primitive culture, sometimes it might have been beneficial for females to subjugate themselves to the will of men. If your finding yourself in need of further explanation or elaboration on this concept of "female subordinace to males", then by all means provide it. I fail to see where exactly I imparted "spin" in any way shape or form to your remarks. If you do not fully have faith in your own assertions, then how can I possibly not challenge you? The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. As far as your continued insistence on "male=leader" and "female=follower." I really need to disagree. The male of the species (as it relates to mammals) is much more aggressive and competitive. The reason for this is that you have a hormone called testosterone. Testosterone is a steroid hormone from the androgen group. It is the principal male sex hormone and an anabolic steroid. This is what causes the aggressive and competitive behaviors that we often see exhibited in ALL male mammals. Interestingly enough, females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount. Conversely, males also produce estrogen which is the primary female sexual hormone. From an evolutionary standpoint, yes, testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it. I see no indication that it would somehow enable human males to lay claim to superior intellect in any way shape or form. You are requiring me to make a very grand leap of faith that is premised on conjecture and has no supportive evidence based in evolutionary biology. In fact, testosterone can actually lead to flawed judgment and irrational behavior in males or have you never been in a honky tonk on a Saturday night when males get to "rough housing" over the affections of a female? We're just plain not communicating here. Im uncertain as to how I "put words in your mouth" exactly? I said one word: "obey". You took that one word and provided your own, greatly expanded (and greatly misrepresented if I may say so) meanings in several places: "simply insist that one gender obey all commands and essentially subjugate themselves and listen to the other without imparting any information or input of their own" “females to subjugate themselves to the will of men” “female subordinace to males” “subjugation of women by males” And when I see that you appear to be taking the discussion in a direction that had nothing to do with what I intended, and try to get back to my original intention by clarifying through the use of another term (“follow”), you then simply dismiss that attempt at clarification and assume that it has some deceptive purpose and use that assumption to turn the subject back to your own direction. The terms "follow" or "obey" both elude to the same type of behavior. For the sake of our debate, subjugation of women by males. You are simply attempting in retrospect to "pretty it up" for me. So rather than me trying to “pretty it up”, the actual fact of the matter is that you have “uglied it down”. If you wish to redefine what I say and then address those redefinitions, you are welcome to do so. But debate is useless, and agreement is impossible, on those terms. So I have no interest in continuing in that direction. However, I am interested in the strictly evolutionary issue and in your expertise in the area. You say “testosterone would have produced the necessary drive to procreate but thats it” and “females also produce testosterone from the ovaries, though in a much smaller amount”, which seems to imply that males have a stronger “drive to procreate” than do females. I have a hard time wrapping my wits around that so could you expound on it for me? Okay then, if you feel that somehow your position is being "misinterpreted" then by all means explain what you mean sir. You appear to be dancing around terms and back tracking. Explain your own interpretation of the word OBEY. My definitions are clearly founded unless you can demonstrate how they are not in some respect? Otherwise what are we debating here exactly? You seem to be indicating (as best that I can ascertain) that in certain primitive cultures, it would have been beneficial for women to OBEY men or FOLLOW the orders of men. Yet you provide zero in the way of supportive evidence to substantiate this claim. This is my point of contention. I am not dismissing anything. I am taking what you are saying at face value. Why do you feel compelled to agree with me or that we must agree? That is not the purpose of debate. It is to take two conflicting positions and essentially "weigh" them against one another and this is accomplished through logical and rational argument. You cant achieve this goal by simply whining that you are being "misunderstood." If that were the case, it would clearly be your responsibility to clarify your position. I dont see that happening at all. When you decide you want to work within the parameters of a debate format, we can do that. Males have a biological drive to procreate. I am not only addressing human males when I say this but ALL male mammals. This occurs due to the anabolic and naturally occurring hormone known as testosterone. In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. What we commonly refer to as "lust" is directly linked to the production of testosterone in both males and females. This is an evolutionary adaptation to get humans together long enough to make more little humans thus insuring the continuation of the species. But thank you for clarifying your definition and purpose of "debate". I now see that you are right as to the "obedience debate". I have no evidence to present and no argument worthy of debate. Well its a shame you feel that way as I was finding the discussion quite fascinating but if that is your decision than nothing I can do about it. Carry on. No, I wont always agree with someone. Thats not the point. I wont beat someone into "submission" but instead will gently "poke" them to explain and support their own position. K, is that why your here for debate? I mean when you look thru the threads is that what your intentions are is to find something to debate about? or are you looking to learn from others reponses also? just wondering? I enjoy debate and I deliberately seek out conflicting positions and ideas than that of my own and challenge them. In this manner I can begin to understand why someone feels the way they do on a particular topic. If they can not support their position or refuse to for some reason, there is no point in my attempting to continue that particular debate. i agree with your last statement for sure, were you on a debate team in colledge or similiar? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. I just like to argue.
I took debate in school but one class. It was never a focus or part of my major. It was a GE requirement. In a classroom setting like that they normally have you take on the heavies such as "capital punishment" Why or why not. Its exhausting. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone prove this stuff is "divinely inspired" or better yet, not terribly agenda driven by men eager to obtain power, control and presumably wealth by espousing this crap and pretending to "hear the direct word of a faceless, formless deity?" And what happened to all of the civilizations and people who existed thousands of years prior to this monotheistic invasion who were Pagan???  Well for one thing - none of the disciples obtained power, they maintained control over no one, and they certainly did not accumulate wealth. As a matter of record - they were imprisoned, stoned, fed to lions, and crucified for their "agenda". Kind of underminds your hypothesis of those idea's. All of the civilizations who existed prior to them. I would wager a guess they all died. Eljay, some Christians were indeed thrown to the lions but not nearly the number that they would have us believe. Not all of them were Christians. The vast majority put to death by the Romans were captives and that could have been anyone. And most of them were considered criminals because of desecration of temples, not just because they were Christians. And "they all died" is not an answer. Your post doesn't make any sense. First of all, what does "not nearly the number that they think" - who's they, and I wasn't aware they had any clue as to how many were thrown to the lions. What they knew is if you were a christian and you got caught, you were matryd. I'm sure they weren't keeping track of whether it was burned at the stake, fed to the lions, crucified, run through with a sword... Sure they all died is an asnwer. You know of any of them who didn't? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think man probably does have the ability to be totally righteous and perfect as well as totally flawed. But the state of being righteous seems like an opinion to me. Why people think that a God "gave" mankind something called "free will" is beyond me. The will is innate and inherent in all consciousness. Will is part of the package in the manifestation of Prime source. Prime Source has the will to exist and it manifests itself in all things which naturally also have the will to exist. Innate in all living creatures is a desire to be free. Even a domestic dog who depends on humans hates to be chained or caged. Freedom is paramount. jb man does not have the ability to be righteous while wearing this flesh my lady, ayone who thinks they are capable of being sinless or in your case wrong is crazy - It is easy to be sinless because sin is a term that is confined and owned by religious doctrine and it boils down to mean "disobedience" of some conception of an all mighty creator who wrote laws and commandments and stated that "the wages of sin is death." Therefore, unless you subscribe to that religious doctrine, the term "sin" is meaningless and a moot point. You can only be a "sinner" if you buy lock stock and barrel, the religious implication's of that term and subscribe to Christianity or any similar religious doctrine that uses the term "sin." But if you are a free agent or atheist you cannot think of yourself as a "sinner" because the word has no meaning. The idea of righteousness is basically an opinion. Yes, you can be righteous in this moment. This moment is all that truly exists. It matters not what you did yesterday. If you made a mistake and learned from it, and if you move to the next step of becoming a better person, and if you forgive yourself and vow to do and be better and hold that intention, you can indeed be righteous in that moment. That is what repentance and forgiveness is all about. When you truly repent unto yourself and vow to change, then you are a new and righteous person at that moment. You are washed clean and forgiven if your repentance is sincere. You are new because you have truly changed and you have been forgiven and you have forgiven yourself. Each moment is all that exists. What and who you are in this moment is the true you. You Tribo are mistaken. Anyone can be righteous and even without sin in the moment, which is all that truly exists. jb Righteousness... Another one of those subjective nouns. Righteous according to an infinite number of variables. An individual CAN be righteous according to self. When taken out of context - you are correct. However, Tribo is speaking of biblical concepts of "evil" here - and is quite aware of what I am refering to when I say that evil is the falling short of being rightious. I was not refering to the word in any other way other than the biblical idea of rightiousness - as it is used to refer to Abraham, or Jesus. Man's interpretation of the biblical idea of righteousness. Is it possible that there may be room for interpretation from perspectives other than Christian? ...Or is this club so exclusive that the book is closed? from my expierience [both in and out of it] - they will entertain anyones perception as to what they might conclude as righteousness like eljay, but the truth is the book is closed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your OP about biblical concepts? How could we possibly further the discussion by entertaining other interpretations of rightiousness. They're irrelivant. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my take.
God didn't create sin, only the ability to do so. By giving man(people in general, not just males) free will, and the ability to do as we wish, he had given us the ability to sin. God did this, because he knew that man would fall from grace, knowing the difference between good and evil through the temptation of Lucifer. God did this, so that we would be able to make a choice, to either live a life of sin, living only to please the flesh with the things of the world, or choose to live a righteous life, glorifying Him. God didn't create man to be robots, to forcefully worship Him but to give Him glory and honor out of our own free will. It's not like God put man on the Earth and was surprised that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew they would. It was because of that action that we as people now have the decision to live for the world with temporary satisfaction, eventually falling to Hell along with Satan, or to live a life that pleases our Father and rising up to Heaven to live forever with God and truly love him, not just loving him because he makes us love him, but with all our heart, of our own free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think man probably does have the ability to be totally righteous and perfect as well as totally flawed. But the state of being righteous seems like an opinion to me. Why people think that a God "gave" mankind something called "free will" is beyond me. The will is innate and inherent in all consciousness. Will is part of the package in the manifestation of Prime source. Prime Source has the will to exist and it manifests itself in all things which naturally also have the will to exist. Innate in all living creatures is a desire to be free. Even a domestic dog who depends on humans hates to be chained or caged. Freedom is paramount. jb man does not have the ability to be righteous while wearing this flesh my lady, ayone who thinks they are capable of being sinless or in your case wrong is crazy - It is easy to be sinless because sin is a term that is confined and owned by religious doctrine and it boils down to mean "disobedience" of some conception of an all mighty creator who wrote laws and commandments and stated that "the wages of sin is death." Therefore, unless you subscribe to that religious doctrine, the term "sin" is meaningless and a moot point. You can only be a "sinner" if you buy lock stock and barrel, the religious implication's of that term and subscribe to Christianity or any similar religious doctrine that uses the term "sin." But if you are a free agent or atheist you cannot think of yourself as a "sinner" because the word has no meaning. The idea of righteousness is basically an opinion. Yes, you can be righteous in this moment. This moment is all that truly exists. It matters not what you did yesterday. If you made a mistake and learned from it, and if you move to the next step of becoming a better person, and if you forgive yourself and vow to do and be better and hold that intention, you can indeed be righteous in that moment. That is what repentance and forgiveness is all about. When you truly repent unto yourself and vow to change, then you are a new and righteous person at that moment. You are washed clean and forgiven if your repentance is sincere. You are new because you have truly changed and you have been forgiven and you have forgiven yourself. Each moment is all that exists. What and who you are in this moment is the true you. You Tribo are mistaken. Anyone can be righteous and even without sin in the moment, which is all that truly exists. jb Righteousness... Another one of those subjective nouns. Righteous according to an infinite number of variables. An individual CAN be righteous according to self. When taken out of context - you are correct. However, Tribo is speaking of biblical concepts of "evil" here - and is quite aware of what I am refering to when I say that evil is the falling short of being rightious. I was not refering to the word in any other way other than the biblical idea of rightiousness - as it is used to refer to Abraham, or Jesus. Man's interpretation of the biblical idea of righteousness. Is it possible that there may be room for interpretation from perspectives other than Christian? ...Or is this club so exclusive that the book is closed? from my expierience [both in and out of it] - they will entertain anyones perception as to what they might conclude as righteousness like eljay, but the truth is the book is closed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't your OP about biblical concepts? How could we possibly further the discussion by entertaining other interpretations of rightiousness. They're irrelivant. allow others to voice there views on what it means to them - is that better - 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 10/19/08 11:23 PM
|
|
Hi jfrog88. Welcome to the forum. Hope you're wearing your "thick" skin.
Things can get a little rough around here sometimes. But in general we're mostly a fairly respectful lot - mostly  Here's my take. God didn't create sin, only the ability to do so. By giving man(people in general, not just males) free will, and the ability to do as we wish, he had given us the ability to sin. God did this, because he knew that man would fall from grace, knowing the difference between good and evil through the temptation of Lucifer. God did this, so that we would be able to make a choice, to either live a life of sin, living only to please the flesh with the things of the world, or choose to live a righteous life, glorifying Him. God didn't create man to be robots, to forcefully worship Him but to give Him glory and honor out of our own free will. It's not like God put man on the Earth and was surprised that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew they would. It was because of that action that we as people now have the decision to live for the world with temporary satisfaction, eventually falling to Hell along with Satan, or to live a life that pleases our Father and rising up to Heaven to live forever with God and truly love him, not just loving him because he makes us love him, but with all our heart, of our own free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone prove this stuff is "divinely inspired" or better yet, not terribly agenda driven by men eager to obtain power, control and presumably wealth by espousing this crap and pretending to "hear the direct word of a faceless, formless deity?" And what happened to all of the civilizations and people who existed thousands of years prior to this monotheistic invasion who were Pagan??? Well for one thing - none of the disciples obtained power, they maintained control over no one, and they certainly did not accumulate wealth. As a matter of record - they were imprisoned, stoned, fed to lions, and crucified for their "agenda". Kind of underminds your hypothesis of those idea's. All of the civilizations who existed prior to them. I would wager a guess they all died. Eljay, some Christians were indeed thrown to the lions but not nearly the number that they would have us believe. Not all of them were Christians. The vast majority put to death by the Romans were captives and that could have been anyone. And most of them were considered criminals because of desecration of temples, not just because they were Christians. And "they all died" is not an answer. Your post doesn't make any sense. First of all, what does "not nearly the number that they think" - who's they, and I wasn't aware they had any clue as to how many were thrown to the lions. What they knew is if you were a christian and you got caught, you were matryd. I'm sure they weren't keeping track of whether it was burned at the stake, fed to the lions, crucified, run through with a sword... Sure they all died is an asnwer. You know of any of them who didn't? "They" would be referring to Christians. I think you missed the point of the post. Of course there's no evidence, it's just religious propaganda. Not to mention that wouldn't it be a horrible prospect either way? Shouldn't the Christians have realized that two wrongs do not make a right as it would relate to their own treatment of non-believers and Pagans much later in history? No such luck. Romans killed a lot of people, captives were executed for all kinds of reasons, and yes a lot of Christians got killed , and a lot of Jews got killed too, and a whole lot of everything else. Christians, specially Catholics, are just making a big deal of this to amplify their status as martyrs through history. Christians killed Pagans before the Romans fed Christians to the lions. The Pagans were minding their own business but because according to the Christians they were not following the "true god" they got killed because of it. The Romans were just returning the favor. Being an ass, historically, begets, being an ass. "They all died" is not addressing the issue of pre-Christian peoples at all. All the Christians from that time period are dead also. Your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Sun 10/19/08 11:53 PM
|
|
I would agree sky, mostly respectful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi jfrog88. Welcome to the forum. Hope you're wearing your "thick" skin. Things can get a little rough around here sometimes. But in general we're mostly a fairly respectful lot - mostly Here's my take. God didn't create sin, only the ability to do so. By giving man(people in general, not just males) free will, and the ability to do as we wish, he had given us the ability to sin. God did this, because he knew that man would fall from grace, knowing the difference between good and evil through the temptation of Lucifer. God did this, so that we would be able to make a choice, to either live a life of sin, living only to please the flesh with the things of the world, or choose to live a righteous life, glorifying Him. God didn't create man to be robots, to forcefully worship Him but to give Him glory and honor out of our own free will. It's not like God put man on the Earth and was surprised that Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he knew they would. It was because of that action that we as people now have the decision to live for the world with temporary satisfaction, eventually falling to Hell along with Satan, or to live a life that pleases our Father and rising up to Heaven to live forever with God and truly love him, not just loving him because he makes us love him, but with all our heart, of our own free will. You're right in that he knows the who, what and when, but he doesn't have the ability to stop us. The closest he can get to controlling our actions is through the self-conscience which the holy spirit within us. have you heard the phrase "you can lead a deer to water, but you can't make it drink?" That quote directly applies here in that God can give you guidance, but he can't stop you from doing what you're doing or about to do. God had given us free will and the only way to stop one from committing a certain sin is for the person them self to no longer have to desire. If you are going to commit and sin (for example, steal something from somewhere or someone) If you have that thought in your head, and you really want to do it, but somehow you had your hands and feet chained to a fence, in the eyes of God, the fact that you would still do it were you not chained up, is considered a sin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you believe god is the creator of everything
then yes if it was not created it would not of happened whether you have free choice or not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 10/20/08 06:24 AM
|
|
Eljay, I would agree with Sam on this one. Just let people voice their opinions and utilize whatever examples, analogies or resources they like. Not to mention that this thread has already splintered into several sub-topics. I have no interest in the OP's original post but I see no reason to begin censoring responses this late in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Mon 10/20/08 06:53 AM
|
|
Choice Choice Choice....Adam & Eve had it...as well as satan.....God did not hold a gun to their head now did he....They chose...they lived with the consequences of their choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Choice Choice Choice....Adam & Eve had it...as well as satan.....God did not hold a gun to their head no did he....They choice...they lived with the consequences of their choices. but if they did not live (have been created) then it would not of happened choice or not
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
feralcatlady
on
Mon 10/20/08 06:57 AM
|
|
Choice Choice Choice....Adam & Eve had it...as well as satan.....God did not hold a gun to their head no did he....They choice...they lived with the consequences of their choices. but if they did not live (have been created) then it would not of happened choice or not They could of chose different.....And then of course would of been a different scenario....But see folks the simple truth is it happened how it happened.....So to say if they did not live (have been created) is a mute point...because they were created and they chose. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Choice Choice Choice....Adam & Eve had it...as well as satan.....God did not hold a gun to their head no did he....They choice...they lived with the consequences of their choices. but if they did not live (have been created) then it would not of happened choice or not They could of chose different.....And then of course would of been a different scenario....But see folks the simple truth is it happened how it happened.....So to say if they did not live (have been created) is a mute point...because they were created and they chose. and they did not choose to be created so they had no choice |
|
|
|
|
