Women are religion’s longest running victims

First topic message reminder :

Should man rule over women for women’s own good?


Scriptures, and other myth’s, say that God determined that men should rule over women. This gives form, --- in a demographic sense, ---- to our common and society, and says that our demographic pyramid should have a hierarchical shape and or form. This initiates tension and has God demonizing woman, as well as any notion of female equality with man.

His motive must be for the good of women. Somehow!
After all, sanctity of the family is one of the main points of morality.

God was arguably right for his time. Think in the barbaric way. Below the belt. Thank God that time is almost past. Women in our modern world do not need man’s dubious ape like help. I hope you agree. Be honest now with yourself be you male or female.

Men have dominated women long enough I think. To give them equality would be justice.

What do you think?
What would real men do?
What would real women demand?
Do men and women have what it takes to be free?

Justice under law should be gender and age neutral, with limits, but with a good spirit of assuring equality. We do not administer that justice. We only give it lip service. Men are not walking their talk. Neither are women.

In Gods timocracy, a place of government in which love of honor is the ruling principle. All honors go to the Queen and her children. A king’s first responsibility is to insure the veneration of his queen. Honor demands it. He accepts this burden and pleasure wisely. The Queen, as the Beta archetype is the life of the kingdom. The archetypal king’s duty is to raise woman’s position. That means that all men have the same duty. That of not denying women equality and elevating her.

Men. Be good kings. You are making good just men look bad. Step up.
God wills it.

Women. Be good queens and demand what is yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez6wfJWVCeI&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iMBUoxLOmA


Regards
DL

Ah, polyglide, free will is also up for debate. Where in the bible does it state that God gave man free will? I think this is one of the crazy saints that declared it.

Life is a series of choices and consequences. You may choose right or wrong and the consequences can be beneficial or detrimental. And sometimes not always as we plan or would like. A good choice might prove detrimental in the long run depending on circumstances. We are also biological creatures subject to the whims of our biochemistry which includes hormones and neurotransmitters that are influenced by our environment. Just how much free will do you really think you have?

Man was given the free will to choose the way in which he wanted to act and behave towards each other.

Man evolved, he was not given anything by anyone.

polyglide wrote:Man was given the free will to choose the way in which he wanted to act and behave towards each other.

Man to woman, woman to man etc;

You cannot blame anyone other than man for the choices he has made.

The Romans were heathens as were several other memebers of other nations but that just shows how bad the choices man made were.

A womans place is tied to the kitchen sink, I don't' think but some do and that is not God but man.

Women have as much right to choice as men, the fact that both often make the wrong choices is their fault alone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6PjAYNl24E

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.


Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Regards
DL

There are numerous choices open to mankind at any one time in their life, most have been brought about by mankind himself , having brought forward new choices and made previous choices unavailable

Everyone has a choice, circumsatances may play a major part in any decision but in the end it is the person concerned who is responsible.

The Romans were heathens as were several other memebers of other nations but that just shows how bad the choices man made were.

Your grasp of history is appalling.

Your grasp of reality is even worse.

The question was ' should man rule over woman for woman's own goode?'
The answer is 'No'
Enough, already

Your grasp of reality is even worse.

That is really funny coming from a man who sits on his computer and tries to tell the world that an invisible intelligent superhero created life in the universe yet fails to provide solid irrefutable scientific evidence from his so-called christian scientists. Not a single shred of evidence has he provided.

I win

You would not win if I gave you 100 start, you see I have truth on my side all you have is flannel.

Man was given the free will to choose the way in which he wanted to act and behave towards each other. wrote:polyglide

Human will is not entirely free of course, but lets assume for the sake of argument we have what you're referring to as "free will". That means it cannot have been granted to us by a being with omniscience as you suggest, as an omniscient being would by definition know the future, thus negating any concept of free will.

You cannot blame anyone other than man for the choices he has made. wrote:polyglide

As an atheist I agree, but as a theist you'd be wrong as an omniscient omnipotent being would have absolute control over everything, and any human concept of free will would be an allusion.

polyglide wrote:You would not win if I gave you 100 start, you see I have truth on my side  all you have is flannel.

You have narrow minded blinkered superstition on your side, Mrs Snowyflake has reason, logic, and best of all scientific discovery on hers. Now if I want to exorcise a demon from next door's cat I may well ask for a few pointers from you, but in all else I shall defer to Mrs S and her knowledge of the scientific process.

Women. Religion’s longest running victims.

Here we are in civilized and enlightened societies and cultures in high tech times and we are not smart enough to recognize that the world will continue in strife as long as we men do not give women full equality as a minimum to what men should do towards the care of families.

I hope you are astute enough to see this. If you do nothing then you know not what duty to your family should be. The women in your family deserve to be first class citizens.

Men are maintaining God’s curse against women. He will rule over you.

Men. Christians, Catholics and Muslims. Free your women. It’s time. Man up.

Please.

Regards
DL

Greatest I have always treated my partners as equal, got up in the night to change babes nappies done the shopping they always had their own monies etc.
what happened, I had twin boys with my first partner after 12years of being together when they were 18months old she left me for someone else.
my second partner needed all sorts of medical treatment so I PAID FOR IT AS THE WAITING LIST WAS AWFUL.
THEN SHE GOT PREGNANT.
After that 14 years of being together she left me and took the baby girl with her for someone else.
All my love and money wasted, as I still miss my second partner after 6years and my daughter of course, access visits for what they are worth get cancelled so often cos of my daughter going parties with schoolfriends. I am also an atheist ok.

Most atheists have better morals than Christians and Muslims so yes, I am ok with that.

You, like all of us try to plan for your best possible end. I do not think any of us ever realize our plan. Unfortunately some fall way shorter than others and I sympathise with your position. I was lucky that my second choice in wives way better than my first. That is why I do not agree with Jesus and his no divorce policy. It would deny half the world the right to find a loving mate for life. Something that all should be free to seek.

If you were in love when you used your emotions and money, then I do not agree that it was a waste.

I lost on my first run but do not call it a waste. I learned what I needed to on my second run. Perhaps you will have learned enough for your third run. Good luck my friend.

Regards
DL

It was certainly done through love greatest, then maybe not a waste?
But a third run greatest? cannot see that coming somehow, even though I do believe that I have learnt more than enough.
thanks for the good luck.

Women certainly are religion’s longest running victims. Fundamentalist Christians think a woman was created from Adam’s rib to be his companion. Catholics, whilst revering Mary as the mother of God, won’t entertain female priests or bishops. Strict Moslems expect women to go out, often in extreme heat, covered from head to toe in absurd clobber, while even stricter ones (like the Taliban) won’t even allow girls to go to school. Now we have Boko Haram and ISIS treating girls and women as slaves.

But then equality of any sort doesn’t fit easily with religion. Who is opposed to equal marriage? UKIP morons who want to turn the clock back and religious nutters who say that marriage (which is essentially a contract between two people) can only be between a man and a woman. Simply being a homosexual in the Islamofascist state of Iran will get you hanged.

It’s hardly surprising that the Abrahamic religions which use the Old Testament for part of their guidance will be anything but nice. Richard Dawkins summed it up:-

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
(Apart from that, he’s probably quite nice!   )

Brilliantly summed up if I may say so Ivan.
Richard Dawkins also summed up the god of the Old Testament rather well too did he not?    

Speaking of calling God various names. I have shown this potential O.P. to just two so far as I do not want to be seen as too ignorant to the Christians. That may be too late already. Regardless, would you guys care to opine on whether or not I should post it?

===============

God is God of Gods, King of Kings and Prick of Pricks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

God is said to have a thousand names. I would like to officially add one.

I have been discussing morals in these places and even occasionally actually have a Christian try to justify his genocidal son murdering God for some time now.

Christians cannot excuse God’s immoral actions and it seems that the Christian default for God’s poor morals is now just a head shake and a, well, God can do whatever he like to us, --- because he owns us.

No. Slave Master is not the new name I would propose.

No one would care and no one would notice. Slavery has been done to death just like many other immoral practices that Christianity embraces.

No, I need something not done to death.

In the beginning of Temple and Church life, the Priests and Temple Prostitutes, male and female, were key to the operation and success of the temple. God then was God of the Temple Prostitutes, --- male and female, --- and God of the Gay Priests and Priestesses. Is it any wonder that some of the more holy men took to the hills?

Mind you they did not quite understand that things had to be that way where resources were finite and many vital men were, eh, frisky. It was that or burn more babies in the garbage fires. God forbid. I digress.

The point is, in terms of a new name, and why I showed the hierarchy of the Church and Temple, is that I would add this name to the God name list and only because of his great immorality.

God being named Prick of Pricks already, I would add to his names, ------ if God is God of all, --- Dirty *********.
Sounds like, Pot Licker.

What do you think?

Regards
DL

Greatest I am. I thought this was quite a good subject for a new thread, at least until I read your latest message. I would have hoped that after Dawkins’ list of uncomplimentary adjectives, there was little need for any further name-calling, especially if it means resorting to bawdiness.

Although I’m an atheist, I feel uneasy about the way Christians can be attacked with little or no repercussions. If you dared to post anything about Mohammed along the lines of your latest message, I could envisage death threats against you and the Cutting Edge staff, along with the forum being closed down within days, if not hours.

I hope this thread will be used for its correct purpose, namely looking at how women have been treated as second class citizens by many religions. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that equality for women is a relatively modern concept, even in the western world. It would have received no consideration in those days when the three main Abrahamic monotheist religions came into being, as even slavery was accepted as normal.

Greatest you have gone over the top in your last post, well over the top I'm afraid.
As Ivan said, Dawkins said more than enough I believe.

Ivan wrote:Greatest I am. I thought this was quite a good subject for a new thread, at least until I read your latest message. I would have hoped that after Dawkins’ list of uncomplimentary adjectives, there was little need for any further name-calling, especially if it means resorting to bawdiness.

Although I’m an atheist, I feel uneasy about the way Christians can be attacked with little or no repercussions. If you dared to post anything about Mohammed along the lines of your latest message, I could envisage death threats against you and the Cutting Edge staff, along with the forum being closed down within days, if not hours.

I hope this thread will be used for its correct purpose, namely looking at how women have been treated as second class citizens by many religions. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that equality for women is a relatively modern concept, even in the western world. It would have received no consideration in those days  when the three main Abrahamic monotheist religions came into being, as even slavery was accepted as normal.

Thanks for this and I do not disagree with your view of name calling. That is likely why I have yet to post that O.P..

Many cultures, notably Egypt, had a long history of equality before Christianity was even thought up. Jews even had Asherah, so I do not agree with your view of history. In fact, for 20,000 years before the bronze age gave male Gods power, the Goddesses ruled in greater piece than what male leadership has.

Before the bronze age, there was no need for fortified cities thanks to that Goddess run system.

Regards
DL

stuart torr wrote:Greatest you have gone over the top in your last post, well over the top I'm afraid.
As Ivan said, Dawkins said more than enough I believe.

Noted and thanks. I am leaning toward agreement.

Regards
DL

Greatest.
you have said in answer to Ivan's post "that is likely why I have yet to post that O.P."
The thing is greatest, it is your O.P. is it not?

stuart torr wrote:Greatest.
you have said in answer to Ivan's post "that is likely why I have yet to post that O.P."
The thing is greatest, it is your O.P. is it not?

It is but I have not put it out except to a few for preview. As I said, I was not sure if it crossed a line.

Regards
DL

I think that, in Britain, women are tending to turn against 'religion' to a quite surprising degree. These things do change. After all, women used to be the tory voters, and now it is quite the other way.

I think Penderyn that it is the single women mainly on that point, as they are beginning to be way poorer if they have any children.
Single people as a whole, are begrudging the fact that it is too expensive to leave home.

Penderyn wrote:I think that, in Britain, women are tending to turn against 'religion' to a quite surprising degree.   These things do change.   After all, women used to be the tory voters, and now it is quite the other way.

Most countries other than the developing world, the Middle East and the U.S. are progressing away from foolish literal reading of scriptures and are moving left of their religions.

Kudos to them and curses to those stuck in literalism and the right of their religions.

A theology should not be based on superstitious nonsense.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am. I know this forum is very quiet at the moment, but I think stuart torr was, understandably, making the point that you’ve already gone public with that unsavoury message by posting it here!   

Yes, you’re right about ancient Egyptian culture and its goddesses. When I was thinking of the way in which women have been treated by religion as second-class citizens, I had in mind Islam and Christianity, which account for a very large proportion of the world’s ‘believers’ today.

Most countries other than the developing world, the Middle East and the U.S…..

That’s quite a lot of the world! Anyway, it’s surely a truism that as countries become developed, their citizens tend to turn away, not just from literal reading of scriptures, but from religion altogether (with the notable exception of the USA).

A theology should not be based on superstitious nonsense.

I hope you will develop this point and enlighten us. Wikipedia defines theology as “the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths”, but isn’t any belief which gives much credence to Stone Age texts in danger of being labelled 'superstitious nonsense'? None of them can be classified as reliable historical documents.

Hello Ivan.
I am afraid at times, that Greatest does go over the top at times with his posts, does he not.
I do try to tell him myself, but alas with no response.
As you tell us to make sure we tow the line so to speak, if we do the same.  

Ivan wrote:-
"A theology should not be based on superstitious nonsense."
I hope you will develop this point and enlighten us. Wikipedia defines theology as “the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths”, but isn’t any belief which gives much credence to Stone Age texts in danger of being labelled 'superstitious nonsense'? None of them can be classified as reliable historical documents.

True.  Rabbi David Wolpe in one of his talks said that we should not use anything written before 1,000 ce.

In terms of Christianity, the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths is impossible to do as their religions start with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster.

How can one rationalize or use reason and logic while beginning with beliefs that force one to discard reason and logic?

Impossible and the Christian church knew this early on and that was likely why any who wrote anything legible of the bible for the masses was killed. The world had to wait a long time before Gutenberg made it impossible for the Church to stifled people reading the bible and not just the priests.

Religion grew from there but that ability for the masses to gain information was the beginning of the end for Christianity and other religions.  

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CifaS8fPxG8

Lets hope that the tipping point comes before 2050. I want to be around to see them die and society grow to be all it can be.

Regards
DL

Greatest, your posts at times are absolutely rubbish.
Along with your thoughts regarding the Christian church, you should actually be an atheist.

Ivan wrote:Greatest I am. I thought this was quite a good subject for a new thread, at least until I read your latest message. I would have hoped that after Dawkins’ list of uncomplimentary adjectives, there was little need for any further name-calling, especially if it means resorting to bawdiness.

Although I’m an atheist, I feel uneasy about the way Christians can be attacked with little or no repercussions. If you dared to post anything about Mohammed along the lines of your latest message, I could envisage death threats against you and the Cutting Edge staff, along with the forum being closed down within days, if not hours.

I hope this thread will be used for its correct purpose, namely looking at how women have been treated as second class citizens by many religions. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that equality for women is a relatively modern concept, even in the western world. It would have received no consideration in those days  when the three main Abrahamic monotheist religions came into being, as even slavery was accepted as normal.

Honestly, Ivan, I'm not at all uneasy about the way Christians can be attacked without any repurcussions. But I do agree with you that G.I.A.'s post was a bit over the top. Even I don't go that far even though I want to at times. I think quite often many Christians deserve it.

What I do know is that Christians do it here (in America) all the time. And they have nationally televised programs which they use to attack US - atheists - on a daily basis. In fact, they have Christian channels that run 24/7 and they have used it to significantly poison the minds of Christians so that atheists are the most hated, most mistrusted group in America - even more than gays and Muslims. And where is our voice, the voice of atheism? Well, there isn't one. Our defense is mute. Our attacks even more so.

For far too long, religion has held a place of automatic reverence and deference. For thousands of years, religion was an idea that commanded respect without ever having to earn it. Speaking out against it was a crime, sometimes punishable not just by execution but by a torturous execution, the worst kind imaginable. Even teaching evolution in our public schools was a criminal offense even into the 20th Century. Commiting acts of homosexuality was a criminal offense well into the 1960's. It is only now, right now, when the gag finally came off, and I, for one, won't indulge in the conceit of religion and its gods that they somehow deserve any kind of respect. If you agree with Dawkins, would you EVER respect a being like the one he described? Of course not. So I say ... attack away. Religion has been earning it for the last 6,000 years. Islamic fundamentalism is STILL earning it on a daily basis.

(Which, as a moderator, does NOT mean you should just call names for the sake of name calling. If you insult even a god, you should also post the reason for it. I have, in the past, been on forums where my posts have been deleted in their entireties because I insulted someone's god - and that is why all too often the voice of atheism is constantly being muted.)

Greatest I am wrote:Christians cannot excuse God’s immoral actions and it seems that the Christian default for God’s poor morals is now just a head shake and a, well, God can do whatever he like to us, --- because he owns us.

Allow me to present an argument I made some time ago against a person who pretty much used the same argument. It began with an argument about whether objective morality exists - which I say it does not - and rapidly turned into watching this Christian defend the immorality of his God and trying to refute my criticism of that immorality. It goes something like this:

Jeffbase40: Your position only holds up if you regard God has being completely equal with man.

My response: And that's why my position holds up. Man is equal to God because God is the creation of Man. Those ancient tribesmen were all but incapable of inventing a truly divine God because they had no idea how a truly divine God would and should act. The best they could come up with was just another garden variety angry god who got a kick out of punishing people, committing atrocities, and acting like a spoiled brat.

Jeffbase40: The creator is the same as the creation?

My response: Man is better than God ... by leaps and bounds. So no, even though Man created God, the creation is significantly less than the creator. And that's how it works with everything, isn't it? Humanity has always been a better machine than anything we ever invented or constructed. Which is just one more reason why it's not too hard to see humanity's "tool marks" all over the story of God.

Jeffbase40: Even if you put it to our limited human brains understanding of parent child relationship then that would be like saying children have just as much intelligence and authority as the parent.

My response:  Your premise fails immediately because it is not a "parent-child" relationship. It is a master-slave relationship, it is an abusive husband-battered wife relationship. There is absolutely NOTHING good about Man's fabricated relationship with that capricious entity you call "God." The social dynamics between parents and their children as opposed to a master and his slaves, are COMPLETELY different. Even parents let their kids be in charge now and again by caving in to their wants and desires. Sometimes parents give their kids what THEY want instead of what the parents want. When has God ever done that? When? No, he commands, demands, and threatens. He doesn't even give humanity a vote. And, heh, this should go without saying, but no matter how pissed we get at our kids, we don't murder them (and if someone does, they go to prison). Which is more than I can say for poor man who was stoned to death, by direct command of God, for daring to pick up sticks on the Sabbath.

Secondly, limited intelligence is what created God in the first place. I don't have to be smarter than God. I just have to be smarter than the ancient Bedouins who tried to pass off this religious bunk as real. And while I may not be -genetically- smarter, I know more ... I know more about our world than every living person on the planet 3,000 years ago. Were my knowledge compared to theirs, I, myself, would be revered as a God if for no other reason than I could predict things they never could. Because I have science on my side whereas they only had ignorance and fear.

Our modern morality would champion the slave, not the master. We would plead with and help the battered wife to escape the abusive husband instead cheerleading for the husband and applauding every smack to his wife's face. Yet religion somehow has twisted this morality into a diametrically opposite view. Somehow, you folks are so blinded by these archaic stories that you cannot even see the glaring, childishly obvious imperfections, nay, the EVIL that has been written into this God character you revere so much.

And that is precisely why secular morality is light years ahead of any morality religion has to offer. And I say "light years" only because secular morality cannot get further away from religious morality any faster without riding on the back of a neutrino.

Jeffbase40: God created us. He didn't have to give you breathe of life. He has every right to decide when to end that life. We don't have the right to end other people's lives. So the term "genocide" does't apply to God

My response: And that is precisely why there is no such thing as objective morality. Wow, you could have just admitted I was right to begin with and saved us both a ton of unnecessary typing.

Jeffbase40: You know, I think about ISIS and the unbelievable cruel acts they are committing. They actually cut a young boy in half.

My response:  Yep, and if God was doing it - or one of his duly appointed representatives - you'd be jumping up and down, clapping your hands, and giggling like a school girl high on meth. "Go get 'em, God. Show 'em whose the boss of these heathens! My human morality pales in comparison to a divine morality that believes young children should be cut in half for not joining a stupid Bronze Age Cult."

No, don't even try insulting my intelligence by denying it. In fact, you've already admitted it by saying:

Jeffbase40: And that's just the human standard. I don't blame God one bit for wanting to wipe the slate clean.

My response: Yep, all those people deserved to die, so if one of God's little minions cut a boy in half, good! He deserved it. Well guess what - those members of ISIS? They're working on behalf of their God doing precisely the same thing: committing atrocities against people they believe their God judged to be unworthy of life. They are doing exactly the same thing the Israelites did thousands of years ago.

Which makes YOU no different than ISIS - aside from the fact you are limited in your actions by the rule of law. I always shudder to think what would happen to people like me should secular law ever fail and fundamentalists had the freedom to enact "God's judgment" ... just like ISIS. You need to look in a mirror, Jeff, and think hard about your own morality, your own civility, and your own compassion. Because I think your religious fervor and blind faith in a malicious (and fictional) God makes you potentially capable of doing unspeakable horrors to your fellow Man.

Jeffbase40: Yet according to the Bible, the people of Noah's day were doing things worse than that. Worse than the Nazis.

My response: Really, Jeff? And precisely what did the Bible accuse 100% of the human population of doing that was "worse [even] than the Nazis?" C'mon, let's hear the details. Oh right ... there aren't any. The Bible merely says that humanity had become wicked and evil (all the time, I might add. Yeah, with every last second they think and do nothing but evil, as if any kind of society could actually exist in such a state - just once again proving the ridiculousness of a literal interpretation of these fables.)

⁵ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. ⁶ The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

Yeah ... that's it. That's all that was said. Yet you're going to sit here and make up nonsense about how people were worse than Nazis. All of them.

All .... of .... them.

Yet you have NO idea why those people were wicked. For all you know, they merely worshiped different gods. That's more than enough to tick off Yahweh whose ego just can't stand other religions. In fact, it is the ONLY ... I repeat, the ONLY ... thing that makes sense, the ONLY thing that ALL humans could be doing that God would find to be wicked: worshiping other gods.

So is that what you think, Jeff? Do you think everyone deserved to die simply for not being a Christian? How would you translate that to the modern world? Oh of course .... ISIS. Yeah, those nasty people butchering anyone who isn't a fundamentalist Muslim. Wow, funny how the parallels just keep a'comin', isn't it.

Jeffbase40: Do you think a king would put up with that? Sit by and watch the people of his kindgom do horrible acts to each other and murder his own family?

My response: You have NO idea what God meant when he said everyone was wicked. None. For all you know, everyone worked on the Sabbath or refused to oppress gays or perhaps they didn't murder their own children when they sassed back. Hell, maybe they simply refused to put tassles on the four corners of their cloaks. God's definition of "wicked" is pretty fast and loose - which means who really knows what "wickedness" set God off ... this time. The Bible doesn't tell us. Which means all you're doing is rationalizing in your own head why everyone deserved to die in that flood. You KNOW a prima facie argument would rightfully declare God's actions as immoral, so you have to imagine that everyone on earth, from the Aborigines to the Inuits were engaged in some collective, global evil so heinous that it would make the Nazis look like children at Sunday school by comparison. Except you don't know what that heinous evil would be, so you just assume that evil existed and God was justified in slaughtering everyone (never mind the statistical stupidity of every last person on the planet [except 8 people] all being raunchily evil all at the same time).  

Justifying genocide and approving of it simply because God did, well ... that does not make you moral. It makes you a blind lemming that goes along with whatever your religion tells you. No thought, no analysis, no individuality. Uh huh. Nope. You just follow orders. And if God told you slaughter your own kids because he gets a thrill from it, you'd do it. If God told you to pick up a gun and start murdering atheists. You'd do it. No questions asked.

Yeah, that's what you're saying whether you realize it or not. The Nuremburg Defense. I was only following orders. Now, you were saying about people being worse than the Nazis? Perhaps some introspection will give you some surprising and disturbing answers about your own beliefs.

Jeffbase40: No, you would probably think the king was justified in ordering the deaths of these people.

My response: Ah, so you're saying that a king/ruler like Saddam Hussein was justified in gassing his own people to death. Remember that? Surely you remember the pictures of streets choked with dead bodies, mothers with their toddlers curled up in their arms - dead, their skin white with the noxious residue, thousands of them. Because they dared to defy Saddam's harsh and sociopathic rulership. In fact, that was one of the pretexts Bush used for going to war - a ruler used WMDs on his own people. You see, that's the problem. God's rule was even more unjust that Saddam Hussein yet you think people should be ethnically cleansed on a global scale for rebelling (assuming that's what they even did) against such a sadistic rulership. What you are saying is that Saddam was justified in his actions. Nay he should be rewarded, perhaps even revered for poisoning his people for daring to defy the king's (dictator's) will.

Jeffbase40: With bold statements like that, how can I not conclude that you regard the ENTIRE Bible as fiction? Therefore, it doesn't matter that events like the Battle of Carchemish which are verified in other ancient civilization's texts match up with the Biblical account. It must be fiction, huh?

My response: What difference does it really make whether I think the Battle of Carchemish is fiction or not? That's just an academic issue. What's important is that I make no secret, in fact I shout it from the roof tops, that I believe the pertinent, relevant things in the Bible are fiction. From Adam and Eve to Jesus's final journey into heaven.

Fiction. It's made up. It is make-believe. Pretend. Fantasy. That's what I believe. Even if there is a god, it isn't any god you're going to find in the Bible - or any other holy book or religious belief. Does that mean nothing at all in the Bible has value? No, of course not. Even works of fiction can inspire, motivate, and change a person's outlook on life. There's nothing wrong with drawing inspiration from works of fiction. What's wrong is when people forget that it IS fiction and begin forming cults around it. Then those cults grow into religions, and those religions stomp across the face of the planet butchering, oppressing, persecuting, judging, and executing in the name of their fictitious god. What's wrong is when a person begins to see genocide as acceptable, when wrong becomes right, when evil becomes good ... all because of the actions of a fictitious god that has been painted by tribesman to be perfectly good and just.

Honestly, Ivan, I'm not at all uneasy about the way Christians can be attacked without any repercussions. But I do agree with you that G.I.A.'s post was a bit over the top. Even I don't go that far even though I want to at times. I think quite often many Christians deserve it.

Shirina. I think Christians must be much more aggressive in the USA than they tend to be in the UK, and I’m aware that you’ve had fanatics murdering doctors who carry out abortions. I fully understand where you’re coming from and no, I don’t have respect for any religion. I also agree with Voltaire that “those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”.

I do, however, have respect for some nice people who also happen to be Christians, those who run foodbanks, visit the old and sick and get their shopping for them etc. Whether their religion makes them ‘good’, who can tell? Do they need an invisible policeman in the sky to make them behave well? Whatever the reason, they are nice people and although it’s fair game to attack their Bronze Age superstitious beliefs with rationality, I don’t think that gratuitously bawdy names, like the one suggested earlier on this thread, is either necessary or does anything to advance the cause of atheism.

You’ll never get militant Christianity from the Church of England, just a fudge and lots of dithering. This spoof has more than a touch of reality about it:-

                                                THE CAT SAT ON THE MAT
                                                                                                                                            How would the Church of England deal with 'The cat sat on the mat' if it appeared in the Bible?

The liberal theologians would point out that such a passage did not, of course, mean that the cat literally sat on the mat. Also, 'cat' and 'mat' had different meanings in those days from today and anyway, the text should be interpreted according to the customs and practices of the period.

This would lead to an immediate backlash from the evangelicals. They would make it an essential condition of faith that a real, physical, living cat, being a domestic pet of the felix domesticus species, and having a tail, did physically place its whole body on a floor covering, designed for that purpose, and which is "on the floor, but not of the floor". The expression "on the floor, but not of the floor" would then be explained in a leaflet.

Meanwhile, the Catholics would have developed the Feast of the Sedentation of the Blessed Cat. This would teach that the cat was white and majestically reclined on a mat of gold thread before its assumption to the Great Cat Basket of Heaven. This is commemorated by the singing of the Magnificent Cat, lighting three candles and ringing the bell five times.

This would cause a schism with the Orthodox Churches, as they believe that the tradition requires Holy Cats Day (as it is colloquially known) to be marked by the lighting of six candles and ringing the bell four times. This would partly be resolved by the Cuckoo Land Declaration recognizing the validity of each.

Eventually, the Anglican House of Bishops would issue a statement on the Doctrine of Feline Sedentation. It would explain that, traditionally, the text describes a domestic feline quadruped superjacent to an unattached covering of a fundamental surface. For determining the salvific and eschatological significations, they follow the heuristic analytical principles adopted in dealing with the Canine Fenestrations Question ("How much is that doggie in the window?") and the Affirmative Musaceous Paradox ("Yes, we have no bananas") and so on for another 210 pages.

The General Synod of the Church of England would then commend this report, without officially endorsing it, as helpful resource material for clergy as they explain to the good Christians in the pew the difficult doctrine of the cat sitting on the mat.  

I guess I’m saying that in the UK - but clearly not in the USA - Christians are a soft target. There were protests over ‘Jerry Springer:The Opera’ (probably best remembered for its troupe of tap dancing Ku Klux Klan members!), and before that ‘The Life Of Brian’, but as far as I know, no death threats. That’s in sharp contrast to the Moslem response to Salman Rushdie (fatwa), Theo van Gogh (repeatedly shot and then stapled to the pavement), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (forced into hiding before fleeing the Netherlands after speaking out against FGM) and Kurt Westergaard (under constant police protection after creating a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a bomb in his turban). Apparently van Gogh’s son has been attacked several times, presumably just for existing. If Greatest I am had made his bawdy remarks about Islam, he’d probably need police protection right now.

Your last sentences Ivan are so very true, the british Christians are a bit of a soft target at times when replying back to their remarks but on the whole they are quite nice people for theists.
If greatest had made his remarks against Islam, he would probably be on their hit list.

stuart torr wrote:Greatest, your posts at times are absolutely rubbish.
Along with your thoughts regarding the Christian church, you should actually be an atheist.

Been there and done that. Then apotheosis.

All I do with Christianity is judge it by it's morals.

It fails miserably.

Regards
DL

Mohamed and his God are gay, that is why he cursed Muslim men with 72 virgins in heaven.

He made heaven hell.

Will that do or do I need the other name I used for the Bible God?

Regards
DL

Shirina

Your post is why I would not dare debate you. My kingdom for your eloquence.

Thanks for showing the double moral standards that Christians must create to stomach their evil God.

Regards
DL

GIa.
Your last three posts are somewhere near your worse three yet I'm afraid, why do you do this? post such outlandish, outrageous messages to the forum?

Complimenting a poster is bad now. Oh well.

Regards
DL