Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

by Greatest I am Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Is needing or wanting to worship a God a human defect or benefit?

Gods have no needs or wants that man can assuage. Gods are said to be so high above us that for any God to have such a need would be like man craving the adoration of germs.

I see us as just as foolish as germs and the creatures shown in this clip as we act the same way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4a_uwyY_H4

I can see where at one time it would have been profitable to bend the knee to King/Gods as in the original archetype city states, as used in the original Eden myth written by the Jews, but not today.

That myth I think was written of the following reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ9cvYB7Tes

Our present secular systems of governance have bested the Gods in the moral and legal senses and only the really right wing theists would want to live under the laws of the old barbaric Gods.

I am not an atheist and seek God to appease what I recognize as my spiritual side. But not to bend the knee or adore; just to improve any defect in my thinking; if I have one.

I know that there are way more followers out there than leaders but cannot fathom why someone would want to lower themselves to adore even a God unless it is strictly as a self-serving action that we hope God will recognize and reward.

That is hardly being good for goodness sake. God would know and send such hypocrites to hell. Which scriptures say is where the vast majority of us will end up regardless.

That means that you, even if you pray daily and hard, are likely going to hell along with most of those you know. In a sense, you should feel sorry for those few who make it to heaven as they must spend eternity watching their loved ones in purposeless torture. That would drive any moral person insane.

Gods have no needs or wants and has no rewards to give in exchange for what Gods have no need or want of.

The Godhead I know certainly disavows such a need or want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkT1-N0VqUc

Why then, if you are a believer, do you need or want to worship a God if not for the reward you think it will bring you?

Is your need to adore a God a defect or benefit?

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:46 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Yep. Loonier than a tune with Christian morals and twisted thinking.

Regards
DL
My view is that when you started this thread that you did not expect some one like myself to give you a real answer.

And I do not expect a real answer from you for this but I want to ask it anyway - as in - why is it that you and other people do not really want to know about God? That knowledge of God is the most important and most interesting information in all of life and yet most people do not really seek after it at all.

For me I know that God exist and that God exercises real and great power, so mine is a knowledge and not a belief, while so many people seem to accept that if they do not believe then God is not real, or that without their belief then there is no God, as if their "belief" has some power over God, and I say that is about as mentally blind as a person can be.

The Bible tells me the reason being that since long ago people are just too deathly afraid of God, Exodus 20:19 = "... let not God speak with us, lest we die."

So I wonder if it is just that I have faced down death myself so I am just one (1) who is no longer afraid? or is it something else?

You seem to think I am an atheist. I am not. I am a Gnostic Christian.

You say you have knowledge of God yet all you can point to is a corrupted bible and "God exercises real and great power".

If that is the case and you can see it then you should be able to point to it so that we too can see it.

If only you can see it then you know what that means. Right?

I have had my apotheosis and likely know our real Godhead better than you so if you want to compare then throw your immoral bible away and let's compare.

Try to sell me on your genocidal son murdering prick of a God and we will get nowhere.

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:31 pm

Shirina wrote:Name me one, just one culture that is matriarchal. Yeah, I'll wait right here while you scour the internet looking for one. You might even find one in the distant past or in some remote corner of the world, but by and large -- in all the major cultures and civilzations, the system was, is, and always will be patriarchal.

The fact that there are none - is substantial evidence that all human beings want it to be this way.

We have historical accounts like Queen Mary II insisted that her husband be named King in 1689 link HERE, and Queen Victoria shared power with her husband Albert 1840 link HERE, and here in the USA it was Oprah Winfrey who first launched Barack Obama to be President link HERE, and those are very famous examples but it happens every day with wives who want their husband to take the lead, just as in all religions the Ladies want a strong Man to lead the congregation, and that is NOT a defect as people do what people want and most Ladies want their Men to take the lead.

You are twisting a human reality into a criticism which it does not deserve.

We see it in animal life too, as one male lion with 5 - 10 female lions, and that happens by design and by intent of all involved, and that is not done by some masculine manipulation or control over the females.

Shirina wrote: You claim in your statement that "women subjugated themselves to God and to their faith ..."

Well, if that's true, then aren't you admitting, perhaps inadvertantly, that God, religion and indeed ALL major faiths are inherently misogynistic? Because they are.

there's the clergy. Hmmm ... how many female priests do you suppose there are? How many female pastors and reverends? How many female imams? How many female rabbis? How many female Buddhist monks? How many female purohitas and archakas?

Women subjugate themselves because that is what the Women want, and most Men subjugate themselves to the leaders too, because both Men and Women act like sheep.

Women really have never wanted to be the Priest or Pastors and now-a-days when some Women do chose to take the lead then they will often recognize the dysfunction of it.

And in fact the females were never subjugated, as the subjugation is a common theme throughout humanity for both male and female as just a part of the human condition.

Shirina wrote:
And as another disgusting insult by a misogynistic religion invented and written by misogynistic males, Leviticus 12:2-5 states that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she is unclean for seven days, but if she gives birth to a girl, the mother is unclean for two weeks. Yep, girls are so disgusting that moms have to spend double the amount of time being "unclean" for having a female baby. Wow,

Most likely the Ladies were much happier to be given the 2 weeks instead of just 7 days, because now-a-days to rest and recover and to embrace the baby for over a month is becoming very common.

Back in the Bible days the male babies would be circumcised on the 8th day, which is probably why they only had 7 days to "clean" up.

That was an inequality stacked against the males, while it was a better deal for the females.

Shirina wrote: I suppose I could pick on Islam and the Quran by pointing out how that religion views women (which is actually better than the Bible), but the cultural aspects are quite readily apparent and shouldn't require me to even comment on them.

The Muslim Women want to wear the veil, and the teaching of Islam is that before the Profit came and saved the Arab world from its sins then the people were liken to the western licentiousness, and so the Muslims women wear the veil on purpose and they teach it to their children.

It is a funny if not a pathetic reality that westerners want to liberate the Muslim women by telling the Ladies to take off their clothes so then they too can be free Women like the sinful Women of the west - and yet the west can not figure out why the Muslims reject our license to sin.

I have even known American Women who convert from Christianity over to Islam and they start wearing the covering here in the USA and they do it on purpose. Also I found from the American Muslim converts that when the Lady wears a veil then it puts a huge burden onto their husband, because then the husband has to do the shopping and driving and the talking and so the veil is not a one-sided thing for a married couple to do - FYI.

Exclamation

by JP Cusick Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:15 am

Shirina wrote:What is there to know, aside from the despicable creature called "God" in our various holy books? Outside of that, "God" is just a "feeling," and I can just as readily claim that Bugs Bunny is responsible for that feeling. The moment someone starts claiming to "know" God is the moment I start slowly moving out of the room because what usually follows such a declarative statement is tyranny, oppression, and fascism.

There have been lots of positive people who knew God, as like the Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Muhammad, Abe Lincoln, Joan of Arc, and lots more, so there is no reason as to why you or I or anyone can not know God too.

For me then I see people who falsely claim to represent God who do the "tyranny, oppression, and fascism" but it is not difficult to distinguish who is true and who is not.

Shirina wrote:What precisely do you know about God, and what is the source of this knowledge? How do you even know it was God ... and which God do you think you know?

I have given lots of specifics just here on this thread, so it is not that you have not been informed or even that it has not been put directly in front of you.

Shirina wrote:You cannot claim to know that God exists while, at the same time, calling it faith. And it IS faith.

That is getting me mixed up with traditional orthodox Christianity, because "faith" has a different meaning to me.

Shirina wrote:I never "believed" Santa into existence, and even with tens of millions of other boys and girls believing as strongly as I, there is still no Santa.

See this is where you and I separate, and it is where I separate from many other people too, because when I found out that there was no Santa Claus (I was less than 10 years old but older than 6) then that was a big deal to me and I was really hurt by the realization that my little world was a lie, and that my family and the closest people to me had lied to me, and I saw Santa Claus as a cruel joke played on me.

After that they started telling me about some miracle baby in a manger - as if they were going to fool me a second time - but I had to play along anyway as we got presents and Christmas tree and etc.

Shirina wrote: I'm curious. Just what makes you think that a 3,000 year-old story about Hebrews applies to modern day non-Hebrew atheists?

For atheists, there is nothing to be afraid of, like a monster in the closet or a boogyman under the bed.

I agree that there is nothing to be afraid of, and everybody gets saved in the end, so there is nothing to fear about God at all.

The only thing that we have to fear is the horrible aftereffects of doing wrong in this world, as like if we make war then we might get beat, or if we lie or steal then we might get caught, and of course we can not escape our own conscience.

The true quest for God is not about fear but about empowerment and grand adventures and fascinating information.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greatest I am wrote:Try to sell me on your genocidal son murdering prick of a God and we will get nowhere.

It must seem like you are shutting the door on me with that restriction, but it is only shutting your self out.

Of course you might view it as shutting the door on God, but again it is just shutting your self out.

When you reject info because you do not like the info then that is your own loss.

What happens for me is that I must deal with whatever happens to be - and I do not get to pick and choose what I like or do not like.

Twisted Evil

by Greatest I am Thu Sep 26, 2013 12:32 am

Well at least you did not deny that he is shown as a genocidal son murderer. Why you would want that God who is more of a Satan than a God?

You indicate that you do not fear death so why sell your soul to Satan. You said that we are all save regardless so why do you not seek a God with decent morals?

Regards
DL

by Shirina Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:37 pm

JP Cusick wrote:The fact that there are none - is substantial evidence that all human beings want it to be this way.

Wrong.

That's like saying: Because everyone in Somalia is poor, it is substantial evidence that Somalians want to be poor.

The historical proof of why your assertion is incorrect can be found in the women's liberation movements that occurred here in the West after WWII. Essentially, for the first time, women were able to acquire real jobs that paid a real salary and suddenly they saw the freedom that this way of life opened up for them. No longer did women have to beg for hand-outs from their husbands and no longer were their lives held hostage by the fact that, without a husband, all a woman could do was be spinsters living with mom and dad. After WWII, women realized that they could be masters of their own lives and not be forced into being an uneducated housewife doomed to spend her entire life changing diapers, basting the roast, and scrubbing the toilet -- a virtual shut-in aside from shopping trips and PTA meetings.

Things changed, and they changed in a major way. Now career women are quite common and, in the USA at least, more women than men are attending college. Now ... if what you say is true, then why didn't all women peacefully return to their ironing and vacuuming once the war was over? Why didn't all women happily return to a submissive and innocuous existence under the complete care and control of their husbands?

It is quite obvious that not all human beings -- especially women -- wanted it "to be this way." The problem was that women never before experienced that kind of freedom, but once they did, there was no going back. Even now, women in rigidly patriarchal societies in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other places are beginning to rumble about the need for freedom and equality.

Unfortunately, women are more easily dominated because men tend to be more aggressive, territorial, and violent. That doesn't mean women want to be dominated. It just means that women are far less likely to form a woman's army, pick up weapons, and revolt against their male masters. In other words, men took advantage of a woman's often innate passivity, branded them as property (what do you think marriage was originally all about?), and ensured that every legal and social avenue of independence for women was barred.

Then again, excepting a brief stint under Cromwell in Britain, America was the first democratic government since Rome. By your logic, we must assume that all human beings want to be ruled by kings, emperors, dictators, and tyrants ... except today the vast majority of nations are now democracies. How did that happen?

JP Cusick wrote:You are twisting a human reality into a criticism which it does not deserve.

Not at all. I'm merely busting up your "appeal to tradition" fallacy.

JP Cusick wrote:We see it in animal life too

And this is an example of the "appeal to nature" fallacy. Very Happy

JP Cusick wrote:Women subjugate themselves because that is what the Women want

No, for Christ's sake, NO! First of all, men telling women what they want is part and parcel of the problem. That's what men have been doing for millennia -- telling women what they want, what to think, what to do, how to dress, etc. etc. Yes, I will agree that some women want and even enjoy being submissive and passive under their husbands. That's great for those who are. But the majority of women do not wish to be subjugated. They want equality both in the home and in the workplace. Secondly, girls have been indoctrinated for centuries, starting at a young age, to be "ladylike" and that usually included passivity -- and that, in turn, included staying OUT of politics. Well now, if women stay out of politics, they give up their voice and guess what happens then. Yep, women are denied, through force of law, any avenue of ecape from male dominance. Hence women were denied inheritances, they were denied property ownership, they were denied business ownership, they were denied the vote, they were barred from holding public office, and only a few specific jobs were available to them such as teaching and seamstressing (and those jobs came with very strict rules on the female's personal life). Well, it's kinda hard to be on your own as a woman if you can't own anything or make any money. There was no choice BUT to subjugate oneself to the husband, thus, saying "that is what the Woman wants" is untrue. It's like offering a woman nothing but kidney beans her entire life and declaring, "She wants those kidney beans!" How do you know that? Have you offered her any other choice?

JP Cusick wrote:because both Men and Women act like sheep.

Yes, that is true to a certain extent. But as I said before, a male-dominated society took advantage of "sheepish" behavior when it came to women. It's like how child abuse is handed down from generation to generation: Father beats son, who grows up to have kids who the son now abuses, and onward. In this case, leaders subjugate men, so men turn around and subjugate women ... placing women pretty far down the totem pole. In ancient Rome, even slaves had a higher standing in society than women.

JP Cusick wrote:just a part of the human condition.

Heh, I'd like to see THAT line used in a court of law.

Prosecutor: "You stand accused of murder. What is your defense?"
Accused: "Well, murder is just a part of the human condition and therefore I'm not guilty. I'm just being human."

As you can see, that explanation is a poor justification for any amount of tyranny by society at large.

JP Cusick wrote:Most likely the Ladies were much happier to be given the 2 weeks instead of just 7 days, because now-a-days to rest and recover and to embrace the baby for over a month is becoming very common.

You know as well as I do that this is not what the Bible meant. Shocked

Being "unclean" is a spiritual condition, not a physical one. Apparently, God thinks that the woman's soul is "tainted" for a longer period of time if she has a daughter instead of a son.

JP Cusick wrote:That was an inequality stacked against the males

Gential mutilation - male or female - is despicable, so it isn't a better deal for either gender. Yeah, God creates human males with foreskins just so God can order people with no anesthetics or sterile instruments to cut them off. Somehow, this made perfect sense to Bronze Age desert tribesman, but it should make absolutely no sense to those living in the Information Age.

JP Cusick wrote:The Muslim Women want to wear the veil

First of all, many women in those tyrannical Middle Eastern nations are either a) forced to wear them by roaming morality police or b) indoctrinated to wear them from an early age. Secondly, it's funny, though, how in Muslim nations where the veil/hijab isn't forced upon women, most women do NOT wear them.

JP Cusick wrote:and the teaching of Islam is that before the Profit came and saved the Arab world from its sins then the people were liken to the western licentiousness, and so the Muslims women wear the veil on purpose and they teach it to their children.

Thanks for proving my point. Let me ask you this: What do Muslim men have to do or wear to prevent licentiousness? Oh that's right ... nothing. This is just another example of how religion blames women for the sins of Mankind. Instead of simply teaching men to show some damned restraint and self-discipline regarding their sexual desires, women are supposed to hide themselves from men and take the full brunt of the blame for being attractive to them. This is essentially true of all the major religions in that women have to take ALL the responsibility for suppressing the male sex drive -- which is why some people even here in the West still blame women for being raped. Yeah, the way she dressed, her mannerisms ... uh huh, she was asking for it!

JP Cusick wrote:like the sinful Women of the west

WTF?

No, Mr. Cusick, many in the West want to give women the CHOICE to wear the hijab. That's what freedom is all about. What I'd love to do is force you to wear some of the garments men force women to wear and then ask you how comfortable you are. I'd ask you if this is what you'd like to wear your entire life even when engaged in activities where such a garment is completely impractical. Ever try running in an ankle length dress? I thought not.

In essence, you're like a guard trying to convince a prisoner how comfortable and luxurious his 6' x 8' cell is.

JP Cusick wrote:and yet the west can not figure out why the Muslims reject our license to sin.

First of all, what sin? Second of all, where in the Quran does it say specifically that women have to wear the veil/hijab? I'll wait right here while you find the specific chapter and verse. In truth, what you're going to find, is that MEN interpreted a few sentences in the Quran about modesty into meaning women should be wrapped up like black mummies. Trust me, it's not in the Quran anywhere. At all.

JP Cusick wrote:I have even known American Women who convert from Christianity over to Islam and they start wearing the covering here in the USA and they do it on purpose.

You're missing the point. WHY were women convinced to dress like that in the first place? It's because, culturally (not religiously), men decided to recuse themselves from the burden of keeping it in their pants by making ALL women look exactly the same -- amorphous blobs of black and a pair of eyes floating down the street. You'll find many MORE Muslim women who threw the veil away when they could because those garments rob women of their identities, their freedom, and the beauty God gave them. If an American woman wants to wear the hijab, great, because they chose to do so. Many women in the Middle East do not have that choice, and it's the choice that makes all the difference.

Yet the major point that you're missing is that it still comes down to men interpreting the rules of Islam to force women into the hijab while the men put no such restrictions on themselves. You see this kind of thing in most religions where the man can dress as he likes, even run around dressed in nothing but a pair of shorts. But women have to broil alive in layer upon layer of fabric so men won't get an erection (which is what this is really all about).

JP Cusick wrote:when the Lady wears a veil then it puts a huge burden onto their husband, because then the husband has to do the shopping and driving and the talking

LOL! Seriously? In a rigidly male-dominated household, society, or religious sect, the male does all of those things anyway!

headbang

by Shirina Thu Sep 26, 2013 7:18 pm

JP Cusick wrote:There have been lots of positive people who knew God, as like the Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Muhammad, Abe Lincoln, Joan of Arc, and lots more, so there is no reason as to why you or I or anyone can not know God too.

From my experience, the so called "true believers" who "know" God are too passive to do anything about the tyrants and fascists who also believe, but decided to use God as a weapon to oppress.

I remember, while in college, a couple of my friends burst into my bedroom one day to drag me off somewhere. As I was moving around the bed, I stubbed my toe -- hard. I reacted the way most people would and snarled, "Son of a Bitch!" as I fell back on the bed in pain.

Next thing I hear is some guy that I didn't know, some "friend of a friend" who hadn't even been introduced to me yet, saying in a sanctimonious voice, "As long as you don't swear, we'll get along just fine."

Yeah, right. Some stranger in my own home telling me what to do. Why? Because I offended his Christian sensibilities. All too often, even so-called "positive" Christians expect and demand that everyone around them knuckle under to their wants and desires. Tyranny can come in very small doses, too. Incidentally, I told the guy that if he didn't like it, the door was right behind him. And no, we never did get along.

JP Cusick wrote:I have given lots of specifics just here on this thread, so it is not that you have not been informed or even that it has not been put directly in front of you.

I have read all of your posts here, and despite how you may think "knowing" something is defined, I have yet to see anything that equates to actual knowledge -- just a lot of faith.

JP Cusick wrote:See this is where you and I separate, and it is where I separate from many other people too, because when I found out that there was no Santa Claus (I was less than 10 years old but older than 6) then that was a big deal to me and I was really hurt by the realization that my little world was a lie, and that my family and the closest people to me had lied to me, and I saw Santa Claus as a cruel joke played on me.

For me, it was different. To me, Santa was just the guy who delivered presents. When I realized there was no Santa due to a mountain of evidence suggesting no Santa existed, it also meant Santa never existed. Yet ... I still received loads of presents. This meant, obviously, that my family had been responsible for the presents, and my family actually existed. Therefore, there was nothing to be upset about because there was no reason why I couldn't still continue to receive loads of presents on Christmas morning. Santa became redundant and unnecessary.

JP Cusick wrote:as if they were going to fool me a second time

Smart that you didn't.

JP Cusick wrote:I agree that there is nothing to be afraid of, and everybody gets saved in the end, so there is nothing to fear about God at all.

That, to me, is a more enlightened approach to spirituality. I told my family (who are Christians) the same thing -- that if there is a God and a Heaven, then we ALL go there. I don't believe for a nanosecond that there's a cosmic bouncer kicking people out of the afterlife because they didn't join some specific religious cult.

by JP Cusick Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:39 pm

Greatest I am wrote:Well at least you did not deny that he is shown as a genocidal son murderer. Why you would want that God who is more of a Satan than a God?

I do not deny that you view the God of the Bible as a "genocidal son murderer" but that does not mean that I agree with you.

My understanding is that Jesus had a choice and Jesus decided Himself to sacrifice Himself, and it was important that it was a self sacrifice.

Gandhi said once that Jesus wore a crown of thorns as His nonviolent civil disobedience - and I agree with that perspective. Also Jesus did not have to carry His own cross but this too was an act of defiance, and the point was that Jesus was giving an example, so anyone can follow His lead - or not.

It is an important distinction to know that Jesus was not God, and not part of any silly "trinity" either, and every person throughout humanity are sons and daughters of God.

Greatest I am wrote:You indicate that you do not fear death so why sell your soul to Satan. You said that we are all save regardless so why do you not seek a God with decent morals?

Since everyone does get saved - then any moral is optional.

If you go murder some one then you might go to jail (or not), and your conscience with afflict you, but the option is still ours.

But God is not optional, as if you can pick which God you like or approve of, and then reject the God(s) which you see as unworthy, well no, we do not have that option.

Like a Star @ heaven

by JP Cusick Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:45 pm

JP Cusick wrote:But God is not optional, as if you can pick which God you like or approve of, and then reject the God(s) which you see as unworthy, well no, we do not have that option.

I guess I said that incorrectly.

We can pick or choose whatever God anyone wants, as your choice along with your beliefs make absolutely no difference.

It will make a difference in your own life and will affect the people around you and those that care about you, but the real God thing remains the same whether anyone likes it or not.

Of course God cares whether you like Him one way or another way so yes God will pamper and cater to any belief, but if one seeks after the truth then it is we who must do the adjusting.

Idea

by JP Cusick Fri Sep 27, 2013 12:28 am

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote: Most likely the Ladies were much happier to be given the 2 weeks instead of just 7 days, because now-a-days to rest and recover and to embrace the baby for over a month is becoming very common.
You know as well as I do that this is not what the Bible meant.

Being "unclean" is a spiritual condition, not a physical one. Apparently, God thinks that the woman's soul is "tainted" for a longer period of time if she has a daughter instead of a son.

No, the Bible at that point is talking about physical health and "unclean" means unhealthy.

I really think that 2 weeks was not enough time as it needed to be longer, but at those times they probably viewed the 7 days as a long time.

JP Cusick wrote: What do Muslim men have to do or wear to prevent licentiousness? Oh that's right ... nothing. This is just another example of how religion blames women for the sins of Mankind. Instead of simply teaching men to show some damned restraint and self-discipline regarding their sexual desires, women are supposed to hide themselves from men and take the full brunt of the blame for being attractive to them.

Yet the major point that you're missing is that it still comes down to men interpreting the rules of Islam to force women into the hijab while the men put no such restrictions on themselves.

The fact is that in Islam the Men are not to expose their self and the Muslims really do believe and practice modesty for both men and Women.

There have even been confrontations and I believe Court rulings where Muslim Men do not have to get undressed, as like in Jails (gaols) and in prison, in sports where Christians (Westerners) believe in group showers along with our sanction of homosexuality, while the religion of Islam has always (since Muhammad) resisted all immodesty by both male and females.

Link = Islamic Dress Code.

And in fact for myself I agree that the Islamic position is morally superior to that of Christianity (the west).

Shirina wrote:No, Mr. Cusick, many in the West want to give women the CHOICE to wear the hijab.

That is not accurate, just as we can walk into any Bank and many public spaces where they have signs posted telling everyone to remove any hat or head covering, and they call it security when it is just religious bigotry.

The west is very bigoted against all things Islam.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:There have been lots of positive people who knew God, as like the Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Muhammad, Abe Lincoln, Joan of Arc, and lots more, so there is no reason as to why you or I or anyone can not know God too.
From my experience, the so called "true believers" who "know" God are too passive to do anything about the tyrants and fascists who also believe, but decided to use God as a weapon to oppress.

I agree that the vast majority of people in every religion have fallen short, but that is a human defect and not a defect of God.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:I agree that there is nothing to be afraid of, and everybody gets saved in the end, so there is nothing to fear about God at all.
That, to me, is a more enlightened approach to spirituality. I told my family (who are Christians) the same thing -- that if there is a God and a Heaven, then we ALL go there. I don't believe for a nanosecond that there's a cosmic bouncer kicking people out of the afterlife because they didn't join some specific religious cult.

In this we have some agreement and harmony.

Very Happy

by Greatest I am Fri Sep 27, 2013 2:10 pm

JP Cusick wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Well at least you did not deny that he is shown as a genocidal son murderer. Why you would want that God who is more of a Satan than a God?
I do not deny that you view the God of the Bible as a "genocidal son murderer" but that does not mean that I agree with you.

My understanding is that Jesus had a choice and Jesus decided Himself to sacrifice Himself, and it was important that it was a self sacrifice.

Gandhi said once that Jesus wore a crown of thorns as His nonviolent civil disobedience - and I agree with that perspective. Also Jesus did not have to carry His own cross but this too was an act of defiance, and the point was that Jesus was giving an example, so anyone can follow His lead - or not.

It is an important distinction to know that Jesus was not God, and not part of any silly "trinity" either, and every person throughout humanity are sons and daughters of God.

Greatest I am wrote:You indicate that you do not fear death so why sell your soul to Satan. You said that we are all save regardless so why do you not seek a God with decent morals?
Since everyone does get saved - then any moral is optional.

If you go murder some one then you might go to jail (or not), and your conscience with afflict you, but the option is still ours.

But God is not optional, as if you can pick which God you like or approve of, and then reject the God(s) which you see as unworthy, well no, we do not have that option.

Jesus did not volunteer. ---- I do my Fathers will.

You have to ignore many scriptures to maintain your view. If you want to be that dysfunctional I cannot help you.

Interesting that you think you can get into heaven thinking that morals are optional and use that as a justification for not taking the moral high ground.

It is a good thing there is no hell or you would undoubtedly end there.

You are a pathetic example of what a moral man would be.

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Fri Sep 27, 2013 3:18 pm

Greatest I am wrote: Jesus did not volunteer. ---- I do my Fathers will.

You have to ignore many scriptures to maintain your view. If you want to be that dysfunctional I cannot help you.

That is such a simple concept and even simple words and yet you fail to see what is so glaringly obvious.

Both you and I can choose to do the "will of God" or we can choose not to do so, and Jesus had the same choice just as any other person.

So yes Jesus volunteered just as you and I can volunteer today.

In my view the ONLY way that you can not see that simple distinction is only because you refuse to see even the simplest of truths.

You claim that I ignore the scripture while you ignore the obvious, so no, you can not help me as you need to first help your self.

Greatest I am wrote:
Interesting that you think you can get into heaven thinking that morals are optional and use that as a justification for not taking the moral high ground.

It is a good thing there is no hell or you would undoubtedly end there.

You are a pathetic example of what a moral man would be.

Going to heaven is a traditional orthodox Christian concept which apparently you cling to, but I do not.

The true gospel was about a coming "Kingdom of God" being "on earth as it is in heaven" and that is my belief, and I call that as a "belief" or even as "faith" because it is a prophecy about the future and not a knowledge about the present realities.

Link Kingdom of Heaven on Earth
Link On earth as it is in Heaven

Of course I agree that there is no place of "hell" other than the common grave, but I like to tell people who believe in that barbaric "Hell" idea that I accept and choose the hell rather than any alternative in which other people might be in a hell.

And I might even agree with you that I am "a pathetic example of what a moral man would be" but I mean a failure by the standards which I understand, because I do not see where you understand what the words mean. I do not pretend to be a Saint or a Prophet or Apostle but I see myself as just helping to deliver the messages.

Exclamation

by Shirina Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:32 pm

JP Cusick wrote:Link = Islamic Dress Code.

What's interesting with the provided link is how there is a long spiel about dress codes for women but a short little paragraph regarding dress codes for men. Such is the way of patriarchal, often misogynistic religions. And I really don't understand religion's obsession with women covering their hair. Since when is hair a big sexual turn-on? Ever hang around guys at a bar? No one ever says, "Wow, look at the hair on THAT girl!" No, they are commenting on boobs and asses and that's about it.

JP Cusick wrote:But God is not optional, as if you can pick which God you like or approve of, and then reject the God(s) which you see as unworthy, well no, we do not have that option.

Of course God is an option given that gods of all stripes are invented. We are free to accept or reject belief as is appropriate for each individual. Even if, by some fluke, a God of some kind does exist, we are still free to worship it ... or not ... based on our own perceptions of what this God is. Any confusion on the matter is wholly God's fault for being so elusive and mysterious.

JP Cusick wrote:No, the Bible at that point is talking about physical health and "unclean" means unhealthy.

Like I said, being "unclean" is a spiritual condition, and here's why:

First, the Bible talks at length about being unclean. During menstruation, for instance, a woman is unclean for seven days, and anything and anyone she touches is unclean until the evening. (Leviticus 15:19-30). What's curious about this verse is -- why until the evening? Why not until they wash and bathe themselves? Why would someone or something continue to be "unclean" after it or they were physically scrubbed? Obviously, there is a spiritual side to being "unclean" that goes beyond mere washing otherwise the state of "uncleanliness" would end the moment someone bathed. And if it was about resting, well, WHY would anyone have to rest until evening after touching a blanket used by a menstruating woman? I mean, just how strenuous is touching a blanket anyway?

Secondly, there is almost always some sort of ridiculous sacrifice that goes along with becoming "clean" again. Using mestruation again as an example, on the eighth day after beginning mestruation, the woman must bring to a priest two turtledoves and two pigeons which are sacrificed. What's interesting here is how the priest must make atonement before God for the woman's unclean discharge. Now WHY would all of this ritualistic mambo-jahambo be necessary if it was simply about washing oneself? And WHY is a woman's menstruation cycle considered a SIN? There we go again, the woman being blamed for simply being a woman.

JP Cusick wrote:I really think that 2 weeks was not enough time as it needed to be longer, but at those times they probably viewed the 7 days as a long time.

Having a baby is ... having a baby. The gender of the baby should be irrelevant when deciding how long the woman should rest. Yet the Bible clearly says that a woman has to "rest" (is "unclean") twice as long for a female baby as for a male baby. Obviously, there is something more going on here than simple resting and bathing else there would be no distinction between genders. But there is, and that suggests something other than meeting physical needs.

JP Cusick wrote:while the religion of Islam has always (since Muhammad) resisted all immodesty by both male and females.

Yes, but you do not see men running around in veils, hijabs, and burqas. Men only have to worry about undressing in front of someone (how often does THAT really happen?). Women aren't even allowed to be human in public, all in pursuit of these insane notions of modesty. The idea of women being barred from showing their beauty in public is just one more misgynistic rule invented by men to a) keep men from getting aroused by women in public and b) to keep other men from looking at the husband's property ... err, I mean wife.

JP Cusick wrote:And in fact for myself I agree that the Islamic position is morally superior to that of Christianity (the west).

I only think that the Quran is more generous toward women than the Bible ... not that Islam is morally superior to Christianity. I think both religions are morally bankrupt. Both religions are equally guilty of containing verses and dogmas that teach people who to hate, who to make war upon, and the manner in which to kill. Fortunately for the West, Christianity has laid those verses and dogmas aside whereas Islam has brought them to the fore. Thus we have dozens being killed by a terrorist bomb in a Christian church and over 60 people killed in a Kenyan mall. Did you know the mall terrorists accosted various innocent people and asked them questions from the Quran? If they couldn't answer the questions, they were shot.

JP Cusick wrote:That is not accurate, just as we can walk into any Bank and many public spaces where they have signs posted telling everyone to remove any hat or head covering, and they call it security when it is just religious bigotry.

No, actually, it is not religious bigotry. People use hats to hide their faces from the security cameras. I remember there was some outrage when the state of Florida allowed Muslim women to have their drivers' license photo taken while wearing a burqa. Considering that a license is the primary form of ID in this country, how can a woman in a burqa prove who she is? Anyone could be behind that thing - even a male. There ARE genuine security issues.

In addition, it is an affront to Western culture, which overwhelmingly equates hiding one's face with illegal activity. Ski masks, handkerchiefs over the mouth and nose, eye masks like those worn by Zorro, etc. We are conditioned to be mistrustful of people who enter public places hiding themselves from sight. The West has a right to exercise it's own culture and should not have to always allow other cultures to do what they wish while in a Western nation. It is quite obvious that Western women aren't given any leeway in Muslim nations.

JP Cusick wrote:I agree that the vast majority of people in every religion have fallen short, but that is a human defect and not a defect of God.

I dunnae about that. I guess that depends on which God you worship or believe in. The God of the Bible is a rather pernicious character that leaves a lot of dead bodies in his wake. As long as the Old Testament remains part of Christianity, the morality of Christians will always be suspect. This is especially true given that most (if not all) Christians believe that anything God does is "good." Even when it is clearly immoral.

by Greatest I am Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:50 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I agree that the vast majority of people in every religion have fallen short, but that is a human defect and not a defect of God.

Then your God should stop making defective people.

Shirina has done a good job of showing your defective thinking.

Perhaps you should do a lot more praying. A lot. A lot. A lot. A lot.

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Sat Sep 28, 2013 5:41 pm

Shirina wrote: We are free to accept or reject belief as is appropriate for each individual. Even if, by some fluke, a God of some kind does exist, we are still free to worship it ... or not ... based on our own perceptions of what this God is. Any confusion on the matter is wholly God's fault for being so elusive and mysterious.

I really can not accept that, because my point has been and remains that God is not really elusive or mysterious, and it is just that human beings are too afraid to face up to the truth.

You are just aggressively rejecting it and denying everything - but it is still in your face and eye as you reject and deny. Cool

Shirina wrote:, there is almost always some sort of ridiculous sacrifice that goes along with becoming "clean" again. Using mestruation again as an example, on the eighth day after beginning mestruation, the woman must bring to a priest two turtledoves and two pigeons which are sacrificed. What's interesting here is how the priest must make atonement before God for the woman's unclean discharge. Now WHY would all of this ritualistic mambo-jahambo be necessary if it was simply about washing oneself? And WHY is a woman's menstruation cycle considered a SIN? There we go again, the woman being blamed for simply being a woman.

You simply inject your own negativity into everything when that negativity is not really there.

The two birds being sacrificed was really one bird of each being killed and then they poured the blood over the second bird of each and the second birds would fly away, and it was symbolic of the death of the Christ (anointed Savior) being killed and resurrected.

In those old days the woman's menstruation was viewed as unclean by the people (both men and women) and this symbolic sacrifice eased the fears of the old ignorant peoples.

Sacrificing the animals was a way of teaching the savages how to clean and cook the meat instead of eating it raw, see Leviticus 7:15-27. And "eating blood" meant eating raw flesh.

The old Testament is talking to very uncivilized barbaric savages, and it is NOT talking to or about sophisticated people.

Charles Darwin put it like this:
"But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians."
The Decent of Man.

Shirina wrote:The idea of women being barred from showing their beauty in public is just one more misgynistic rule invented by men to a) keep men from getting aroused by women in public and b) to keep other men from looking at the husband's property ... err, I mean wife.

That is just nonsense.

Telling Muslim women to take off their clothing in order to be liberated is what the west claims.

Islamic people telling us to cover up our nakedness is being misogynistic, but westerners wanting our women to run around without clothing is liberated.

Well no, no, no.

Here we glamorize and empower adultery, while there they do not want us to lust after their wives - so which promotes sin and which does not? duh.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greatest I am wrote:Then your God should stop making defective people.

Well it might seem odd, but the question you ask in the title of this thread was relevant.

People have turned God into a defect by the worshiping, and if we people would stop doing wrong and start doing right THEN it would be a benefit.

I view it like humans created the most sophisticated Space Shuttle that we could make, and yet one time in exploded on take-off and another time it burned up on reentry, but just because the thing had defects then that does not mean it was created as defective.

So too God created a super sophisticated life form (humanity) and having defects is simply a part of the process in creating anything.

Idea

by Greatest I am Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Then if he creates us defective he has no right to punish and if he remains absentee, he has no right to demand anything from us through second hand human voices.

Can you have relevance to those who do not know you?

No you cannot. And if they hear something second or third hand, how do they know it is from you?

They cannot and neither can we when hearing of or speaking of God.

You are lying to us just as the churches lie to their flock.

A man with morals would know this.

You can opine all you like about God and pixies but the moment you say they are real via second hand learning then you are lying if you cannot show proofs.

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:18 am

Greatest I am wrote:Then if he creates us defective he has no right to punish and if he remains absentee, he has no right to demand anything from us through second hand human voices.

Can you have relevance to those who do not know you? No you cannot.

I do believe that we have already established (or agreed) that there in no such place as "Hell", and everybody gets saved, so there is no punishment other then the punishing that we humans inflict onto ourselves and onto each other.

Secondly I have demonstrated that God is not "absentee" as it is people like your self who make your self as absentee by your denials and your rejections.

You refusing to face up to God does not mean that God is absentee.

So you have no merit in your words.

Greatest I am wrote:
And if they hear something second or third hand, how do they know it is from you?

They cannot and neither can we when hearing of or speaking of God.

You are lying to us just as the churches lie to their flock.

A man with morals would know this.

You can opine all you like about God and pixies but the moment you say they are real via second hand learning then you are lying if you cannot show proofs.

We are expected to use our brain and our conscience and our rightful judgments and our sincerity - because then we can easily determine what is true and accurate as opposed to what is untrue or inaccurate.

Having rightful morals is indeed a way to get to the truth, but it takes a bit more than just that.

The truth does not matter if it comes from a drunken bum laying in a gutter - or if it is found in a dirty worn out fictional book - as it is only up to our self to determine what is and what is not the truth.

The messenger does not matter so much as the message.

Idea

by Greatest I am Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:53 am

"You refusing to face up to God does not mean that God is absentee."

I have faced the only true God although I do not like to use that corrupted title for the one I found.

I have claimed apotheosis. Have or do you?

Regards
DL

by Shirina Sun Sep 29, 2013 3:33 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I really can not accept that, because my point has been and remains that God is not really elusive or mysterious, and it is just that human beings are too afraid to face up to the truth.

Not only is God elusive and mysterious, he is non-existent. The only method by which any evidence at all can be scrounged up is through cryptic clues and contrived rationalizations. Personal experiences count for very little when it comes to establishing what is real. Otherwise, we would have to accept every alien abduction, every encounter with Bigfoot, and everyone claiming to be Napoleon as real and authentic.

In addition, I have said it many times: All believers think they have a line on the "truth." You're not any different from all the rest who claim to know what the "truth" is. However, I do believe there is an objective reality, one independent of how our senses twist and distort that reality. Your version of the truth is no more credible than any other version of the truth, and given the 20,000 different Christian denominations and sects, there are an awful lot of versions. In an objective reality, thus far, there is no proof or evidence that some kind of supreme being exists.

JP Cusick wrote:Secondly I have demonstrated that God is not "absentee" as it is people like your self who make your self as absentee by your denials and your rejections.

Obviously I'm not convinced, else we wouldn't be having this discussion. My denials and rejections come from the fact that I haven't experienced anything in this life to make me believe there is a God of any kind. I realize I can't point to every star and every dimension and claim that no God resides there, but in my own life, which is all I can speak for, there is no compelling reason for me to suddenly start worshiping a presumed deity that hasn't done anything to assert himself.

JP Cusick wrote:You refusing to face up to God does not mean that God is absentee.

There's nothing to face up to. Yeah, the Christians essentially say the same thing: You have to go looking for God, then open up yourself to his will, and place your life into his hands (etc. etc.). Except when you go looking for God, there's usually a specific reason, and then you often find exactly what you're looking for. Does that mean God is real? Not at all. It simply means that, in any form of investigation, leaping to a conclusion before gathering the evidence is a tainted way of perceiving the world.

JP Cusick wrote:and it was symbolic of the death of the Christ (anointed Savior) being killed and resurrected.

How could that be when these kinds of sacrifices were pre-Christ? After all, they appear in the Old Testament whereas the coming of Christ is supposed to have alleviated humanity from having to practice copious amounts of animal cruelty.

JP Cusick wrote:The old Testament is talking to very uncivilized barbaric savages, and it is NOT talking to or about sophisticated people.

Yes, that is indeed true. However, the Bible kept them uncivilized and barbaric. Unfortunately, the Bible did an abysmal job of actually educating these people and instead just gave them a long list of rules without any explanation. After all, God could have simply told the Hebrews that menstruation is just a natural function of the body so there is no reason to get all uptight about it. Instead, there's all of this ridiculousness about being "unclean" and murdering animals to appease God (who created women like that in the first place, right?)

The Bible condones slavery instead of trying to abolish it, and it even smiles upon the idea of genocide and kidnapping virgins as war booty. This book is partially responsible for their barbarism. And let's not forget the wonderful "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" passage, eight little words that have caused the deaths of millions over the centuries; people are still being murdered for those words even today. Did God bother describing precisely what a witch was? Did he list the signs and symptoms of being a witch? Of course not. Instead, human beings were allowed to make up their own definitions, tainted as they were with fear and paranoia. Thus Hebrews - and Christians - were able to practice their barbarity for two thousand years before science, knowledge, and enlightenment came to Europe.

JP Cusick wrote:Telling Muslim women to take off their clothing in order to be liberated is what the west claims.

No, it doesn't. The West claims that being able to choose what to wear is liberating. If someone still wants to wear a burqa, they can ... but no one should be forced to wear it day in and day out every day for life. It's all about choice, Mr. Cusick, and if a woman wants to wear that cocktail dress you linked, she should have the freedom to do so without fear of being accosted by morality police who can tie her to a post and lash her dozens of times.

JP Cusick wrote:Islamic people telling us to cover up our nakedness is being misogynistic, but westerners wanting our women to run around without clothing is liberated.

Who, exactly, is running around without clothing? America has plenty of anti-lewdness laws, and to my knowledge, you'll be arrested pretty quickly if you parade through public naked. You're trying to balance out the extremism of Islam with Western extremism -- even though Western extremism doesn't really exist. Islam wants a woman to be covered from head to toe in an amorphous sack, so, in order for you to use a Western extreme, you have to conclude that Western women are running around with no clothes at all. Of course, that isn't true, so this particular premise falls flat. To make matters worse, no one is forcing Western women to wear "no clothes." In the West, women can wear pretty much whatever they want to in public, and that's how it should be.

And yes, these rules are very much a product of misogyny. Even Muslims admit that women are often forced to cover themselves so that men won't get aroused. It's just a way for men to duck their own responsibilities by keeping it their pants.

JP Cusick wrote:Here we glamorize and empower adultery

Do you seriously believe that adultery occurs because of what a woman wears? Honestly? Shocked

What's next? That rape is all about the sex?

JP Cusick wrote:while there they do not want us to lust after their wives

And that's why it is misogynistic, Mr. Cusick. They ... who is "they"? Yeah, the men. Do the women have any say at all? No. Instead, men think they can wrap up their wives like a mummy so that other men won't lust after them ... like keeping your car in the garage so your neighbor won't be envious. It's all about control, dominance, and property ownership. After all, there is obviously no trust present in these relationships; is the woman incapable of telling a lustful man "no"? Or do Islamic men believe that women are too weak and sinful to decline an advance?

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except that which ordinarily appears thereof and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their [maharim]..." sura 24:31

Yes, guard their private parts. It says not to display their "adornment" (whatever that means) that doesn't ordinarily appear. That last part is particularly important as it says implicitly that only body parts that you don't ordinarily see should be covered. Okay, Islam is still fairly conservative, but I would think a person's head and face is something that "ordinarily appears," wouldn't you? Men, that's right, men, have interpreted the Quran to turn beautiful women into featureless blobs with no identity. You can't even wave hello to friends you pass on the street because ... all the women look exactly the same! What kind of life is that? Yet, through centuries of conditioning and indoctrinating by male imams, a lot of women think they have to wear these nasty garments else the law or God (or both) will be angry with them.

The point is: A woman can dress modestly without having to wear a "modesty uniform" that robs utterly a woman of her own personal identity. This is modesty in the extreme. Plus, like I said, you have no conception of how uncomfortable it is. Here's an experiment. Tonight when you go to bed, put the blanket over you completely and time how long it takes for you to be slathered in your own sweat due to the fact that your own body heat and exhalations have very few avenues of escape. It's like a miniature greenhouse effect. Keep in mind, this is while you're keeping still and, presumably, in a comfortable atmosphere. Now think what it must be like when you're in 100 degree heat and moving around. It IS rather torturous in its own way, so ...

by trevorw2539 Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:09 pm

'It says not to display their "adornment" (whatever that means) that doesn't ordinarily appear.'

Ornaments, make-up, attractive garments worn under outer garments.

by JP Cusick Sun Sep 29, 2013 8:53 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
I have faced the only true God although I do not like to use that corrupted title for the one I found.

I agree that the corrupt title of "God" is very inaccurate, but to fight the common language usage is too much for me to do.

In a way I see it as complying to the commandment of - Do not take thy name in vain - because the more accurate name(s) for God would be trampled under foot by the barbarians if they knew of it.

Greatest I am wrote:
I have claimed apotheosis. Have or do you?

No, indeed I do not, and I find it unsettling that you would make such a claim.

I claim the low-road as the bottom of the barrel for me.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++\

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:and it was symbolic of the death of the Christ (anointed Savior) being killed and resurrected.
How could that be when these kinds of sacrifices were pre-Christ? After all, they appear in the Old Testament whereas the coming of Christ is supposed to have alleviated humanity from having to practice copious amounts of animal cruelty.

Many things in the old Testament are prophesies of the Christ, and it is a hot point of conflict for centuries between the Jews and Christians.

One of many links here = Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled In Jesus' Life

And it is correct that Jesus stopped the animal sacrificing, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, but too many people still feed off of the butchered animals ever after including today.

Eating animal flesh today is the same ritual except now today it is just being barbaric without having the old religious connection.

Idea

by Greatest I am Sun Sep 29, 2013 9:59 pm

Yet you say you know God and that is impossible without apotheosis.

You have been caught in a lie. Repent.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:01 pm

"And it is correct that Jesus stopped the animal sacrificing, because Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice,"

I have an ides says God, let's put an end to barbaric and immoral human sacrifice by having one.

Someone is insane. I wonder who.

Regards
DL

by JP Cusick Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:37 pm

Shirina wrote:Yes, that is indeed true. However, the Bible kept them uncivilized and barbaric. Unfortunately, the Bible did an abysmal job of actually educating these people and instead just gave them a long list of rules without any explanation.

You are criticizing the older testament while ignoring the New Testament.

There was a big huge turning point - when the Christ came along.

The old Testament was given to the uncivilized and barbaric bunch, and then came the more enlightened message in the New Testament.

The old is a very negative document, while the new is the more positive side.

The old says do not, do not, do not, while the new says to give, to love, to bless, etc.

That Bible is what brought down the old Roman Empire, and it is still the thing which keeps Rome from ever rising again.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:Telling Muslim women to take off their clothing in order to be liberated is what the west claims.
No, it doesn't. The West claims that being able to choose what to wear is liberating. If someone still wants to wear a burqa, they can ... but no one should be forced to wear it day in and day out every day for life. It's all about choice,

So you try to play both sides, since your previous posting you cheered on the western paranoia and bigotry laws of removing any head covering when entering a Bank or Public building as "safety" against those scary Muslims, and yet here again you are preaching some "freedom of choice" and I say that you playing both sides is extremely disingenuous of you.

Of course you also leave out that one huge big point that Muslim Women are the ones who enforce the dress code onto each other, just as here in the west the Women pressure other women to wear the high heals and the make-up and to dress down, and it is western Women who teach this to their children.

You and the west are telling Muslim Women to take off their clothes and start dressing like the western licentiousness and that is not respecting the religious choices made by the Muslim Women.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:Here we glamorize and empower adultery
Do you seriously believe that adultery occurs because of what a woman wears? Honestly?

That is your claim as I said no such thing.

Our society glamorizes adultery in our society and it empowers adultery in our laws.

The laws include such things as prenuptial agreements and temporary marriage and our Divorce Industry and Child Support and Custody laws and just an entire system based on dividing families and destroying marriages.

When we have a social structure along with harsh laws that empower both the adultery and the adulterer then I find it as unreal to blame the Men and Women (the husband and wife) who get trampled under by this reality.

Idea

by Shirina Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:12 pm

JP Cusick wrote:That Bible is what brought down the old Roman Empire, and it is still the thing which keeps Rome from ever rising again.

Once reason why I say that the Bible kept people barbaric. For all its flaws, Rome was civilization in Europe. When Rome fell, so too did civility, the rule of law, and democracy. Much of science, technology, hygiene, and astronomy went with it -- which is why the period after Rome's fall is called The Dark Ages. If not for the nearly 1000 years humanity spent living in fear, paranoia, and poverty while governed by churches and clergy, perhaps we would be 1000 years further along than we are now.

Whatever the New Testament might say about loving and giving, the Old Testament is still there. As long as the New is still attached to the Old, there will be those -- and MANY of those -- who will reach into the immoral abyss of the Old to justify bigotry, hatred, warfare, and intolerance. Even today, the Bible keeps us barbaric. If you want to see what I mean, check out my blog spot on this forum later on. I have something to say there about this subject.

JP Cusick wrote:So you try to play both sides, since your previous posting you cheered on the western paranoia and bigotry laws of removing any head covering when entering a Bank or Public building as "safety" against those scary Muslims, and yet here again you are preaching some "freedom of choice" and I say that you playing both sides is extremely disingenuous of you.

What's really disingenuous is you insisting that I must take an extremist viewpoint on this issue. One thing that I am sick to death of, Mr. Cusick, is religion believing it has unlimited rights, that the right to practice a religion trumps all other rights, and whenever those rights are curtailed, it is bigotry and religious persecution. What a big steaming pile of bullshit. I'm tired of religious wackjobs crying whenever they don't get their own way -- be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, or whomever.

As far as the burka is concerned, I am NOT playing both sides. Rather, I am placing limits on what religion can dictate - yeah, limits, something I know the believers absolutely hate. You seem to expect me to take an extreme side: Either women can wear the burqa all the time or they can't wear it at all. No ... I'm simply saying that women should be free to voluntarily wear it except under very specific circumstances. Remember that the Quran says nothing about women covering up from head to toe - wearing the burqa is a cultural affectation and NOT a divine mandate. Well, the West has a right to practice its own culture, as well, and we are not required to knuckle under to every demand made by a religion. If we start excepting certain people from obeying the law, then we make those who are not excepted second class citizens. When the law only applies to certain individuals, then we take a step backward from an egalitarian society.

JP Cusick wrote:Of course you also leave out that one huge big point that Muslim Women are the ones who enforce the dress code onto each other

This is completely irrelevant, which is why I didn't bother mentioning it. Although you have to wonder WHY women are enforcing a strict dress code on other women. Trust me, the idea did not come from women.

JP Cusick wrote:You and the west are telling Muslim Women to take off their clothes and start dressing like the western licentiousness and that is not respecting the religious choices made by the Muslim Women.

Here's a small bit of advice. When I say something, I mean exactly what I say. My words are not Bible verses to be interpreted to suit your own agenda. Statements like the one above is your interpretation of what I said ... but it isn't what I said. You'll be better served in this debate if you take my words at face value and cease trying to put words into my mouth.

First of all, I am NOT telling Muslim women to take off their burqas and throw them away. If they want to wear them, fine. How many times do I have to say this? But we DO reserve the right to be able to identify Muslim women in this country which means, no, I don't think Muslim women should wear a damned burqa when getting their drivers license photo nor should they be able to enter into secure facilities with their faces covered. If their religion is so demanding that they can't uncover for those few sets of circumstances, then they can do their banking online and they can get a friend to drive them around. Religion should NOT be a free pass to do whatever the hell you want irrespective of our laws.

Secondly, here's an observation you can make in your own town. Go out onto the street, find a bench, and watch the women who pass by. Count how many of them are wearing skimpy or licentious outfits. If you come up with even one, I'll be amazed. You're talking like a Muslim who never stepped foot in America, someone who gets all of their information from television and the media. Yeah, like women walk around in bikinis, lingerie, and "little black dresses" all the time. Your accusation of licentiousness is so overstated and hyperbolized as to make it close to a self-parody.

It is rather ridiculous, though, that I can drive down the street and see men mowing their lawns in nothing but a pair of shorts ... but women have to wear so many layers of clothing that we could actually walk in space and be protected from the hostile vacuum found there. It seems like all of the modesty codes only apply to women, which is because men have made the rules for a very long time.

JP Cusick wrote:The laws include such things as prenuptial agreements and temporary marriage and our Divorce Industry and Child Support and Custody laws and just an entire system based on dividing families and destroying marriages.

I've noticed that those who scream about "family values" the loudest are quite often the ones who are eventually found engaging in a same-sex relationship, using prostitutes, or in the process of getting a divorce. LOL!

So what would you have us do in this country? Would you create a Family Fascism law that prevents divorce, forces husbands and wives to live together regardless of the conditions, and orders single men and women to get married and have a family or be fined and eventually jailed?

Like it or not, marriage is an unnatural state for human beings. Marriage was also something society invented when humanity's average life span was, maybe, 40. No one expected the life span to double and then some ... forcing couples to remain together for 50 or 60 years. Most of the time, it doesn't work. Why? Because, well hell, people often change in four or five decades. Suddenly the person you married is no longer compatible with you. Both of you are now miserable and, well ... this is really a topic for a different thread. I have my own well-researched opinion on this.

Bottom line is that you can't force people to make a marriage work. It either will or it won't, but it has to work naturally. Otherwise, it really does become family fascism. My parents split up when I was five years-old. I have no regrets about that because they truly did not belong together -- and I was much happier when they divorced because then I didn't have to sit up all night listening to them fight.

JP Cusick wrote:When we have a social structure along with harsh laws that empower both the adultery and the adulterer

I really have no idea what you're talking about here. What "harsh laws" do we have that actually empowers adultery? I don't see any. Oh, and laws do not cause divorces, Mr. Cusick. You're really barking up the wrong tree with that argument. Laws may make it easier to get a divorce, but I can tell you from my own personal experience: The kids are actually more miserable living in a home where the mom and dad can't stand each other than they are if the parents got a divorce. Forcing them by law to stay together, well, that's just stupid and draconian.

by JP Cusick Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:48 pm

Shirina wrote: The Bible condones slavery instead of trying to abolish it, and it even smiles upon the idea of genocide and kidnapping virgins as war booty.

I realize it is hard for you to see but it was the people who were barbaric and cruel and it was God who was putting restraints on their barbarism.

The word and the idea of "slavery" in the Bible is meant to make the slavery as equivalent to being an employee, and keeping the "virgins" as booty was better than killing them off too.

Where God declares "an eye for and eye and tooth for a tooth" then God was limiting the violent cruelty as in "only" an eye for an eye and ONLY a tooth for a tooth, so then the barbarians would stop murdering their neighbors just for an eye or for loosing a tooth.

When God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac then that was the ending of human sacrifice by those savages.

Even with the slavery in the USA then the word of God could not stop the evil of the slavery as it had to be done through the violent force of the military, because we humans are the savages.

Shirina wrote:This book is partially responsible for their barbarism. And let's not forget the wonderful "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" passage, eight little words that have caused the deaths of millions over the centuries; people are still being murdered for those words even today. Did God bother describing precisely what a witch was? Did he list the signs and symptoms of being a witch? Of course not. Instead, human beings were allowed to make up their own definitions, tainted as they were with fear and paranoia. Thus Hebrews - and Christians - were able to practice their barbarity for two thousand years before science, knowledge, and enlightenment came to Europe.

The fact that God does not give a precise definition of a witch is what kept the butchery and inhumanity from being worse.

There really are such things as witches and Demons and possession, and in the old days a Witch and Demons had far more power, while the confusion of today takes away that power.

In the new testament Jesus tells us to put out Demons and thereby takes away the power of Witches (male or female).

I expect that you deny the existence of such things, but once one learns how to deal with the things then the need to fear them just goes away.

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:That Bible is what brought down the old Roman Empire, and it is still the thing which keeps Rome from ever rising again.
Once reason why I say that the Bible kept people barbaric. For all its flaws, Rome was civilization in Europe. When Rome fell, so too did civility, the rule of law, and democracy. Much of science, technology, hygiene, and astronomy went with it -- which is why the period after Rome's fall is called The Dark Ages. If not for the nearly 1000 years humanity spent living in fear, paranoia, and poverty while governed by churches and clergy, perhaps we would be 1000 years further along than we are now.

Old Rome was a violent evil place, and its prolonged existence was a curse on them for killing the Christ.

Exodus 20:5b "... for I Yahweh Elohim am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"

A "generation" is 120 years per Bible, so the 4th generation is some 480 years, which is about how long the Roman Empire stood after they killed the Christ.

The greatest curse that anyone can receive is to be let alone for their sin to continue unstopped.

Shirina wrote: Whatever the New Testament might say about loving and giving, the Old Testament is still there. As long as the New is still attached to the Old, there will be those -- and MANY of those -- who will reach into the immoral abyss of the Old to justify bigotry, hatred, warfare, and intolerance. Even today, the Bible keeps us barbaric. If you want to see what I mean, check out my blog spot on this forum later on. I have something to say there about this subject.

You are correct in this, and it is a sad reality.

The fault is still with humans who want to do evil, so people seek out and search for justification of their evils, and that is the sin.

Otherwise the older testament is a great source of important information and revelation.

Shirina wrote:It is rather ridiculous, though, that I can drive down the street and see men mowing their lawns in nothing but a pair of shorts ... but women have to wear so many layers of clothing that we could actually walk in space and be protected from the hostile vacuum found there. It seems like all of the modesty codes only apply to women, which is because men have made the rules for a very long time.

You may have a point here, and maybe both men and women could go naked or near naked as done in the old days.

Wear nothing but a loin cloth or maybe wear nothing at all.

But not for me, as I do find it true - that modesty is a virtue.

Shirina wrote:
Like it or not, marriage is an unnatural state for human beings. Marriage was also something society invented when humanity's average life span was, maybe, 40. No one expected the life span to double and then some ... forcing couples to remain together for 50 or 60 years. Most of the time, it doesn't work. Why? Because, well hell, people often change in four or five decades. Suddenly the person you married is no longer compatible with you. Both of you are now miserable and, well ... this is really a topic for a different thread. I have my own well-researched opinion on this.

You say marriage is an unnatural state, and I would say that promiscuity and multiple partners is also a natural state.

So is violent warfare, and stealing is very natural, just as is greed and lust and selfishness and hatred are all very natural indeed.

Marriage is meant to be the high position, as marriage is to be the top of the tree of virtue, and as such it needs to be protected from dishonorable assaults and that use to be done and now it is not.

Idea

by Shirina Wed Oct 02, 2013 3:32 pm

JP Cusick wrote:I realize it is hard for you to see but it was the people who were barbaric and cruel and it was God who was putting restraints on their barbarism.

No, it wasn't. Most laws that we're familiar with, such as laws against murder and theft, have been around for thousands of years before Christianity was even conceived of. And we ARE talking about Christianity here since the laws in question are from the Bible.

And speaking of which, how does telling people how long to wear their hair keep people from barbarism? Or not wearing blended fabrics? Or planting more than one type of crop in the same field? I would suggest, and I'm sure you'd agree, that if America had laws that sentenced adulterers, non-virgin women (and only women), witches, rebellious children, and homosexuals to death using a cruel method like stoning, that most in this country - including you - would find those laws to be barbaric.

Somehow using barbarism to prevent barbarism doesn't make a lot of sense.

JP Cusicke wrote:The word and the idea of "slavery" in the Bible is meant to make the slavery as equivalent to being an employee, and keeping the "virgins" as booty was better than killing them off too.

Well, we've been over the whole "employee" comparison, which you know full well is a load of bunk. I am very aware of the attempt modern Christians are making in changing the meaning of the Old Testament to make it sound a little less ... harsh. But I'm not fooled and neither are most people. Employees are not bought and sold nor are they beaten -- things the Bible specifically condones when referring to slaves. They are slaves in every sense of the word; they are property owned by another human being.

As for kidnapping virgins being better than killing them ... that may be, but how does that justify kidnapping and a lifetime servitude? You can't justify one crime by claiming it is better than another crime. Just try using that defense in a court of law. What makes this atrocity even worse was that it was ordered by God himself -- that perfect, loving, fair, just, and kind God to which Christians devote their lives.

JP Cusick wrote:so then the barbarians would stop murdering their neighbors just for an eye or for loosing a tooth.

Oh really? You mean like ...

“This is what the Lord Almighty says... ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)

Stop murdering your neighbors! Well ... except those guys ... and you can kill those people over there ... and there ... and if you feel like it, you can take out that city ... and that one ...

JP Cusick wrote:Even with the slavery in the USA then the word of God could not stop the evil of the slavery

How could the word of God stop slavery when the word of God supported slavery?

JP Cusick wrote:The fact that God does not give a precise definition of a witch is what kept the butchery and inhumanity from being worse.

Your arguments are growing rather desperate, don't you think? Imagine if a crime were committed but the only description the police have is: "Male with blonde hair and blue eyes." Now every male fitting that vague and generic description becomes a suspect. Should the police and the judge lock up every male with blonde hair and blue eyes? Because having no description of what being a witch actually entails, the population and the clergy is free to make up their own definitions, definitions that come from paranoid, xenophobic, and frightened minds.

Are you at all familiar with the Black Death? Untold numbers of people were put to death as "witches" because people assumed that the plague was a result of witchcraft. Over 100,000 women were butchered in Germany alone. The Jews were the next target and many of them fled to Poland because King Casimir the Great invited them into his country. Poland was the only safe haven. Incidentally, this was the reason why there were so many Jews in Poland at the time of the Holocaust, why there was a Warsaw Ghetto, etc.

But when picking on women and Jews was exhausted, the people even went after the clergy itself. Priests in small rural churches were massacred for being unable to pray away the plague. Humans weren't the only victims. Fear and paranoia over witches caused millions of cats to be exterminated as people believed cats were the familiars of witches.

All of this slaughter, butchery, and barbarism because the Bible never made it clear what the signs were of being a witch. And here you stand, telling me that not having such a description prevented it from being worse?

JP Cusick wrote:There really are such things as witches and Demons and possession, and in the old days a Witch and Demons had far more power, while the confusion of today takes away that power.

What removes their power in the modern era is a growing disbelief -- rationalism and science is taking away the mistrust and fear of the unknown because less and less is unknown. No longer do we have to point to witchcraft to explain plagues and natural disasters. I recently heard a story from a man who witnessed a so-called exorcism. The "possessed" girl had all of the symptoms of possession, the parents had a priest there performing the standard exorcism rituals, etc. But the man in question simply told the girl to "knock it off." Turns out, the girl was just doing it for attention -- Munchausen Syndrome -- because she had been molested by her father. Yeah, this is the kind of crap that happens when we stop looking for rational explanations and instead turn to the paranormal and religion for an answer.

JP Cusick wrote:Old Rome was a violent evil place, and its prolonged existence was a curse on them for killing the Christ.

The violence of Rome cannot hold a candle to the butchery and violence that took place after the fall ... what, with warlords and tribal chiefs massacring at will. Many of them had converted to Christianity then rampaged across the countryside murdering anyone who wouldn't convert. Yeah, that's how Christianity spread in Europe -- at swordpoint.

Rome was not a perfect place ... but then again, neither was America. And it still isn't. Does that mean America should be destroyed? As I said, Rome was civilization. What followed was chaos, anarchy, and savagery. Much of it was done in the name of religion, by the way.

And WHY should Rome be cursed for killing the Christ when that was the plan all along? That's what God WANTED to happen. Rome was merely playing the role God set for it. Right? I mean, think about it: If Rome hadn't killed the Christ, then Jesus never would have been crucified, there wouldn't be a religion called Christianity, and no one would have been "saved" and forgiven. Maybe we'd all be Jews, but more than likely, most of us would be pagan. This is why religion makes no sense. It's so easy to pick apart.

JP Cusick wrote:You are correct in this, and it is a sad reality.

That's why the Old Testament has to go. I see no profound revelations within that particular book. For the most part, all it does is chronicle the atrocities of God and the atrocities committed in the name of God by the Hebrews. I much prefer the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to any holy book.

JP Cusick wrote:But not for me, as I do find it true - that modesty is a virtue.

As do I ... for the most part. But I am grateful that I live in a place where I'm given the choice as to how to dress. At least for now. I shudder to think what would happen if some of these right-wing religious wackos ever came to power.

JP Cusick wrote:Marriage is meant to be the high position, as marriage is to be the top of the tree of virtue, and as such it needs to be protected from dishonorable assaults and that use to be done and now it is not.

Most people don't really understand what marriage was all about. It has only been within the last hundred years or so when people began marrying for love. Before that, marriage was all about politics and business and, not to belabor a point, is just one more example of how women were treated like chattel and property. They were just tokens exchanged between men to cement political or financial alliances. This is why it is still traditional for the prospective husband to ask the bride's father for his daughter's hand in marriage ... rather than asking the bride directly. The bride's father made the decision, not the bride, so that the father could ascertain whether the marriage would benefit him somehow. Marriage had nothing to do with love and it had nothing to do with the wants of the bride.

Marriage is an unnatural societal construct, mostly to mark women as "owned" by someone, not because the married couple were madly in love and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together.

by jackthelad Wed Oct 02, 2013 5:44 pm

Marriage is an unnatural societal construct, mostly to mark women as "owned" by someone, not because the married couple were madly in love and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together.

That is a load of garbage, i have been married 60 years and my wife is certainly not owned and neither am I. And it takes more than love to sustain a marriage, there has to be trust and above all friendship. I didn't have to ask her father either, her parents were both dead. I have 3 brothers and 2 sisters, all been married over 50 years, the same with the wife's rather large family of brothers and sisters. Sadly three of her brothers have passed away, still they all reached the over 50 year mark. There are still religions though that do arranged marriages, just like a cattle market, doing a bit bartering, Islam being the prime culprit.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:13 pm

Shirina wrote: [ Said a lot... ]

I tried to reply to you and the forum logged me out so the reply was lost and I do not want to go through that again.

I got the "newsletter" that the forum is going to delete people who are not active, and apparently it will not let me stay logged in either.

This will not work for me.

by JP Cusick Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:18 pm

Shirina wrote:
How could the word of God stop slavery when the word of God supported slavery?

There were lots of people as like the Abolitionist who preached that God did not support slavery.

When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.

Idea

by Shirina Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:35 pm

jackthelad wrote:That is a load of garbage, i have been married 60 years and my wife is certainly not owned and neither am I.

You can't change history by denying it. However well your own marriage turned out, you're the exception, not the rule. I never said you, specifically, had a relationship predicated on ownership, although many people still do. Too much jealousy, too much mistrust, too much possessiveness. It's even infused in our language when Valentine's Day cards proclaim, "Be mine!"

When the custom is marrying for love, you can expect a lot of failures. I did the math once using the prevailing statistics:

Let's say there's a room of 100 couples, and each couple, of course, will claim that their love for each other is greater than the love of everyone else in the room. Yet if the failure rate of non-marital relationships is roughly 90% (which isn't hard to obtain given that if you only date two people in your life and marry one of them, your failure rate is already 50%), that means 90 of those 100 couples will break up before they get married. The other 10 couples will marry ... but with a divorce rate of 50%, only 5 couples will stay married for life. Only 5 couples out of 100.

Now, add into those 5 couples the number of couples who aren't really happy or in love but stay together for other reasons: financial reasons, staying married for the children, women afraid to leave due to abuse, etc., then the odds of staying married AND being happy in the process simply aren't all that good.

I'm not trying to knock marriage, just telling you how things really are (and were).

by Shirina Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:37 pm

JP Cusick wrote:When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.

Well, truth be told, I don't consider chasing around mystical beings, cherry picking holy books, and having to rationalize my way out of logical anomalies as becoming "enlightened."

by snowyflake Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:21 pm

Hello Shirina Smile

Glad to see you are still here and kicking deluded butt in your usual erudite fashion. Smile

I may have brought some people over from Amazon. They were moderating, banning and deleting 'spiteful' posts.

I haven't got a spiteful bone in my body. Smile

Hope you are well and feeling ok.

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 4:52 am

Hiya Snowyflake, it's nice that you're back. Whenever you leave, I keep hoping you'll return. Smile

Yeah, it seems most of my challengers have flown the coop ... haven't seen JP Cusick or Polyglide for some time now.

Lots of things have changed in my life since you left ... not many of them good. Seems I have less time to be here than before, and I didn't have that much time before. headbang

Take care.

by JP Cusick Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:41 pm

Shirina wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.
Well, truth be told, I don't consider chasing around mystical beings, cherry picking holy books, and having to rationalize my way out of logical anomalies as becoming "enlightened."

That is not kicking any "diluted butt" as that is simply sticking your head into the ground so that you can not see or hear what is put in front of you.

So there is no real discussion with that kind of a perspective and so yes the discussion is thereby finished.

If your intention was simply to interfere and misdirect the discussion of religion on the religion board - then that was a success.

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote: [ Said a lot... ]
I tried to reply to you and the forum logged me out so the reply was lost and I do not want to go through that again.

I got the "newsletter" that the forum is going to delete people who are not active, and apparently it will not let me stay logged in either.

This will not work for me.

This too that the forum controls are used to limit and restrict the participation on the board is kind-of counter productive.

It certainly stifled my comments.

thumbsdown

by Shirina Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:12 pm

JP Cusick wrote:So there is no real discussion with that kind of a perspective and so yes the discussion is thereby finished.

So we were having a perfectly civil discussion and now, all of the sudden, you're getting pissy with me? Did someone kick your dog while you were away or what?

JP Cusick wrote:If your intention was simply to interfere and misdirect the discussion of religion on the religion board - then that was a success.

I have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about here. You'll have to let me in on the purpose behind this bizarre accusation.

JP Cusick wrote:This too that the forum controls are used to limit and restrict the participation on the board is kind-of counter productive.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly didn't manipulate forum controls. In fact, I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to boot someone off the forum if they click the reply button. Whatever you experienced, it was obviously a glitch or a problem with the servers and/or your ISP. I, for one, had nothing to do with it, and I really resent the accusation that you would believe I would stifle a debate I was actually ENJOYING by using admin functions.

By the way, I wasn't even here much over the past 4 or so days, so whatever happened, I'm not privy to it.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:16 pm

Belief in god is taught to children from a very young age in the u s of a, therefore you are either a prodestant or democrat. Very few atheists indeed is there JP. Most of you over there are god lovers, as that is how you are. Yet there is so much proof out there that not one of you will listen to to show that god does not exist. YET you would not listen to it if we tried, because god is so in-built into your lives and everyday living, and has been since childhood you are blinkered to his existence.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:12 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:Name me one, just one culture that is matriarchal. Yeah, I'll wait right here while you scour the internet looking for one. You might even find one in the distant past or in some remote corner of the world, but by and large -- in all the major cultures and civilzations, the system was, is, and always will be patriarchal.
The fact that there are none - is substantial evidence that all human beings want it to be this way.

Most human societies are inherently racist, and always have been, does that mean we should just accept this human flaw and never try and address it?

We have historical accounts like Queen Mary II insisted that her husband be named King in 1689 link HERE, and Queen Victoria shared power with her husband Albert 1840 link HERE, and here in the USA it was Oprah Winfrey who first launched Barack Obama to be President link HERE, and those are very famous examples but it happens every day with wives who want their husband to take the lead, just as in all religions the Ladies want a strong Man to lead the congregation, and that is NOT a defect as people do what people want and most Ladies want their Men to take the lead.

You're claiming to know what most of half the human population want, based on what? Three examples that you've cherry picked from an era when such behaviour was the norm.

You are twisting a human reality into a criticism which it does not deserve.

We see it in animal life too, as one male lion with 5 - 10 female lions, and that happens by design and by intent of all involved, and that is not done by some masculine manipulation or control over the females.

Well female spiders generally eat their male mates, as do the praying Mantis, if we're going to cite animal behaviour as a moral guide and abandon our own reason then we may be in trouble.

Shirina wrote: You claim in your statement that "women subjugated themselves to God and to their faith ..."

Well, if that's true, then aren't you admitting, perhaps inadvertantly, that God, religion and indeed ALL major faiths are inherently misogynistic? Because they are.

there's the clergy. Hmmm ... how many female priests do you suppose there are? How many female pastors and reverends? How many female imams? How many female rabbis? How many female Buddhist monks? How many female purohitas and archakas?
Women subjugate themselves because that is what the Women want, and most Men subjugate themselves to the leaders too, because both Men and Women act like sheep.

Women really have never wanted to be the Priest or Pastors and now-a-days when some Women do chose to take the lead then they will often recognize the dysfunction of it.

Again you seem to be bizarrely suggesting that you somehow know what most of one half of the female population are thinking, even historically, that's absurd.

And in fact the females were never subjugated, as the subjugation is a common theme throughout humanity for both male and female as just a part of the human condition.

Again just because historically something was the norm, slavery, racism, rapine, doesn't excuse our not fighting to change it, and the underlying human attitudes that cause it.

Shirina wrote:
And as another disgusting insult by a misogynistic religion invented and written by misogynistic males, Leviticus 12:2-5 states that if a woman gives birth to a boy, she is unclean for seven days, but if she gives birth to a girl, the mother is unclean for two weeks. Yep, girls are so disgusting that moms have to spend double the amount of time being "unclean" for having a female baby. Wow,
Most likely the Ladies were much happier to be given the 2 weeks instead of just 7 days, because now-a-days to rest and recover and to embrace the baby for over a month is becoming very common.

Back in the Bible days the male babies would be circumcised on the 8th day, which is probably why they only had 7 days to "clean" up.

That was an inequality stacked against the males, while it was a better deal for the females.

Shirina wrote: I suppose I could pick on Islam and the Quran by pointing out how that religion views women (which is actually better than the Bible), but the cultural aspects are quite readily apparent and shouldn't require me to even comment on them.
The Muslim Women want to wear the veil, and the teaching of Islam is that before the Profit came and saved the Arab world from its sins then the people were liken to the western licentiousness, and so the Muslims women wear the veil on purpose and they teach it to their children.

It is a funny if not a pathetic reality that westerners want to liberate the Muslim women by telling the Ladies to take off their clothes so then they too can be free Women like the sinful Women of the west - and yet the west can not figure out why the Muslims reject our license to sin.

What's funny is that you project your sexism onto others, by suggesting that men who recognise a woman's right to wear whatever she wants are somehow insisting she wears what they want, which is axiomatically wrong. Your nonsense about sin, and the way you try to link it to women having the freedom to dress and act as they wish speaks volumes here.

I have even known American Women who convert from Christianity over to Islam and they start wearing the covering here in the USA and they do it on purpose.

So a democracy that allows women to act as they choose then, unlike strict Muslim countries, try and imagine a woman wearing mak up and a mini skirt with high heels, bear with me, wlaking down the street in saudi Arabia or Tehran, of course the men there would simply say it was her right to decide how to live. I think not...

Also I found from the American Muslim converts that when the Lady wears a veil then it puts a huge burden onto their husband, because then the husband has to do the shopping and driving and the talking and so the veil is not a one-sided thing for a married couple to do - FYI.

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:17 am

Shirina wrote:Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly didn't manipulate forum controls. In fact, I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to boot someone off the forum if they click the reply button. Whatever you experienced, it was obviously a glitch or a problem with the servers and/or your ISP. I, for one, had nothing to do with it, and I really resent the accusation that you would believe I would stifle a debate I was actually ENJOYING by using admin functions.

I made no such accusation.

What I said and referred to was the forum newsletter - now if you did not get or see that email and do not know about the forum changes - then you are just out of the loop.

What I did was create a long reply to your comment and the forum deleted my comment (as I said in the previous comment), and that was done because of some new posting time limit which cut me off - so no, as my server and ISP are functioning just right.

I can not type fast so it is difficult for me to comply with a tight time limit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

stu wrote:Belief in god is taught to children from a very young age in the u s of a, therefore you are either a prodestant or democrat. Very few atheists indeed is there JP. Most of you over there are god lovers, as that is how you are. Yet there is so much proof out there that not one of you will listen to to show that god does not exist. YET you would not listen to it if we tried, because god is so in-built into your lives and everyday living, and has been since childhood you are blinkered to his existence.

Actually there are lots of Atheist in the USA, and we even teach Atheism in our schools.

I myself happen to agree with lots of the Atheist beliefs and doctrines - except for that one big thing = God.

There is a lot of proof that Christianity is wrong and superstitious and worse, but there is far more proof in a God then there is opposed.

Idea

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:34 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly didn't manipulate forum controls. In fact, I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to boot someone off the forum if they click the reply button. Whatever you experienced, it was obviously a glitch or a problem with the servers and/or your ISP. I, for one, had nothing to do with it, and I really resent the accusation that you would believe I would stifle a debate I was actually ENJOYING by using admin functions.
I made no such accusation.

What I said and referred to was the forum newsletter - now if you did not get or see that email and do not know about the forum changes - then you are just out of the loop.

What I did was create a long reply to your comment and the forum deleted my comment (as I said in the previous comment), and that was done because of some new posting time limit which cut me off - so no, as my server and ISP are functioning just right.

I can not type fast so it is difficult for me to comply with a tight time limit.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

stu wrote:Belief in god is taught to children from a very young age in the u s of a, therefore you are either a prodestant or democrat. Very few atheists indeed is there JP. Most of you over there are god lovers, as that is how you are. Yet there is so much proof out there that not one of you will listen to to show that god does not exist. YET you would not listen to it if we tried, because god is so in-built into your lives and everyday living, and has been since childhood you are blinkered to his existence.
Actually there are lots of Atheist in the USA, and we even teach Atheism in our schools.

I myself happen to agree with lots of the Atheist beliefs and doctrines - except for that one big thing = God.

There is a lot of proof that Christianity is wrong and superstitious and worse, but there is far more proof in a God then there is opposed.

I think you're incorrectly using the word proof when you mean evidence, there is no proof for the existence or non-existence of any deity. As for evidence for the existence of a Christian god, there certainly isn't any empirical evidence, and as an Atheist I'm not sure what other kind of evidence has any validity here, since the usual claim of experiential evidence would make all claims for all deities equally valid. I wonder if you could list a few "Atheist beliefs" for me as well, as an Atheist if I'm guilty of using belief rather than logic and reason I'm unaware of it, and would certainly like to eliminate such spurious thought processes from my reasoning, so it would be a great help.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:43 am

JP Cusick wrote:
Shirina wrote:
How could the word of God stop slavery when the word of God supported slavery?
There were lots of people as like the Abolitionist who preached that God did not support slavery.

When you only consider the evil preaching by evil people then you will never get your self enlightened.

The problem of course is that the bible clearly gives examples in the OT of god endorsing slavery, and the abolitionists were a minority that changed the attitudes of a majority, in countries that were almost exclusively Christian anyway, so claiming the abolitionists were Christians is a bit like claiming half of them were men.

Your last sentence is illogical as it's a moral duty to consider whether other peoples claims and actions are good or bad, right or wrong. Evil itself is a human concept borne of human logic and reason after all.

by JP Cusick Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:58 am

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Most human societies are inherently racist, and always have been, does that mean we should just accept this human flaw and never try and address it?

I do not see any such comparison between racism and gender differences.

As they say = You are comparing apples to oranges - because they are 2 different things which do not compare.

What I said about Patriarchal societies instead of Matriarch is that there is historical evidence that both genders want it to be Patriarchal.

For me I like the British Queens and I expect to vote for Hillary Clinton to be the next US President, but I did NOT like Margarette Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. So my own view of gender is not rigid.

In racism we do not have any race who wants to be subordinate, but evidence shows us that females like it when the males take the lead - and that appears to hold true both in the animal world as it is in humanity, and that is not an insult because evidence shows that the Ladies control which Man takes their lead.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
You're claiming to know what most of half the human population want, based on what? Three examples that you've cherry picked from an era when such behaviour was the norm.

Those were three (3) big huge examples, so they do count as big huge evidence.

You are free to tell of any example(s) to the contrary - if you can imagine any such thing.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
JP Cusick wrote:We see it in animal life too, as one male lion with 5 - 10 female lions, and that happens by design and by intent of all involved, and that is not done by some masculine manipulation or control over the females.
Well female spiders generally eat their male mates, as do the praying Mantis, if we're going to cite animal behaviour as a moral guide and abandon our own reason then we may be in trouble.

I did not give it as some "moral" guide, as I gave it as realistic evidence.

Kind of a huge distinction there.

Not a moral guide but realistic evidence.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Again just because historically something was the norm, slavery, racism, rapine, doesn't excuse our not fighting to change it, and the underlying human attitudes that cause it.

That is fine, as I am all for fighting any injustice.

But one must first find out that the people them selves view it as an injustice.

Here in the USA they want Women to be treated equal in the military, and yet I know many Women who do not ever want to be drafted or sent into any war, and they do not want that for their children either.

In fact my view is that being drafted for war is horrible for anyone including horrible to do to young men, so I say asking for equal rights for females regarding warfare is absolutely inhuman and perverted.

Any nit-wit male or female who wants to volunteer then yes sure - but do not draft any of them.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
So a democracy that allows women to act as they choose then, unlike strict Muslim countries, try and imagine a woman wearing mak up and a mini skirt with high heels, bear with me, wlaking down the street in saudi Arabia or Tehran, of course the men there would simply say it was her right to decide how to live. I think not...

That sentence is almost completely incoherent and incompetent - just FYI.

What you describe is a distortion and injustice done to females here in the West, and it would not be done in any Islamic Country.

Idea

by Sponsored content