Why do men have more dominance than women?

[inlovewiththe44]

Also, I'm sorry because that last post was most certainly off topic. I will refrain from such posts in the future. I just felt the need to say it.

[domokunrox]

Also, I'm sorry because that last post was most certainly off topic. I will refrain from such posts in the future. I just felt the need to say it.

No, that's fine. You have a right to your own opinion and you're welcome to share it.

I am not attacking his language at all. I just merely stating what could be obvious since it states in his location that he is in Croatia. If english isn't your first language its best that one doesn't make any kind of assumptions. Stick to looking and debating the words that are explicitly expressed. Don't make assumptions on what could have been said implicitly.

I mean absolutely no offense to him. Just suggesting that I suspect we're lost in translation somewhere because his location is Croatia (english may not be his first language) and he has been falling into basic red herring and strawman fallacies.

As for my own blunders. Yes, I could see that sentence looks jarbled. Here's my situation I hope everyone can understand.

I don't have time to proof read everything I write. I could be missing a minor word. I could have added a minor word that wasn't needed. I could have accidently added -ly, -ed, etc to some adjectives or adverbs by accident. The autocorrect on my phone could have done something.

I apologize in advance, guys. I can't catch it all. I got a 4 month old at home and sometimes I gotta hit submit before I get to finish proof reading cause she's wet, hungry, bored, etc. I however, don't think that I've left anything too difficult to understand. If its confusing, just say so. I would rather type it up again.

[neo-x]

I disagree with you Dom,

Male dominance has been inherent in eastern cultures for a long time. Bible speaks of male dominance because that is how the society was constructed. Very few women were literate in O.T times and even in the N.T. Most of the first century women were not educated.

The idea that the male should be superior, is not a spiritual requirement. It is a social one. The context greatly matters here. In a male dominant society as the first century Jews, Paul could have not written

Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

and not understand what he was saying. You do see that Paul clearly speaks out against the Jew authority of the O.T, he starts with that and comes to male and female as well. In the immediate context, I must treat these the same way. the same way Jews are not the only special people now, that men are no more special than women. This means that women can have the spirit of God and lead men.

Let me ask you, why does our GOD is always referred to as a masculine identity while we clearly know that God is neither male or female? Where do you think that masculinity came from?.

2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity. I've seen eastern philosophies attempt to assimilate this to support their view. I've heard unitarian univeralists do the same.

I do not think think that Gal 3:28 is that incredible to understand. it may be for a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Muslim but I can not see how WE can miss out the plain meaning. And what you call out as an error is what the verse goes on to do in the plainest reading, blind out the difference. But in this case it is against the biased tones of the culture of that time. You have read Romans, does it not make clear that the specialty of the "Jew" does not matter in terms of who God favors above others, anymore? And while the difference is there, God's response to it has changed.

Eps 5:23 absolutely does entail spiritual leadership. Don't kid yourself. What do you think its telling the man to be the HEAD of? Nothing? Yes, there are different kinds of relationships. However, there is only one truly perfect loving relationship with God. Just 1. One leads, the other follows. We are told to reflect this. One in authority showing all the incredible qualities of God along with command be SUBMISSIVE to our wives. The other to be in complete OBEDIENCE.

No it doesn't. At least not the way you make it sound. First of all, if men are to be the spiritual leaders and then also submissive to their wives, then how come they be the head? As you say yourself, we do not share the leadership of Christ, is Christ also submissive to us, his bride? For the symbolism used, is of Christ. You have to compare it to that.

Because the essence of Eph 5:23 is not the spiritual leadership of men rather than it is of Christ, and the order with which it can be identified in the culture of the first century, in which Paul lived. Paul refers man as the head of the wife, is because that is the social construct he has inherited and lives in. It can not be spiritual, as in no one is different in that way. Had it been the other way around, with the Jewish culture being female dominant, the order would have had been reversed, with Christ on top, then women and then men.

To say that men are the only leaders spiritually is just plain reading it wrong, with as much context as to proof-text your way to your desired conclusion. But there is an order present and that is clearly reflected in Eph 5:23, but this order is specifically according to the first century culture. To import it in the current time where women are literate, have rights and significant places in society, is fallacious. I think there is ample room for correction on how we view things.

It does not say to share the leadership role...

But when does sharing leadership role in church equals the leadership role of Christ? You are correct however in saying that we do not share leadership with Christ. But i do not see how it is relevant to the appeal you are trying to make. A woman can be as Christ like as men, for you would agree that the same spirit that works in a man, and gets him appointed by God, and it not because of the merit of the man himself, rather the grace of God, is the same way a women is to serve God, for again it is not the gender itself that makes someone special rather the one who decides to make someone special.

This is the same problem, Jews had, they could not comprehend the idea that the gentiles could be equal to them, worse they are partakers in the inheritance of God, which only they had the claim to, up till then. As for your appeal to the "biblical order" for your case, I simply think you are bringing an unnecessary inference which could easily change in each individual case with either the women or the man taking the leadership role.

To simply go "Man is sinful, too" is a Tu quoque fallacy. Its invalid.

So is saying "The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked. The serpent choose the correct lie and told it to the emotionally appealing woman. Plain and simple." It is invalid. Did you arrive at this conclusion just by yourself or do you have any biblical support to back it up, I mean the "man could not have sinned if the serpent went to him." part?

To simply go "well, modern times don't call for that anyone. Women have the same IQ, etc,etc" is the genetic fallacy. When you are born and where you are born does not invalidate the proposition.

And are you not making a reverse genetic fallacy by applying ancient context to the present? Moreover the fallacy would not stand if the situation has a context which does not fit the criteria in question. The criteria for spiritual leadership is the spirit of God and the grace of Christ. His appointment matters, not who sinned first, who is more prone to emotional appeals or who is better able to handle matters. Godly attitude takes more than resolve of a certain individual, that Godly resolve is not the product of how brave, strong you are, neither does that Godly attitude inherited in all men.

I am not against a leadership in a relation, what amuses me is when that position by default goes to man. And while I can certainly see where man must be the protector for his family, and the women the caretaker, I dont see how this is a set in stone thing.

Your wife looking up to you in spiritual matters is admirable indeed, so does my fiancé. But does male leadership comes from God in spiritual matters. always? certainly not. It is a stretch to assume. Am I responsible for my wife as a husband? indeed I am, is she responsible for me? yes she is. I have my role, she has her. We We are equals in the eyes of God, we may be not equal with respect to skill, talent or such in our personal lives, she is good at something, I am at others but in terms of spiritual readiness we both qualify in the eyes of God. So I do not see

Husbands are called to be on a higher plane of responsibility. 100% man 0% woman decided. It is not the body that makes the decisions, the head does.

In most cases the head turns out to be a complete idiot, as well. And by the way what you are describing is the Jewish, male dominant culture.

Also, did you know that Christians are in fact Jews? We are HIS people.
Romans 2:28

You sure Dom? I don't know if I should laugh or be sad at this one. IMO, This is so misguided that I don't even want to begin on this in this thread.

I am not saying women cannot be good leaders and God loving people. Biblically, however, husbands are to be the leader. We're not trying to stomp on our wives. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

Biblically? it needs more context Dom. You are describing a Jewish family unit as the default reference. And while this is a perfectly fine unit in its context. I do not think that any problems exist in terms of God favoring the other. Just for the record, I have objection to anyone leading in spiritual matters, that be male or female, if that person is not qualified and called out to be so.

[Reactionary]

Thanks for joining the discussion, Neo. This was exactly the point I was trying to make.

Domokunrox,

The thing is, Tina is not Muslim, or Mormon, or JW, but Christian. So no, I wouldn't have objections to being sent a blessing from a Christian. She said that she was sincere, and I have no reason not to believe her. Having read her other posts on this forum, I didn't notice that she a had a habit of "passive aggressive" responses. I also didn't notice arrogance in my own posts. Please point me to them if there are any.

Reactionary, english isn't your first language. I can't expect you to understand everything I say. So, its best that you keep your assumptions to an absolutely nothing. Lets try that first.
(...)
I am not attacking his language at all. I just merely stating what could be obvious since it states in his location that he is in Croatia. If english isn't your first language its best that one doesn't make any kind of assumptions. Stick to looking and debating the words that are explicitly expressed. Don't make assumptions on what could have been said implicitly.

Do you have problems understanding what I write? I believe not, as you never asked me to clarify something that I wrote. So why bring up the topic of my native language? It's, as you call it, "red herring", completely irrelevant to the discussion. You are only trying to discredit me as a tactic of winning the debate. Yes, I'm Croatian and my native language is Croatian, but again, how is that relevant in any way? I've been studying English for over 10 years with excellent marks, I've read books, listened to lectures, participated in debates, studied literary figures in both English and Croatian, only to see you implying that I don't have the ability to understand what's implicitly been said. And after all that, you say that you meant no offense. Well, you offended me. Maybe your superior Western mindset doesn't recognize it as an offense, but my Balkanic mindset sure as hell does.

The bible brings forth a CLEAR PROPOSITION.

As for the bold, then why bring up slavery as a red herring? Its clear as day that you don't have a good objection to the proposition if you bring in a fallacy to support your rejection of said proposition.

Society changes, yes.

but HOW GOD WANTS US TO LIVE OUR LIVES DOES NOT CHANGE!

Christians are to change to conform to how God wants us to live our lives, and its not the other way around.

Surely, you can't be so naive that you're trying to tell me I'm making an error of historical context. The proposition is clear.

Your rant didn't answer my point. Read it again, as I've run out of patience with repeating. Read Neo's response, I think English is his first language, so his words may mean more to you.

As for the bold, you have got to be joking right? Thats a strawman. Of course a women can "do it by themselves". However, that depends on what you mean by that, though.

I told you what I mean. I said, "I don't know if his wife is allowed to read the Bible by herself". The answer can either be yes or no. No cop outs please.

I actually had to read the bolded sentence several times to be sure I had read it right. So according to you, a hypothetical country whose all citizens are Christians shouldn't be a democracy? How should it be led then? What about non-religious issues such as, let's say, economic policy? How would we decide whether to have laissez-faire capitalism, state capitalism, workers' self-management or socialism? Who would decide on those things, if not the people? Enlightened individuals such as you, who would tell us what's right? I still hold to what I said earlier. Such an approach would lead to us repeating errors that the Church as an institution did in the past.

Reactionary, this is entirely a red herring. I'm not interested in debating politics with you. The political structure does not translate to the family husband/wife Christian structure. If you cannot comprehend this fallacious argument, then you're hopelessly lost.

Well, I'm not interested in debating language with you, but you forced me to. You accuse me of fallacies you commit yourself. Before you say that it's a "tu quoque", I'm merely stating the obvious. I asked for an explanation why you don't think democracy should apply to a hypothetical Christian country. And you conveniently left it out, throwing more accusations of fallacies at me.

Of course you don't understand it.

I guess I'm not intelligent enough to understand your language.

To answer your question, yes and no. A wife's "wishes and opinions" are not necessarily ones that are compatible with living a Christian family life. The man could listen to his wife, but the husband AS THE SPIRITUAL LEADER checks it over, consults with God, then decides. 100% decided by the husband. 0% decided by the wife. The wife could have ideas and opinions, but that doesn't mean it goes though. So, no, its not a democracy.

Well, are the husband's "wishes and opinions" compatible with living a Christian family life? How exactly should the husband "consult with God"? By sending Him an e-mail?

Hey, wait a second... Being a "first century Christian"? A daunting "time"? I thought that was a genetic fallacy. At least you had said so.

It's unfair, you're allowed to use fallacies, while I'm not!

Its not a fallacy. I'm pointing out a flat out syllogism you're making. I agree with you that there is historical context to be understood with this particular verse. However, this still does not give anyone permission to reject the biblical proposition (along with its appropriate predications intact) we're speaking of and deem it "historically out of date" because women have been "allowed to develop" and "democracy advancements"

There are plenty of propositions and predications all over the Bible, and we'd run into contradictions if we didn't apply context. Your response conveniently avoided explaining why we should apply some verses to all times, while some apply only to the historical context. Perhaps those verses that suit your preferences are more applicable.

The proposition still stands regardless of whatever semantics games you want to play. Nice try though. Can't blame you for going for the hail mary at this point of desperation.

What games? I'm too illiterate to play games, remember?

I didn't misinterpret you, Reactionary. I read you loud and clear. Perhaps it is YOU who misunderstood ME because english isn't your first language? Thus, you made fallacious arguments by mistake? I'll grant you that we're lost in translation here, but nothing more.

1. Red herring
2. Poisoning the well
3. Arrogance and condescension, for the third time

Once again, the Presumptive Dom. I lost you in your sentence 4. Everything you wrote after that is, as you call it, "bunk".

Not at all presumptive, Reactionary. Burden of proof is on you to prove that the serpent picked the women by coincidence. Trust me, you don't want your skepticism go that far. I'm going to run you over there.

It is logical and rational to believe the serpent picked the women to deceive on purpose.

You might as well just give this one up, Reactionary. It won't end well.

You said that you read me loud and clear, but it seems like you're the one who has problems understanding the implicit part of what I write, not vice versa. What I called "bunk" was your rant that you wrote after your opinions on the serpent and temptation. The one regarding probability of the existence of God, and random chance, topics completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Sure. Keep avoiding my objections, insist on yours.

I've answered your every objection and ignored the personal attacks. Ball in your court.

You conveniently avoided answering my biggest objections. Perhaps you ignored personal attacks, but you did manage to add a few of yours nonetheless.

[RickD]

I disagree with you Dom,

Male dominance has been inherent in eastern cultures for a long time. Bible speaks of male dominance because that is how the society was constructed. Very few women were literate in O.T times and even in the N.T. Most of the first century women were not educated.

The idea that the male should be superior, is not a spiritual requirement. It is a social one. The context greatly matters here. In a male dominant society as the first century Jews, Paul could have not written

Gal 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

and not understand what he was saying. You do see that Paul clearly speaks out against the Jew authority of the O.T, he starts with that and comes to male and female as well. In the immediate context, I must treat these the same way. the same way Jews are not the only special people now, that men are no more special than women. This means that women can have the spirit of God and lead men.

Let me ask you, why does our GOD is always referred to as a masculine identity while we clearly know that God is neither male or female? Where do you think that masculinity came from?.

2nd, Gal 3:28 is an incredibly difficult verse to completely understand. You cannot take that verse and apply it as is. Reading it like that would be blinding our differences all the way up to God himself. Hence, you create an INFINITE absurdity. I've seen eastern philosophies attempt to assimilate this to support their view. I've heard unitarian univeralists do the same.

I do not think think that Gal 3:28 is that incredible to understand. it may be for a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Muslim but I can not see how WE can miss out the plain meaning. And what you call out as an error is what the verse goes on to do in the plainest reading, blind out the difference. But in this case it is against the biased tones of the culture of that time. You have read Romans, does it not make clear that the specialty of the "Jew" does not matter in terms of who God favors above others, anymore? And while the difference is there, God's response to it has changed.

Eps 5:23 absolutely does entail spiritual leadership. Don't kid yourself. What do you think its telling the man to be the HEAD of? Nothing? Yes, there are different kinds of relationships. However, there is only one truly perfect loving relationship with God. Just 1. One leads, the other follows. We are told to reflect this. One in authority showing all the incredible qualities of God along with command be SUBMISSIVE to our wives. The other to be in complete OBEDIENCE.

No it doesn't. At least not the way you make it sound. First of all, if men are to be the spiritual leaders and then also submissive to their wives, then how come they be the head? As you say yourself, we do not share the leadership of Christ, is Christ also submissive to us, his bride? For the symbolism used, is of Christ. You have to compare it to that.

Because the essence of Eph 5:23 is not the spiritual leadership of men rather than it is of Christ, and the order with which it can be identified in the culture of the first century, in which Paul lived. Paul refers man as the head of the wife, is because that is the social construct he has inherited and lives in. It can not be spiritual, as in no one is different in that way. Had it been the other way around, with the Jewish culture being female dominant, the order would have had been reversed, with Christ on top, then women and then men.

To say that men are the only leaders spiritually is just plain reading it wrong, with as much context as to proof-text your way to your desired conclusion. But there is an order present and that is clearly reflected in Eph 5:23, but this order is specifically according to the first century culture. To import it in the current time where women are literate, have rights and significant places in society, is fallacious. I think there is ample room for correction on how we view things.

It does not say to share the leadership role...

But when does sharing leadership role in church equals the leadership role of Christ? You are correct however in saying that we do not share leadership with Christ. But i do not see how it is relevant to the appeal you are trying to make. A woman can be as Christ like as men, for you would agree that the same spirit that works in a man, and gets him appointed by God, and it not because of the merit of the man himself, rather the grace of God, is the same way a women is to serve God, for again it is not the gender itself that makes someone special rather the one who decides to make someone special.

This is the same problem, Jews had, they could not comprehend the idea that the gentiles could be equal to them, worse they are partakers in the inheritance of God, which only they had the claim to, up till then. As for your appeal to the "biblical order" for your case, I simply think you are bringing an unnecessary inference which could easily change in each individual case with either the women or the man taking the leadership role.

To simply go "Man is sinful, too" is a Tu quoque fallacy. Its invalid.

So is saying "The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked. The serpent choose the correct lie and told it to the emotionally appealing woman. Plain and simple." It is invalid. Did you arrive at this conclusion just by yourself or do you have any biblical support to back it up, I mean the "man could not have sinned if the serpent went to him." part?

To simply go "well, modern times don't call for that anyone. Women have the same IQ, etc,etc" is the genetic fallacy. When you are born and where you are born does not invalidate the proposition.

And are you not making a reverse genetic fallacy by applying ancient context to the present? Moreover the fallacy would not stand if the situation has a context which does not fit the criteria in question. The criteria for spiritual leadership is the spirit of God and the grace of Christ. His appointment matters, not who sinned first, who is more prone to emotional appeals or who is better able to handle matters. Godly attitude takes more than resolve of a certain individual, that Godly resolve is not the product of how brave, strong you are, neither does that Godly attitude inherited in all men.

I am not against a leadership in a relation, what amuses me is when that position by default goes to man. And while I can certainly see where man must be the protector for his family, and the women the caretaker, I dont see how this is a set in stone thing.

Your wife looking up to you in spiritual matters is admirable indeed, so does my fiancé. But does male leadership comes from God in spiritual matters. always? certainly not. It is a stretch to assume. Am I responsible for my wife as a husband? indeed I am, is she responsible for me? yes she is. I have my role, she has her. We We are equals in the eyes of God, we may be not equal with respect to skill, talent or such in our personal lives, she is good at something, I am at others but in terms of spiritual readiness we both qualify in the eyes of God. So I do not see

Husbands are called to be on a higher plane of responsibility. 100% man 0% woman decided. It is not the body that makes the decisions, the head does.

In most cases the head turns out to be a complete idiot, as well. And by the way what you are describing is the Jewish, male dominant culture.

Also, did you know that Christians are in fact Jews? We are HIS people.
Romans 2:28

You sure Dom? I don't know if I should laugh or be sad at this one. IMO, This is so misguided that I don't even want to begin on this in this thread.

I am not saying women cannot be good leaders and God loving people. Biblically, however, husbands are to be the leader. We're not trying to stomp on our wives. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

Biblically? it needs more context Dom. You are describing a Jewish family unit as the default reference. And while this is a perfectly fine unit in its context. I do not think that any problems exist in terms of God favoring the other. Just for the record, I have objection to anyone leading in spiritual matters, that be male or female, if that person is not qualified and called out to be so.

Neo, as I've been following this thread, the basis for domokunrox' argument, seemed a little off to me. I believe you did a great job explaining what I was feeling. Even if someone disagrees with your pov, you made a compelling argument.

And as for Reactionary and the English language, it was just the other day that I complimented him on how well he knows English, being his second language. If I didn't know he was from Croatia, I would have assumed he was from Britain. His English is better than most people who learned English as their primary language.

[Byblos]

Neo, as I've been following this thread, the basis for domokunrox' argument, seemed a little off to me. I believe you did a great job explaining what I was feeling. Even if someone disagrees with your pov, you made a compelling argument.

And as for Reactionary and the English language, it was just the other day that I complimented him on how well he knows English, being his second language. If I didn't know he was from Croatia, I would have assumed he was from Britain. His English is better than most people who learned English as their primary language.

And dare I say, more coherent than most. But then again, what do I know, English is my 3rd language.

[RickD]

Neo, as I've been following this thread, the basis for domokunrox' argument, seemed a little off to me. I believe you did a great job explaining what I was feeling. Even if someone disagrees with your pov, you made a compelling argument.

And as for Reactionary and the English language, it was just the other day that I complimented him on how well he knows English, being his second language. If I didn't know he was from Croatia, I would have assumed he was from Britain. His English is better than most people who learned English as their primary language.

And dare I say, more coherent than most. But then again, what do I know, English is my 3rd language.

That would explain why nobody understands you, Byblos!
Now for me, English is my first language, so I have no excuse. When I make no sense in English, that's pretty much all I've got.

[domokunrox]

Neo-x,

You're way behind us. You're going to want to catch up first. In fact, I was reading your post and I thought it was a post by reactionary repeating himself, but then I scrolled to the right and saw your name. You fell into the same fallacious reasoning he did but just with more impressive backflips for the sake of holding your tenuous position. Get up to date, then get back to us.

Reactionary,

1. Yes, I have hard time understanding how you can't and won't play ball in the rules of logic. The first time, I concluded that maybe I didn't make it clear enough of your fallacious reasoning. Then you came back only to practically state that you don't acknowledge the fallacies but that I just made them up. I can only conclude you're irrational OR we're lost in translation here. Which one is it? Are you a rational thinker afterall or did you just not understand what I was telling you? I will not go over another explanations of your fallacies. Sorry, that's just where I cut the line, Reactionary. I got better things to do. So, don't insult my intelligence and then start crying foul.

2. No, reactionary. The proposition still stands. Neo's said what you said with more impressive backflips. I'm not interested in watching gymnastics in fallacies I pointed out.

3. Still a strawman argument.

4. Still a red herring. You're lost. If you want to discuss my view on politics, i'll do so at my discretion when I find it relevant and appropriate to a discussion on the message boards.

5. No, you're certainly intelligent enough. Right now though you're getting very unnessarily defensive when I call out your fallacious reasoning. Can't help you there.

6. Nope, another Tu quoque again. The proposition stands firm.

7. No, reactionary. If you want me to show you the syllogism your making in the first principal of your argument, your second fallacious argument to support your position does not help. 2 fallacious arguments put together don't make it right. Just contrived for the sake of holding your position.

8. You're playing games, Reactionary. Don't waste my time with them.

9. Not a red herring. You accuse me of poisoning the well, hows that? If working in logic poisons the well, then we got bigger problems.

10. Mmmhmm. So are you off the train tracks? Or are you really that fearless to still stay on them? O await to hear if you figured out why the serpent approached the women, not the man. Time to man up here.

11. No I did not. All have been answered. Problem is, you don't like them for various reasons (wont speculate why).

So, you know, Reactionary. I didn't intend to offend you, but since it did, I want to apologize to you. I am sorry I offended you. I did not mean to. Please accept my apology.

[Byblos]

Neo, as I've been following this thread, the basis for domokunrox' argument, seemed a little off to me. I believe you did a great job explaining what I was feeling. Even if someone disagrees with your pov, you made a compelling argument.

And as for Reactionary and the English language, it was just the other day that I complimented him on how well he knows English, being his second language. If I didn't know he was from Croatia, I would have assumed he was from Britain. His English is better than most people who learned English as their primary language.

And dare I say, more coherent than most. But then again, what do I know, English is my 3rd language.

That would explain why nobody understands you, Byblos!

Yes, I am definitely misunderstood.

[Byblos]

Neo-x,

You're way behind us. You're going to want to catch up first. In fact, I was reading your post and I thought it was a post by reactionary repeating himself, but then I scrolled to the right and saw your name. You fell into the same fallacious reasoning he did but just with more impressive backflips for the sake of holding your tenuous position. Get up to date, then get back to us.

Reactionary,

1. Yes, I have hard time understanding how you can't and won't play ball in the rules of logic. The first time, I concluded that maybe I didn't make it clear enough of your fallacious reasoning. Then you came back only to practically state that you don't acknowledge the fallacies but that I just made them up. I can only conclude you're irrational OR we're lost in translation here. Which one is it? Are you a rational thinker afterall or did you just not understand what I was telling you? I will not go over another explanations of your fallacies. Sorry, that's just where I cut the line, Reactionary. I got better things to do. So, don't insult my intelligence and then start crying foul.

2. No, reactionary. The proposition still stands. Neo's said what you said with more impressive backflips. I'm not interested in watching gymnastics in fallacies I pointed out.

3. Still a strawman argument.

4. Still a red herring. You're lost. If you want to discuss my view on politics, i'll do so at my discretion when I find it relevant and appropriate to a discussion on the message boards.

5. No, you're certainly intelligent enough. Right now though you're getting very unnessarily defensive when I call out your fallacious reasoning. Can't help you there.

6. Nope, another Tu quoque again. The proposition stands firm.

7. No, reactionary. If you want me to show you the syllogism your making in the first principal of your argument, your second fallacious argument to support your position does not help. 2 fallacious arguments put together don't make it right. Just contrived for the sake of holding your position.

8. You're playing games, Reactionary. Don't waste my time with them.

9. Not a red herring. You accuse me of poisoning the well, hows that? If working in logic poisons the well, then we got bigger problems.

10. Mmmhmm. So are you off the train tracks? Or are you really that fearless to still stay on them? O await to hear if you figured out why the serpent approached the women, not the man. Time to man up here.

11. No I did not. All have been answered. Problem is, you don't like them for various reasons (wont speculate why).

So, you know, Reactionary. I didn't intend to offend you, but since it did, I want to apologize to you. I am sorry I offended you. I did not mean to. Please accept my apology.

Dom, this is not funny any more (not that it ever was, but still). I would have preferred to have handled this in private but I believe this time you have gone too far. Your posts are demeaning, insulting, degrading, dismissive, and just plain reactionary (pun very much intended). Not to mention disjointed since the last one seems to attempt to answer certain objections, only the numbers do not correspond to any prior posts made by Reactionary so it is extremely difficult, not only for anyone to follow, but for the participants themselves to even try to answer. You claim fallacious arguments but do not show how the arguments are so, you claim language superiority when your grammar is dreadful and sentence construction sophomoric and at times incoherent, and so on. P.S. Please clean it up.

[domokunrox]

Byblos,

There nothing I can do if my posts sound like all those things you say it sounds like.

Talking about fallacies comes back dry. There's nothing I can do about it.

The numbers correspond to his recent post. He replies to them just fine. If no one else can follow, then im sorry. Unfortunately, wont comment further for fear of offending someone.

I will just ignore your personal attacks.
You're not in any way impartial to my posts, so I need you to just acknowledge that.

[CallMeDave]

About three days ago I got into a little argument on why men are much more dominant than their female counter parts.

Let me be clear about this, what I said to her I did not agree with, but it's the truth.

So here's the scoop. A friend of mine posted something on facebook asking why when men have sex they get called a "Stud," but when women have sex they are considered a "whore" or a "****." Which is true.
So I said it has to do with the dominance between a male and a female. Males are considered to have a higher dominance than females, because of the way we're built (physically). Which I find, by the Grace of God, completely unacceptable.
A female posted a reply saying that is not true, men are not more dominant than a female. Then I explained to her the reason why they we are "considered" to be dominant. I kept coming back to the physical factors, compared to the mental factors.

So am I correct on this or no? I do believe without a shadow of a doubt, that men are more dominant (in the sinful word) because of their physical attributes, compared to their mental.

Again I am going to stress, dominance should not be judged on physical contact.

God made a man to have leadership qualities and generally an assertive/aggressive nature so he could lead his wife and family . He is also to be a loving , compassionate, gentle Person to his family . And when all these designed qualities are being expressed correctly, he is modeling the person of Jesus . It is something that our culture does not endorse but it is what God expects of a Man .

[Byblos]

Byblos,

There nothing I can do if my posts sound like all those things you say it sounds like.

Talking about fallacies comes back dry. There's nothing I can do about it.

Of course you can. It's not enough to claim an argument is fallacious. You need to show how it is fallacious. It is fallacious because ...

The numbers correspond to his recent post. He replies to them just fine. If no one else can follow, then im sorry. Unfortunately, wont comment further for fear of offending someone.

Yes but you are the one who put these numbers in, without quoting the original text to which you are responding. So how is a casual reader supposed to follow that?

I will just ignore your personal attacks.
You're not in any way impartial to my posts, so I need you to just acknowledge that.

There you go again, playing the persecuted. I honestly don't know what you're talking about but take it however you wish Dom. I'm just calling it the way I see it. You can choose to learn from it or you can choose to play the victim. What I am telling you here publicly people have been wanting to say to you for quite some time but were too polite to do it. I had my reservations as well but I felt it necessary at this juncture.

[Reactionary]

Neo-x,

You're way behind us. You're going to want to catch up first. In fact, I was reading your post and I thought it was a post by reactionary repeating himself, but then I scrolled to the right and saw your name. You fell into the same fallacious reasoning he did but just with more impressive backflips for the sake of holding your tenuous position. Get up to date, then get back to us.

Sure, everyone reasons fallaciously, except you. The man wrote half a page long response, and nobody sees it as fallacious but you. In fact, Rick and I agree with him. If I were you, I'd think about that a bit. Byblos correctly noticed that you don't use facts to back up your claims about fallacious reasoning - so obviously I'm not being paranoid.

I'm sure many here will agree that I always explain what I want to say and, if necessary, illustrate it with examples. You, however, often misunderstand me and start a train of thought irrelevant to the discussion, in order to belittle me or my position. When I point that out, you ignore it and insist on your misinterpretation, as you've proven once again in your recent reply. First you started questioning my knowledge on logical fallacies (true that some of them are called differently in Croatian, but those with Latin names are universal, and besides it's not a problem to search something on the Internet). Then you started questioning my English, even though you had no reason to do so (speaking about being desperate). Finally, you entrenched yourself by writing short responses that repeat what you had written before, with nothing new, and more importantly, with no explanation. If you think that your intention wasn't to offend me, then I'm afraid you should reassess your social skills and emotional intelligence. And I'm not saying this to offend you, but with good intentions.

As long as things are this way, for the sake of civility I won't debate with you any longer as we haven't moved far from our original positions. Debates between Christians on this forum shouldn't be about calling people names or throwing accusations around. You apologized to me, which I appreciate but I don't hold grudges against anyone here, you included. But seriously, think about what you can learn from what we've been through in this thread. I will as well. And I'm not referring to the position of the husband in the household, but general attitude and debating techniques.

[B. W.]

Reactionary, I always wondered what the weather is like in Croatia year round.

Here is Colorado USA it pleasant despite the snow in the winter. We average around 350 days a year of Sunshine and temperatures are usually mild and dry North of Denver. Someday, Lord willing, I would like to visit your country.

Blessings!
-
-
-