What did she say to her students?

Digsys-Diner »


This is mroe Greek WOmen being Fairly talk

In the other thread, your immediate response is that "they weren't treated fairly be modern standards",

I also pointed out how they weren't even seen as Legal People, and how Christians gave then far more Rights, which is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

which is obviously true. What they were; is treated fairly within society at the time.

But CHristians treated thm with a far greater degree of Liberty and Respect.


Your cotention is that they had more Freedom and a greater social role than in CHristianity, which is clearly not the case.

I understand they didn't have rights, which is obvious; and that they couldn't, but their sexuality wasn't controlled by their religion; the way Christianity officiated.

Yes it was. Women coudl be outright killed for adultery in Ancient Greece. Men on the other hand coudl enjoy sex with slave women, or slave boys for that matter.


WOmen had no autonomy and had to also submit ot sex when their Husband demanded it. There was no concept of Marita; Rape. They also had no say in whom they married.

Christains on the other hand gave women a choice in who they chose towed.


And again, it was the 'THeocratic" Christains who firts supported the abolition of any SOcial Disabilities on the part of owmen,and in The Middle AGes women had ggenerally the same Rights as men, with certain exceptiosn such as women could not serve in the Military.


Your claim that the Ancient Greeks were Fair to their owmen is not True since, if CHristains did exactly the same thign you'd use that as evidnece that women were oppressed.


In he end you just want to support your own Biases agaisnt Christains.




So Plato was a Jew?

Uhm, what? Did Plato believe in a God?

Yes. Plato even openly spoke of God, in most of his works. For example, in "Meditations" he gave formal arguments for God's existence.

The Euthyphro Dialogue also contains tlak of God, as in the cenral creator, not a Pantheon.

No, he believed in a pantheon of Gods.

So you haven't read Plato, then?

The concept of a personal God, originated with the Abrahamic faiths.

WHich is why Plato discusses this concept in The Euthyphro Dialogue, and why Zoroasterians also spoke of it. Because they wre all Hebrews...

So when the dollar bill says, In God We Trust, it is propagating one or all 3 of the Abrahamic faiths.

Bunk.




only if you think all texts that speak of God's existence are Religious. After all, Philosophers speak about God's existence all the Time, too. SO do some Scientists.

This is a moot point, and has added more weight than it could carry before. A philosopher or Scientist discussing the existence of God is irrelevant, what matters is the foundation for what these people are discussing because that is what needs to be examined.

Actually, we're discussing Law at the present. Your contention that God is purley a property of the Abrahamic Faiths is wrong.




demonstrates how I'm wrong about Atheists in AMerica objecting ot things based on hated of CHristainity

Because you don't actually get to tell people how they feel, remember?

Isn't that what you did when you said that ince I was a Christain I wanted CHristianity given special privladge? Or hwo since I was a beleiver I coudln't be Objective? It really seems you want to dictate all the terms in this dialouge so it favours your prefed conclusions.


I won't operate on a double standard.


Withthat said, its blatantly Obvious that Militant Atheists spend an inordinate amount of TIme attacking Christianity, and groups like the Freedom From religion FOundation are obviously motivated by that hatred in their lawsuits and complaints about htings like In God We Trust on money.


I'm not goig to pretend the obviously True isn't True at all just to suit yoru own need to make Atheists VIctims.

I don't hate Christianity, just like I don't hate Buddhism. Im not particularly fond on Islam, or Judism for that matter but thats another issue.

GIven how you've gone out of yoru way to defame CHristainity, and still can't admit you wre wrong abotu the Ancient Greeks treatign women better than the CHristins did, I dont' buy it.

Its clear you want ot depict Christainity in a bad light, and aren't anywhere enar as objective as you pretend to be.

You seem to think people wanting equality, by simply showing our money is religious free, our holidays aren't religiously endorsed by the government etc.

There is no such thign as "Religion free". Everyone has a Religion, lad, inbcluding you. WHat youreally want is a "Secular" society, in which Secularism is defined by yoru own beleifs and standards, and to exclude "Religion" from cvil discussions is nothign mro than enforcing thos e'Secular" standards.

is an attack.

It is an attack.

Its really shouldn't even be a big deal for you, since it is unconstitutional, but like you always do; you protest too much.

Again, the SUpreme COurt said it was COnstitutional. The only reply you had was to call them beleivers and from there assume they coudl not be objective.


Still, if the SUpreme COurt ruled it was COnstitutional, then why do youpersist in claimig its not?



If you were a Saudi, you'd not give a damn abut the US COnstitution.

Wow your right, id care about my own country, like i said. Id like to think would fight whatever religion inequality i was faced with, whether i was born in North Korea, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, no matter the consequence. I am thankful that i live where i do though, as im not subjugated to what religious extremism can do.

But you want to force everyoen else to be subjugated to your Religion.




Because only Atheists can be objective, RIght?

As far as your religions involvement in politics goes? No, i dont.

You don't even know what my Religion is. At this point its all presumptive on yoru part. And again, Militant Atheists are far mroe forceful with their Religion then Christians tend to be.

By the way, I've also critised certain political movemnts using CHristainity, before you make mroe unfoudned, bigoted, irrational assumptions, but I dont think any and every reference to God has to be expunged just to suit the whimsy of thin skinned militant Atheists who relaly want to subordinate society totheir own Dogmas.

I feel if we had a Jury selection for the decision of In God We Trust on the bills, with a little more race variety. Have you seen the Supreme Justices'? Doesn't look like much religious variety within the group.

So you can tell what Religion soeone is by just lookign at them? ANd isnt GInsberg a Jewishwoman, as opposed to a CHristian? So is STephen Brayer and Elain Kegan.


Its not the monolith you think it is.

I also dont' see the relevance of the Relgiion of the Jutices unless you honesltythink "Beign Relgiious' instantly makes one incapable fo any objective orRational descision. And why shoudl we assume, if that was True, that Atheists are any better?




You're also oneof those Religious people,and your Religion is far moe dictatorial.

Thats a nice sound byte you keep spewing out, but i dont get it. Is my religion, the religion of not buying into your religion?

In a way,m given how Militant Atheism is largley base don beign ANti-CHristain. However, most Modern Militant Atheists beling to a form of Humanism, a Philosophy deveoped in the late 19th century and codified in the early 20th.

Lol. Whatever helps you sleep at night...those atheists with their atheistic dogmatic religion.

How are you proving me wrong? Mockery doens't mean Im wrong, you know.



Your'e tellign me to shut up and I'm not worht listneig to and you have all the Answers.

I never told you any of those things.

Yes you did. THe whole "You're a beleiver so you can't be objective" combined with the "You want CHristainity to be Prefere din Law, but woudl hate it if it was Hindu or Muslim" said exactly that and more.

reply share

add reply

formatting help