Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Can God love? (Part 1)

Page 2 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed Apr 25, 2012 9:40 pm

First topic message reminder :

Can God love?

We are told that the mythical bible God is love or the epitome of love.

Archetypal Jesus said that we would know his people by the love, deeds and actions they showed others.

Jesus gave us examples of the deeds and works. Feed the poor, love all our neighbours, do not sin and many others.

Love then, seems to Jesus, to be something that must be shown by deeds, actions and works to be alive and true love. Love, like faith, without works is dead. Both St. James and Jesus agree on this.

It follows then that if God is not doing something to show this love then the love for man expressed in scriptures is wrong and God cannot love.

You are in the image of God. When you love someone you show them that love by works and deeds. This is how the recipient of that love knows it is there and that allows for reciprocity.  You will agree that without reciprocity, true love cannot exist between two individuals. We must do things for each other for true love to exist.

Imagine what those you love would think if you never did anything to express your love. Imagine what you would think of the love of others towards you if they never did anything to show they loved you.  See what I mean. Love always must have deeds to be real and true and reciprocity must be at play.

Love then has no choice but to be expressed if it is true love.

We are told that God loved his son so much that he planned to have him sacrificed even before the earth was created. This human sacrifice or any other human sacrifice, voluntary or not, is immoral and the notion that it is good to sacrifice an innocent victim to give the guilty believers a free ride into heaven is a completely self-gratifying notion and is completely immoral. One does not show love for someone by having them sacrificed for the sins of others when God himself stated that we are all responsible for our own salvation and cannot put that responsibility of the shoulders of a scapegoat Jesus.

Does love need deeds and works to be expressed?

Have you seen God express his love for us lately?

Regards
DL

These following speak to this issue if you wish to view them.

[youtube]



avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down


Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:54 pm

polyglide wrote: it's a good job not all are so gullible.

Thius from one who is gullible enough to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic, talking animals and water than moves on command.

Do you even know what the word gullible means?

As to your trying to profit from God having his son murdered when there was absolutely no need for it, that is quite immoral.

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or God damned sin.

If God had not intended humans to sin from the beginning, why did he build into the Creation this "solution" for sin? Why create a solution for a problem you do not anticipate?

God knew that the moment he said "don't eat from that tree," the die was cast. The eating was inevitable. Eve was merely following the plan.

This then begs the question.

What kind of God would plan and execute the murder of his own son when there was absolutely no need to?

Only an insane God. That’s who.

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c0RFxXrYzg&feature=related

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Guest on Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:04 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Sat 28 Apr 2012 - 13:54

It was God's plan from the beginning to have Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit.

Earlier…

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Fri 27 Apr 2012 - 18:03

No it wasn’t. God’s Word describes God’s plan from the beginning.
[/color]

“And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:26-27).
God’s plan from the beginning:

  1. To make and create ha adama in his image;
  2. To make ha adama after his likeness;
  3. To let ha adama have dominion over the fish of the sea;
  4. To let ha adama have dominion over the birds of the sky;
  5. To let ha adama have dominion over the cattle;
  6. To let ha adama have dominion over all the earth;
  7. To let ha adama have dominion over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth;
  8. To create ha adama as male and female.

Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Sat 28 Apr 2012 - 13:54

The cornerstone of Christianity is human sacrifice, thus showing it‘s immorality.

Earlier…

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Fri 27 Apr 2012 - 18:03

The cornerstone of Christianity is each individual choosing to follow Jesus the Christ’s teachings.
Greatest I am wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by Greatest I am on Sat 28 Apr 2012 - 13:54

One of Christianity's highest form of immorality is what they have done to women.
They have denied them equality and subjugated them to men.

Earlier…

RockOnBrother wrote:
Re: Can God love?
by RockOnBrother on Fri 27 Apr 2012 - 18:03

Women and men are unequal.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:31 pm

No No

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:33 pm

I have no idea if Sarina has children of her own but I very much doubt it.
Who in blazes is "Sarina?"
A parent does not leave a child to find it's own way in life, it sets out that which it feels is right for the best possible future and explains why etc;
When did I ever make such a claim? You were the one talking about a man left on an island to find his own way of survival. I was merely following your analogy.
Those who believe in God feel exactly the same, that God set out the principles, if followed, would result in a perfect and happy life for mankind and had man done so, that would have been the result.
God is not interested in our "happiness." That much is made abundantly clear in Old Testament scripture. There are two major proofs to this assertion. First, these "principles" that God set out have to do with God's hatred of sin, NOT whether we would be happy. Here's an example: The Bible claims that all sins are equally evil in God's eyes. Thus, engineering the Holocaust is just as bad as telling a little white lie to maintain social order. I think we've all done that, right? If we were 100% brutally honest at all times, we simply would not be able to get along with each other. Yet those little white lies maintain peaceful relations with our friends and family, and peaceful relations with our peers promotes happiness. Except telling those little lies are considered sins, and if the Bible is to be believed, that sin is equal in nastiness to child raping or serial killing. If God's principles were about our happiness, there would be degrees of sin, but there isn't. One is as bad as the next, which shows that it all has to do with God's hatred of sin, not the happiness of humanity.

The second proof is the egocentric nature of God. There is only one sin that stands out above all others - blasphemy. Why? You can be the most evil person in the world and still slip into heaven at the last minute, but if you insult (curse) God, it's all over for you. It is an unforgivable sin. The entire belief system of Christianity is predicated on believing in God, worshiping God, and loving God. Everything else is ... negotiable. It's all about pleasing God, not pleasing ourselves or even each other. Our happiness is irrelevant.
As many children fail to take notice of their parents so has mankind decided to go his own way and you can see the results throughout the world.
Yes, we can see the results, all right. As I've said before, look at all the violence in the world and much of it is the result of conflicting religious beliefs - even between different factions within the same belief system. I also don't see religion stopping basic street crime, either. In fact, the only "crimes" religion seems to really worry about are homosexuality, abortion, and birth control. If the Catholic Church is any indication, religion isn't even all that caring of priests who molest children. It would seem religion is part of the problem with street crime, not the solution to it.
No matter how badly a child behaves the vast majority of parents still love their children and the same goes for God
Three things here. First, good parents don't put an open bottle of poison in the child's playpen, simply tell the child not to drink from the bottle, and then blame the child when the poison is consumed. A good parent simply obeys the label: Keep out of reach of children. Nor, I might add, does a good parent punish every child in the house for the actions of one - much less punish every successive generation of children for thousands of years. Secondly, a good parent does not threaten children with eternal torture for breaking rules. Third, a good parent does not expect or require worship and praise. A parent's love is unconditional whereas God's love requires submission to slavery.
People fail to note that there is a battle going on between the Devil and God
We fail to note it because it doesn't exist. And even if it did, a "battle" with God should last all of less than a nanosecond which is why this belief is so ludicrous. If God can speak the universe into existence, surely God can speak the Devil out of existence, no?
the former having been given time and every oppotunity to turn people against God by any means he can think of and just as many children are corrupted by evil people the Devil is corrupting the minds of the gullible
So, you say that the Devil is *given* time and opportunity to turn people against God. Given time by whom? Oh yes ... by God of course. That's why the "battle" isn't over yet (when it should be). So let's get back to the good parent analogy. A good parent, when seeing his children wrestling with an enemy, would not stand back and watch, not even with a bucket of popcorn. It would seem to me that this "battle" isn't between God and Satan, but rather between Satan and humanity. Why is this battle raging? Because God wanted it to. Why else would this battle exist when God could end it with but a thought at any time of his choosing? In other words, this "good parent" invited a child molester into the house and locked said molester inside a room with the child inside. The parent, meanwhile, stays outside and says, "Unless you call for me, son, I refuse to help you. I want to hear you call for me by name or I will do nothing." Nice guy, this God.
it's a good job not all are so gullible.
God runs earth like a mafia protection racket. We're supposed to "pay" God for protection ... except God is the one orchestrating the *need* for protection in the first place. In other words we have to "pay" God for protection or God will send his thug Guido (the Devil) over to our house to break our legs. Now, I don't believe in all of this God vs. Satan stuff, but when you analyze what this is all about, all I see is a God loaded down with all the same human foibles and propensity to do evil as any regular mortal. This business with the Devil is proof positive of that. God created Satan - knowing full well he would rebel against him - to use as a tool to make us need God. In essence, a mafia protection racket. Period. It wasn't enough to simply let us choose - or not choose - God with our own brains. God had to send in an outside influence to make the "game" decidedly unfair.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:25 pm

"The bogey-man" has been a useful construct for many years, at the service of parents, politicians and preachers on demand.
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12039
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:49 pm

And as Nye Bevan said, the tory party always has to have a bogeyman! Wink


Bible = control

Religion = control

The man from del monte, he say, sod the lot of it, you can keep it!
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue May 01, 2012 3:32 pm

You just do not read with any understanding.

God gave the Devil a certain period of time to do his best to attept to turn everyone against him,we do not know the time limit but I hope it is up soon or according to those on this post he will soon have got his way.

The Old Testament was not written in a literal sense but as a means of getting across certain aspects of life, explaining all that which was wrong and what was right etc;

Everything prior to the coming of Jesus is of no consequence to those who were born after.

The old books of the Bible are an account of the times prior to the coming of Jesus and were made errelivant after his arrival.

Much of the history involved has been verified and much should be taken as the feelings of those involved in the writings and not to be taken in a literal sense ie; I could kill him. no you could not he has only upset you and you are saying this in anger.etc;

The only ones who understand are those who seek and want the truth, it is the simplest thing on earth to condemn and opt out on the basis of lack of knowledge.





avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by blueturando on Tue May 01, 2012 3:45 pm

God gave the Devil a certain period of time to do his best to attept to turn everyone against him,we do not know the time limit but I hope it is up soon or according to those on this post he will soon have got his way.

Blo*dy hell....do you take some magic mushrooms and then write down your hallucinations.

How do people get brainwashed so easily????

blueturando
Banned

Posts : 1203
Join date : 2011-11-21
Age : 51
Location : Jersey CI

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue May 01, 2012 3:59 pm

There is a big difference between being brain washed and being able to use the brain and it is obvious we have many who cannot.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Tue May 01, 2012 4:01 pm

polyglide wrote:You just do not read with any understanding.

God gave the Devil a certain period of time to do his best to attept to turn everyone against him,we do not know the time limit but I hope it is up soon or according to those on this post he will soon have got his way.

The Old Testament was not written in a literal sense but as a means of getting across certain aspects of life, explaining all that which was wrong and what was right etc;

Everything prior to the coming of Jesus is of no consequence to those who were born after.

The old books of the Bible are an account of the times prior to the coming of Jesus and were made errelivant after his arrival.

Much of the history involved has been verified and much should be taken as the feelings of those involved in the writings and not to be taken in a literal sense ie; I could kill him. no you could not he has only upset you and you are saying this in anger.etc;

The only ones who understand are those who seek and want the truth, it is the simplest thing on earth to condemn and opt out on the basis of lack of knowledge.


Yet Jesus endorsed much of what the O T said. Strange then to see you say that it is of no consequence. St. James, Jesus' brother, certainly thought that the old Jewish laws were still in effect.

"The Old Testament was not written in a literal sense but as a means of getting across certain aspects of life, explaining all that which was wrong and what was right etc;"

Whose interpretation do you follow?
The one that the owners of it, the Jews, give to Eden as man's elevation,
Or,
The one that Christianity gave it of man's fall?

Is it good to become, as God says, like Gods in knowing good and evil or is it a fall to become like God?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Tue May 01, 2012 4:02 pm

blueturando wrote:
God gave the Devil a certain period of time to do his best to attept to turn everyone against him,we do not know the time limit but I hope it is up soon or according to those on this post he will soon have got his way.

Blo*dy hell....do you take some magic mushrooms and then write down your hallucinations.

How do people get brainwashed so easily????

This Jesus Camp clip below show just how.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBv8tv62yGM

Promoting death to Gays.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to your fellow man.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Tue May 01, 2012 4:05 pm

polyglide wrote:There is a big difference between being brain washed and being able to use the brain and it is obvious we have many who cannot.

Is that why the statistics show more better informed non-believers than believers?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Tue May 01, 2012 4:11 pm

I am pleased to know that someone thinks I have a brain, from some of the replies I get I doubt if they have one and if they have, they certainly have not learnerd how to use it.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Tue May 01, 2012 5:05 pm

blueturando wrote:
God gave the Devil a certain period of time to do his best to attept to turn everyone against him,we do not know the time limit but I hope it is up soon or according to those on this post he will soon have got his way.

Blo*dy hell....do you take some magic mushrooms and then write down your hallucinations.

How do people get brainwashed so easily????

hahaha! I was thinking fly agaric or liberty cap myself!!!??? Very Happy Razz
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Tue May 01, 2012 5:25 pm

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12039
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Adele Carlyon on Tue May 01, 2012 5:27 pm

But how come half of the soddin planet is manic? that's what I want to know!!! Wink
avatar
Adele Carlyon

Posts : 412
Join date : 2012-04-13
Location : Wigan, Lancs

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Tue May 01, 2012 5:41 pm

Adele Carlyon wrote:But how come half of the soddin planet is manic? that's what I want to know!!! Wink

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSe4Ff57n4&feature=player_embedded

Bottom line. Tribalism.
I think that 95% of believers do not really believe. They do not believe in God but only follow culture and tradition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Tue May 01, 2012 8:45 pm

The only ones who understand are those who seek and want the truth, it is the simplest thing on earth to condemn and opt out on the basis of lack of knowledge.
I beg to differ.

Religion is the simplistic explanation, not necessarily the "truth." Not only does religion make the claim of *knowing* what will happen after we die, it offers a very simple, easy-to-understand explanation for complicated matters such how the universe formed or where life came from. Claiming that a supreme being simply magicked the universe into existence is far easier to understand than physics, biology, and genetic textbooks. In addition, these religions were founded during a time when 95% of the population had no education AT ALL except for that found in a church. It was meant to be simple. Believing in Adam and Eve is the equivalent of believing thunder is caused by angels bowling in heaven.

In case you haven't noticed, those who have tried to form new religions in the modern age have mostly failed. Religions such as Scientology and Mormonism have never been able to gain a wide following, and most others fail to the point of being little more than cults. Heaven's Gate, the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones, etc. never had more than a few dozen to a few hundred adherents.

Why?

Because most of us are *educated.* When a new religion shows up, the first thing we do is analyze it and then dismiss it as bogus. Few people today believe that Joseph Smith found gold tablets buried in Missouri that only he can read, much less being the only person to have actually *seen* them. But billions still believe that Mohammad saw an angel in a cave and billions more believe that Noah crammed 15 million animals into a 400 foot-long ark. Yet if someone with wild eyes and a scraggly beard scrambled down off a mountain today and claimed to have spoken to God, that man would get a one-way trip to the psych ward. Few would believe his claims. Religion has persisted only because it has embedded itself so securely in our cultures and traditions going back thousands of years. Modern claims do not have that temporal stability, so we are very quick to dismiss them. There is no inherent "truth" to be found in religion unless you're willing to take the unsubstantiated word of Bronze Age desert nomads.

Strange, don't you think, that God appeared nowhere else but in the areas of Israel and the Sinai ... and only to the Hebrews? He certainly didn't show up to the Australian aborigines, the plains Indians in mid-west America, to the Inuit tribes in Alaska, or to the Dogon tribe in Mali. A God with such a limited geographic and cultural scope should immediately raise questions, but nope. People go right on believing.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Wed May 02, 2012 11:08 am

God made matters clear to his chosen people and told them to spread the word.

Of course there are several different religions, the Bible tells you there would be and it is up to those of faith to know that chritianity is the only true one.

You just do not get it and use silly excuses to hide the truth just as was also predicted.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by astradt1 on Wed May 02, 2012 12:37 pm

God made matters clear to his chosen people and told them to spread the word.

Which 'Chosen' people was that then?.....

Hebrew? Christian? Muslim? Mormon?........

Which ones are the TRUE 'Chosen' people?
avatar
astradt1
Moderator

Posts : 965
Join date : 2011-10-08
Age : 62
Location : East Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Ivan on Wed May 02, 2012 1:06 pm

You just do not get it and use silly excuses to hide the truth just as was also predicted..
No, Shirina uses reason, logic and common sense, three qualities which are absent from your brainwashed missives.
avatar
Ivan
Administrator (Correspondence & Recruitment)

Posts : 7286
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : West Sussex, UK

http://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed May 02, 2012 2:57 pm

Shirina wrote:-
One thing is for sure: God seems to have a monopoly on hate.
He hates sin.
He hates people who don't worship him.
He hates children who tease balding men.
He hates homosexuals.
He hates adulterers.
He hates children who rebel against their parents.
He hates people who wear blended fabrics.
He hates shellfish.
He hates people who mistreat their slaves.
He hates people who lie about how much they donated to the church.
He hates witches.
He hates astrologers and fortune tellers.
He hates any man who refuses to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law.
He hates prostitutes - especially the daughters of priests who become prostitutes.
He hates blasphemy.
He hates people who show contempt for a judge or priest.
He hates betrothed virgins who are seduced in the city and does not cry for help.
He hates people who remarry - especially females. This includes widows.
He hates people who commit "unnatural" sex acts.

I mean ... phew! Look at all the hate! In fact, it would appear that all of God's miracles involved killing someone - and in many cases, lots of someones. No wonder the Bible desperately needed a New Testament. I'd rather let a child watch all of the Friday the 13th movies than read the Bible. There is far less violence in slasher movies.



Briefly. The Bible actively encourages the remarriage of widows. Without a husband they had no means of support. I can give you quotes if you wish.

The Elisha 'affair'. Elisha was probably not bald as he was still a relatively young man at the time of the incident. 'Baldhead' was a term for lepers who had their heads shaved to denote their disease. 42 'children' were probably young men. The same words are used for Joseph when he was 17. The same terms by Solomon. If the bears mauled 42 (of them), then how many were there in the crowd - 100-200. We can only guess. And why would all these young people come out of the city Elisha was going to visit, to ridicule him? How did they know him? Who sent them?

Shellfish. For health reasons. Shellfish eat from the dregs of the ocean. One of the reasons why pigs were not eaten by many early civilisations, they carry disease and worms. We can cooked them thoroughly now, and deal with anything that gets through. They couldn't.

Blended garments. Wool and linen are mentioned in the Torah. Wool represented Israel and the flocks.. Linen was the produce of their enemy Egypt who had kept them in bondage. Out of sight - out of mind. However some Priestly garments were mixed. (Shatnez)

Widowed sister-in-law. We do not understand the urgency in old times to keep the family name going, and produce offspring to continue the family 'business' and line. Again, this was not just a Jewish practise, but other nations too. Still today in some places.

'He hates' people who don't worship him. A Christian would tell you the opposite. He actually loves you and desires reciprocation.

He hates! Your words. Much of the Bible 'hates' are merely hand-me-downs from earlier civilisations. Perhaps you could blame those civilisations.

Back to study.Sleep
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed May 02, 2012 4:15 pm

polyglide wrote:God made matters clear to his chosen people and told them to spread the word.

Of course there are several different religions, the Bible tells you there would be and it is up to those of faith to know that chritianity is the only true one.

You just do not get it and use silly excuses to hide the truth just as was also predicted.

A true religion based on human sacrifice.

Yuk. Not a moral religion FMPOV nor to the innocent victim.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed May 02, 2012 4:26 pm

[quote="trevorw2539"]


Briefly. The Bible actively encourages the remarriage of widows. Without a husband they had no means of support.

Sure for most. Not all. There where wealthy women even in that day.

Does that make up for the fact that men could divorce on various grounds and women, mostly seen as chattel, could not?

'He hates' people who don't worship him. A Christian would tell you the opposite. He actually loves you and desires reciprocation.


If so, does he expect it from those who he condemns to eternal purposeless torture in hell?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed May 02, 2012 6:03 pm

[quote="Greatest I am"][quote="trevorw2539"]


Briefly. The Bible actively encourages the remarriage of widows. Without a husband they had no means of support.

Sure for most. Not all. There where wealthy women even in that day.

Does that make up for the fact that men could divorce on various grounds and women, mostly seen as chattel, could not?

'He hates' people who don't worship him. A Christian would tell you the opposite. He actually loves you and desires reciprocation.


If so, does he expect it from those who he condemns to eternal purposeless torture in hell?


Then the wealthy women had no need to remarry. That men could divorce etc. was not a Bible 'invention'. It existed long before Bible time, and in most 'societies' - from 'caveman' times and even today in the Middle East.

Hell. Strange isn't it that people always blame God for 'Hell'. In life we have a law.If we don't believe in that law it doesn't make it ineffective. We can choose to ignore it, but the consequences do not go away. As it happens I don't believe in the 'Hell' you describe.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed May 02, 2012 6:18 pm

[quote="trevorw2539"][quote="Greatest I am"]
trevorw2539 wrote:


Briefly. The Bible actively encourages the remarriage of widows. Without a husband they had no means of support.

Sure for most. Not all. There where wealthy women even in that day.

Does that make up for the fact that men could divorce on various grounds and women, mostly seen as chattel, could not?

'He hates' people who don't worship him. A Christian would tell you the opposite. He actually loves you and desires reciprocation.


If so, does he expect it from those who he condemns to eternal purposeless torture in hell?


Then the wealthy women had no need to remarry. That men could divorce etc. was not a Bible 'invention'. It existed long before Bible time, and in most 'societies' - from 'caveman' times and even today in the Middle East.

Hell. Strange isn't it that people always blame God for 'Hell'. In life we have a law.If we don't believe in that law it doesn't make it ineffective. We can choose to ignore it, but the consequences do not go away. As it happens I don't believe in the 'Hell' you describe.

So how does your version of God handle reward and punishment in the afterlife?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Wed May 02, 2012 7:09 pm

God made matters clear to his chosen people and told them to spread the word.
A. I'm not Hebrew, so I guess I'm not "chosen." So what's the point?

B. Was God being lazy? Was he not capable of spreading "the word" himself? If you believe the Bible, then God was busy-bodying himself all around the region intimidating pharaohs, parting seas, dropping mana into the desert, setting bushes on fire, carving commandments into stone, killing babies, destroying cities, and getting cross over golden calves. Are you suggesting that God just couldn't take time (which he has an infinite supply of) out of his busy schedule to even say hello to the Inuits?

C. And, pray tell, just HOW did God expect desert nomads in the Middle East to carry God's word all the way to Alaska and Australia? I don't recall God conjuring up a handy airliner for the Hebrews to use ... or a simple telephone. Or ... was this a case of God saying to the Inuits and Aborigines, "Tough luck, pal, you'll just have to wait a few thousand years until modern technology catches up. Until then, you're on your own!"

D. Why have a "chosen" people at all if God's intent was to ensure everyone became a Christian?

E. Doesn't it strike you as very tribal for the Hebrews to claim their God has "chosen" them to be the "chosen" people? Of course they're going to claim that. What did you expect them to say? "Well, our God actually "chose" the Hittites, but we're just along for the ride ..."
the Bible tells you there would be and it is up to those of faith to know that chritianity is the only true one.
In the same way that the Hebrews laid claim to God by saying they are "chosen," now Christians are doing the same by claiming their religion and god is the only "true" one. This is just more tribalism transplanted into the modern era. I know for a FACT that if you had been born in a non-Christian country, you would be waving the flag of a different god and believing in him with the same amount of surety.
You just do not get it and use silly excuses to hide the truth just as was also predicted.
Oh, I "get it," all right. That's the point. If I didn't "get it," I would be just another sheep in the herd (which is, perhaps, why sheep metaphors are so widely used within the Christian faith). As for "predicting it" is concerned, well, that's a no-brainer. How hard do you think it is to predict that not everyone will agree with you, especially when you're trying to foist a new religion onto the populace?


avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed May 02, 2012 7:17 pm

Shirina

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Eoxt1hRm9c&feature=fvst

Speaking of metaphors.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Wed May 02, 2012 7:46 pm

Briefly. The Bible actively encourages the remarriage of widows. Without a husband they had no means of support. I can give you quotes if you wish.

Hello, Trevor:

I know that some laws in the Bible actually had some bearing for the time and culture for which they were written. However, I suppose one should ask the question: WHY did they not have a means of support? Perhaps it had to do with the misogynistic laws regarding inheritance rights or the simple fact that women were regarded as little more than baby-making machines. Here's a telling clue. Look at the Book of Genesis. Within you will find a long list of genealogy records that name fathers and sons, but wives and daughters are rarely ever named. You don't even know where the daughters went, who they married, and how many sons they had. If you look at a Genesis genealogy chart, it's almost amusing to see how many times "wife unknown" or "mother not specified" is written in the blanks where the wife's name should be. Let's not forget that many men had more than one wife; Abraham had 3 wives, for crying out loud. Sarah was only his "main" wife (which must have done wonders for Hagar's and Sarai's self confidence).

The point here, I suppose, is that women were wholly unimportant without husbands and sons, so unimportant, in fact, that no one even bothered to record their names for the historical record. One has to wonder why God allowed this kind of misogyny to continue on unabated for thousands of years. Today, of course, we would see such flagrant inequality as immoral and unethical ... so why did God not see it that way then? Shouldn't morality be timeless?
The same terms by Solomon. If the bears mauled 42 (of them), then how many were there in the crowd - 100-200. We can only guess. And why would all these young people come out of the city Elisha was going to visit, to ridicule him? How did they know him? Who sent them?
I think the question we should be asking ourselves is: Did 42 people deserve to die a grizzly (pun intended) death simply for poking fun at someone? It really doesn't matter if Elisha was bald or how old the men were. How can we hold up God as being moral and good when he murders 42 people for something as trivial as name-calling? Who here on this forum wouldn't be facing down two she-bears for the things we've said? I simply cannot accept such a story and pretend that God is not simply a murderer in this case ... and in many other cases.
Shellfish. For health reasons. Shellfish eat from the dregs of the ocean. One of the reasons why pigs were not eaten by many early civilisations, they carry disease and worms. We can cooked them thoroughly now, and deal with anything that gets through. They couldn't.
Very true, Trevor ... but a death sentence? Seriously? So what if people eat them and get sick. They would learn. I see no reason to impose a death sentence for eating them.
Widowed sister-in-law. We do not understand the urgency in old times to keep the family name going, and produce offspring to continue the family 'business' and line. Again, this was not just a Jewish practise, but other nations too. Still today in some places
All of this still goes back to misogyny which the Bible supports both directly and indirectly. If the Bible supported it, then so did God. The story of Adam and Eve also gives clues. God created Adam directly whereas Eve was created from Adam. The story itself symbolizes woman's second class status, and because of this Biblical misogyny, women have had to fight for equality since, literally, day one. In the US, we're still fighting. Gee, thanks, God!
Christian would tell you the opposite. He actually loves you and desires reciprocation.
God doesn't merely desire reciprocation - he demands it. If you do not give him the praise, adulation, and worship he thinks he deserves, he sends you to a place where you're tortured for eternity. Yet how could I love a genocidal mass murderer?
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Wed May 02, 2012 7:50 pm

avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12039
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Wed May 02, 2012 7:54 pm

Speaking of metaphors.

"Your god is your ultimate barrier."

Yep ... dead bang accurate. Though I think it's more than "needing a religion without religion." We need a religion without a god.
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Wed May 02, 2012 8:41 pm

Shirina wrote:
Speaking of metaphors.

"Your god is your ultimate barrier."

Yep ... dead bang accurate. Though I think it's more than "needing a religion without religion." We need a religion without a god.

Understood but unfortunately, sheep need a shepherd so that they can be taught to think like shepherds.
The trick is to find a shepherd that will not fleece them.

That is the Gnostic way.

Regards
DL



avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Wed May 02, 2012 10:48 pm

Shirina quote

In the same way that the Hebrews laid claim to God by saying they are "chosen," now Christians are doing the same by claiming their religion and god is the only "true" one. This is just more tribalism transplanted into the modern era. I know for a FACT that if you had been born in a non-Christian country, you would be waving the flag of a different god and believing in him with the same amount of surety.

'The Archangel Gabriel came to God. 'There's someone to see you'.

Who is he?'

'He says his name is Epstein - claims to represent the Jews on earth'.

'All right, show him in'.

Epstein shuffled through the Pearly Gates. 'Lors, the Jews are wondering if you could answer one question'.

'Certainly, go on'.

'Is it true we are your Chosen people?'

'Yes'.

'We are definitely your Chosen people?'

'Yes'.

'Well, Lord, the Jews are wondering, in the light of all the troubles, if you could choose somebody else for a change?'Embarassed



Shirina. You're right, of course, in your above statement. I consider the right way for me is, and has been, the Christian way. But to say that I am right and others wrong would be arrogant. Different cultures have found different ways to 'God' and who am I to say they are wrong. Many Christians here are beginning to accept this. The thing that is difficult to accept is that some other faiths do not reciprocate. I can't talk for the US.

As to you athiests and agnostics - you're up the creek without a paddle oooops;)

It is, as always, a matter of choice and faith. And let's not go into all that silent

Your other post.

WHY did they not have a means of support? Actually God did make provision for those widows and orphans with instructions how the nation should help them. Again I can give you references if required. But man is man and does not always obey.

42 dead? Mauled not killed. Again you are thinking with a 21st century mind. Leprosy was a dread disease, demanding isolation. To be called such was certainly 'annoying'. Look at your society, and ours. Even today people are murdered, even mass murder, because the murderer has taken offense for some simple remark or action. Before we criticise the ancients look around our own world. Violence has changed very little.

Shellfish. This was a dietary regulation, not a moral law or a commandment. Defying the dietary regulations was detestable to the people (they could get ill). Defying the moral laws was detestable to God.

If the Bible supported it, then so did God. It depends on the way you look at the Bible. It is the History of the Jewish people. Neither Adam or Eve were the first people on earth. The foundation of the Jewish Nation - yes. It also contains the teachings of Jesus, and the 'founding' of the Christian faith - not Church, this is of man's making.

Women. In the ancient world women were at a disadvantage. Most work was manual and really needed strength. Family was important and large families were needed to improve the families chances of survival and status. Having said that a few nations gave women a higher status. Spartan women had some education and spent about 12 years running the home and any business their husband had while he served in the military.

Women often had a part to play in the Bible. Miriam and her brother Aaron were joint second in command under Moses, and ran things when Moses was away. Deborah was one of the first Judges of Israel, and even led the Israeli army into battle. Rahab helped Joshua overcome Jericho. Ruth was the important factor in the line of David and Christ. Esther, Jewish queen of Persian Emperor Ahasuerus risked her life to save the Jews.

Certainly in the NT. women had a big part to play, often behind the scenes. Even Paul acknowledges the help that women had given him in his ministry. Lydia had her own business, Priscilla was a leading light.

In my mind it is in the last 2 centuries that women have started to come into their own, and no reason why not. Pressure on the need for family has eased in the West, at least. Work in the last century has become more amenable to women's talents. By that I mean they're able to do some things more easily than men. There's no reason to suppose women aren't equal, or even better in some cases. And that is not meant to be condescending.

Now I'm going to shut up before I get myself into more trouble:oops:



Greatest quote.

Understood but unfortunately, sheep need a shepherd so that they can be taught to think like shepherds.
The trick is to find a shepherd that will not fleece them.

Nah. That's just woolly thinking:)
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Thu May 03, 2012 3:26 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:

In my mind it is in the last 2 centuries that women have started to come into their own, and no reason why not. Pressure on the need for family has eased in the West, at least. Work in the last century has become more amenable to women's talents. By that I mean they're able to do some things more easily than men. There's no reason to suppose women aren't equal, or even better in some cases. And that is not meant to be condescending.

Now I'm going to shut up before I get myself into more trouble:oops:



Greatest quote.

Understood but unfortunately, sheep need a shepherd so that they can be taught to think like shepherds.
The trick is to find a shepherd that will not fleece them.

Nah. That's just woolly thinking:)

Not a bad post and I like your take but would remind you of one thing.

"In my mind it is in the last 2 centuries that women have started to come into their own, and no reason why not."

Women have gained in spite of the efforts of Christianity not wanting to give them equality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqN8EYIIR3g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dspWh9g3hU&feature=related

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by trevorw2539 on Thu May 03, 2012 4:49 pm

Greatest quote.

Women have gained in spite of the efforts of Christianity not wanting to give them equality

I think it was the reluctance of Society as a whole that held back the promotion of women. I have no doubt that it was partly a hangover of nearly millenia of Christianity. But again I say that it was prevailing conditions previously that were the main factor. Men expected their food on the table when they had been at work for 12+ hours. Or at home when they returned from war, etc.

There have been women who have made it. Mainly those who were educated and had the opportunity like the Bronte Sisters, Jane Austin , Florence Nightingale etc. Nell Gwynn, though she had some special help:) Wink Other 'ordinary' women' through special circumstances.

The Church has held back women within its own environment, something which is now being overcome. It takes time to change attitudes.
avatar
trevorw2539

Posts : 1374
Join date : 2011-11-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Thu May 03, 2012 5:49 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:Greatest quote.

Women have gained in spite of the efforts of Christianity not wanting to give them equality

I think it was the reluctance of Society as a whole that held back the promotion of women. I have no doubt that it was partly a hangover of nearly millenia of Christianity. But again I say that it was prevailing conditions previously that were the main factor. Men expected their food on the table when they had been at work for 12+ hours. Or at home when they returned from war, etc.

There have been women who have made it. Mainly those who were educated and had the opportunity like the Bronte Sisters, Jane Austin , Florence Nightingale etc. Nell Gwynn, though she had some special help:) Wink Other 'ordinary' women' through special circumstances.

The Church has held back women within its own environment, something which is now being overcome. It takes time to change attitudes.

True. That can be shown by looking at the churches that still discriminate against women for just being women and for discriminating against Gays for just being Gays.

Rehards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by oftenwrong on Thu May 03, 2012 7:19 pm

That's quite close to a word we're not supposed to use, Greatest I am (sic).
Can you think of a euphemism for someone not blessed with your infinite wisdom?
avatar
oftenwrong
Sage

Posts : 12039
Join date : 2011-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Thu May 03, 2012 9:49 pm

oftenwrong wrote:That's quite close to a word we're not supposed to use, Greatest I am (sic).
Can you think of a euphemism for someone not blessed with your infinite wisdom?

No as I do not have such.

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by polyglide on Fri May 04, 2012 11:48 am

Letr us consider the rights and wrongs of women from another angle.

I think women have every right to be treated exactly as men are, however, no one can deny that they have basic different roles to play in society and life in general.

They are the bearers of children which involves the care and the welfare of their offspring.

Man's role is to provide for both the offspring and the mother.


So there has to be a difference between the two, their roles in life involving difference objectives and this would work providing everyone adhered to their roles.
Neither, in my opinion, being better than the other or neither deserving better treatment etc;

The main problems arose when many women decided they would rather change their role in life and branch out for themselves, some taking on the role of bread winner etc;

The biggest problem this has caused is because man cannot bear children and take on the previous role of those who wanted to change their lives and there is no doubt this has caused problems, the answer?

You tell me.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Greatest I am on Fri May 04, 2012 1:24 pm

polyglide wrote:Letr us consider the rights and wrongs of women from another angle.

I think women have every right to be treated exactly as men are, however, no one can deny that they have basic different roles to play in society and life in general.

They are the bearers of children which involves the care and the welfare of their offspring.

Man's role is to provide for both the offspring and the mother.


So there has to be a difference between the two, their roles in life involving difference objectives and this would work providing everyone adhered to their roles.
Neither, in my opinion, being better than the other or neither deserving better treatment etc;

The main problems arose when many women decided they would rather change their role in life and branch out for themselves, some taking on the role of bread winner etc;

The biggest problem this has caused is because man cannot bear children and take on the previous role of those who wanted to change their lives and there is no doubt this has caused problems, the answer?

You tell me.

Allow all to follow their natures.

There are more than two natures to men and women.

To try to shoehorn one nature into some other impossible.

Some men I know are great gatherers and poor hunters. Should we force them to hunt poorly when they can gather well?

Regards
DL
avatar
Greatest I am

Posts : 1087
Join date : 2012-04-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Shirina on Fri May 04, 2012 6:39 pm

no one can deny that they have basic different roles to play in society and life in general.
Of course I can deny it. Watch me:
They are the bearers of children which involves the care and the welfare of their offspring.
Which was precisely my earlier point of contention. People like you want to reduce women to baby-making machines. That's our role ... make babies and then care for them. That's essentially it. Well, Polyglide, I don't WANT to have babies. I don't want to spend my life changing diapers and reading bedtime stories. I don't wish to be under a de facto "house arrest" because I always have to be home taking care of kids. Oh, and child-bearing age is pretty specific. What happens when I'm too old to keep the babies coming and all of the kids are grown? I guess I should just put a gun to my head at that point because I would no longer have a purpose.

That's the beauty of a free society ... one free from religious fascism. I don't have to buy into your notion of what a woman's "role" in society is. I'm from a country that practiced a caste system for many centuries. There was no freedom to follow your dreams. You were born into a specific role, and there you stayed. It didn't matter what your potential was, where your talents lie, what you had an aptitude for. You could be Albert Einstein, but if you were born into the "untouchable" caste, you would spend your life cleaning sewers and hauling away corpses. What you advocate is a Western style caste system, and that is something I patently reject.
So there has to be a difference between the two
No there doesn't. There are plenty of families where the father stays home and the wife does the providing. In some cases, the roles switch between the two as circumstances change. I know a couple where the mother is a very successful executive and company VP. She makes a pretty large salary. The father makes a small fraction of what the wife makes because she had talents and skills that the husband didn't have. I suppose she should quit her job to raise children while they live in poverty on the father's meager income? But ... in case you haven't noticed, MOST families today cannot survive financially without two incomes. Therefore, your "idyllic" world of women staying home nursing skinned knees and practicing her needlepoint during her free time are no longer relevant - or possible - in the modern world.

Raising children and providing for the family is the job of both parents. Pigeon-holing people into "roles" is outmoded.
and this would work providing everyone adhered to their roles.
No, it didn't work. Not one bit. Women, for centuries, had no means of support and were left vulnerable. Women had to subject themselves to all sorts of abuse because divorce meant losing your source of sustenance, and that goes double if the woman's parents were deceased. Women were always at the mercy of their husbands; even kind-hearted husbands still held all the cards and women had to beg for even the smallest concessions. In essence, women were no better off than the children they were caring for and actually had fewer rights. Women who didn't marry were frowned upon, women who didn't have children even more so. Even the Queen of England, Elizabeth I, couldn't escape that ridiculous role.

There was a great but obscure movie called Bad Girls; it was an American Western about an outlaw girl-gang. But they weren't really "bad" girls. They were forced into criminal behavior because it was the only way to survive due to the oppressive laws and "societal roles" forced upon them by a patriarchal society. In one scene, a woman is trying to collect the money her husband had put away before his death, but because the husband wasn't alive to claim it, only another male relative could claim it. This prompted one of the best lines in the movie. She stood up, overturned the banker's desk, and said, "If your laws don't include me, then they don't apply to me." Thus she became a notorious outlaw.
Neither, in my opinion, being better than the other or neither deserving better treatment etc
Women adhered to that role for thousands of years and it was always unequal. The moment you make yourself dependent on someone else is the moment you put yourself at their mercy. That, in itself, is unequal. When you can't buy so much as a pack of chewing gum without both the husband's approval and him physically giving you the cash, you will never be equal ... or be regarded as equal. Thus you will never be treated as equal. There is 6,000 years of historical precedent to prove that simple assertion stretching all the way into the 20th Century. This is something I have learned from history so I'll be damned if I'm going to repeat it.
The main problems arose when many women decided they would rather change their role in life and branch out for themselves
The main problem for .... who, exactly? Men and their patriarchal society?

But let's put the blame where it belongs, shall we? I'm not conceding that there IS, in fact, a problem with women "branching out for themselves" (how dare we!!), but let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a problem. Where is the root of it?

Well, first it started with WWII. Because some *men* decided to rule the world and other *men* had to stop them, thus prompting most of the *men* to go off and fight a world war, women had to build the weapons of war to keep it all going. That gave women a taste of freedom - the ability to earn an honest wage and be able to spend the money as she saw fit. No longer did she have to ask permission or rely on an allowance as if she were a 9 year-old child. At that point, Pandora's Box was opened, and it will never be closed again. So, men, blame yourselves.

Yet it doesn't end there. Because *men* in the upper echelons of business management kept wanting more and more wealth (which is still happening today), more and more families kept feeling the financial pinch. Eventually, the husband's income wasn't enough. As executive wages skyrocketed (in 2010, executive pay rose 22.8% followed by an additional raise of 13.9% in 2011) and worker pay stagnated (workers pay increased by a paltry 2.8% in 2011, not even enough to keep up with inflation), women HAD to enter the workforce just to keep food on the table. Well, whose fault was that? Women's? Or the fat cat executives - almost all of whom are male? For many women, leaving the home and going to work was a necessity not some frivolous choice.

So let's not talk about "women branching out for themselves" ... as if doing so is some heinous evil. Let's talk about how men made that circumstance an inevitability.

(And that's how you properly refute an argument).
avatar
Shirina
Former Administrator

Posts : 2232
Join date : 2011-10-07
Location : Right behind you. Boo!

Back to top Go down

Re: Can God love? (Part 1)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 25 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum