Four questions for Christians

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The point I've been trying to make is that religions are subject to unchanging moral codes, which are interpretations of the natural law. The irreligious don't have these, rather they rely on their natural moral compasses and governmental laws. Moral compasses can be overridden, and laws can be changed.

I'm done with you on this topic. It's a waste of time. You admitted that morals are subject to evolution, and now you back step to only religions are. Look. Whatever. Think whatever you like. You've danced back and forth and back and forth and your stance has changed more than 10 times in this whole discussion on where morals come from, congratulations, you wore me out, and i will not repeat arguments just because you want to sound like you won the last exchange.

You can't defend slavery if you are kidnapping or buying free people. Perhaps, if you captured hostile armies in war, it wouldn't be anything worse than what's been done to them before, BUT Christ taught forgiveness of enemies later in the NT, contrary to the common OT practice. You'd be left with the people who willingly sell themselves to you to pay off money they owe you.

Willingly sell themselves to you? Slavery is ok if someone is willing to sell themselves to you? Well. Modern laws once again comes up with better morals than your bible. I find it amazing that anyone is willing to defend this sort of thing. It's almost sickening.

Slavery in the NT was Roman, so the only crime you can accuse the Bible of then was God's not striking down the Emperor on his throne and making former slaves declare war on their evil masters. Abolitionism at the time of the early church wasn't even mentioned, because sparking slave riots against the Roman Empire didn't fit the newfound Christian ideas of non-materialism and peace.

I hate this about religion. Peace? No it's not peace, it's called oppression. That's, btw, what the muslims mean to when they say theirs is a religion of peace. As long as you play by their oppressive rules. So slaves have to be kept slaves to prevent wars and skirmishes? That's called oppression.

The man who said "don't worry about freedom" was the apostle Paul, a traveling preacher who earned a living making tents. He didn't own slaves, so why would he want to subjugate the small congregations he preached to? To keep them under the control of whom? The Roman government that later beheaded him?

This is easy, because he isn't enlightened enough to see that slavery was wrong. I'm not saying he intentionally wants to keep people in his power. I just mean that it can be used to defend slavery. Just say to slaves, yea don't worry, just be a good christian, don't bother escaping, when you die you can go to heaven, which i just think exists but have no evidence of. That's an awful thing to say. For anyone. Even someone who doesn't own slaves.

In your Bible passage, the man is also given a responsibility, which you didn't mention:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself." Ephesians 5:25-28
"7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." 1 Peter 3:7

As I explained, the authority of the husband in ancient households was emphasized because his wife relied on him for protection. It's like you and a police officer. The government does not make exceptions for either the officer or you, but you must respect and obey him, because he is your protector.

And if you are still going to accuse the Bible of anything, let it be inconsistency, because there is no discrimination here:
"3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife." 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

you didn't read properly again. I said that one passage is enough for me. Nothing can make up for that. you see, when you tell me that a book is written by a perfect being, i hold it to a higher standard. And doesn't one of your quotes says the wife is the weaker partner? Please tell me you know that physically and mentally, that is scientifically wrong. But it doesn't surprise me because your god isn't very good at science.

And, lol, consistency? And the bible? Yea, right.

[evenheathen]

Omnipotence: God is a supernatural being, not my pet dragon. Why would God work against himself if he wills everything he does?

Why does god's "perfect" creation work against his "perfect" plan? From the very beginning his beloved creation fucked up and slighted him. Now he has to burn most of them, even though it makes him sad to do it.

Makes sense.......

Omniscience: God knows past, present, and future, forever has, and forever will. God is love, and he wanted to express this love by creating other beings to love so that they could love him.

He sure chose a fucked up way of expressing his love through this creation.

Onmibenevolence: Countless men, women, and children stub their toes on doorsteps every day. If you're going to bring up the question of evil, you have to go all the way. Life and the world are nothing compared to a gift that God doesn't take: his always being there. Life is a path towards this gift. Suffering weans us from life, health, family, possessions, and the other physical things we rely on and show us that our lives of something else, and it has something to offer us. Some people say it's chance leading us to uncertain fate, while others take suffering as a step closer to God and his gift.

Stubbed toes......you're right, if we're going to go to the question of evil, we have to all the way. The rest of your answer doesn't even come close to addressing the absurd atrocities and downright unjust lives lived by millions of people around the world who are never given the chance to experience anything other than hardship and suffering. And then they starve to death. God loves all his children. Give me a fucking break with this and your pretty, privileged life.

Omniprescence: God is everywhere in the sense that his love and power can be felt by people all around the world, no matter in what place or conditions they are in.

Bullshit. Just because the thought of an all loving/knowing/powerful dude in the sky tickles your taint, doesn't negate the fact that this world, all facets of it, makes more sense if god doesn't exist than if he does. You're apologetics are neither warranted nor wanted.

[Godscreated]

Thanks for not answering my questions whatsoever.

I do not care whether or not God has reason to create a rock that he can't lift. I'm asking you if he can regardless of reason.

The rest of the responses were just you tap dancing. Please bring something new to the table instead of responding like the atypical theist.

His answers were spot on, just because you did not like them doesn't have anything to do with him not answering.
You should learn to ask questions to do with reality instead of some imagined idea of your disproving God. Do you realize you are not the first, second, third or 40th person to bring these questions up, we've long moved past those.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Thanks for not answering my questions whatsoever.

I do not care whether or not God has reason to create a rock that he can't lift. I'm asking you if he can regardless of reason.

The rest of the responses were just you tap dancing. Please bring something new to the table instead of responding like the atypical theist.

His answers were spot on, just because you did not like them doesn't have anything to do with him not answering.
You should learn to ask questions to do with reality instead of some imagined idea of your disproving God. Do you realize you are not the first, second, third or 40th person to bring these questions up, we've long moved past those.

Thank you for admitting that questions about god has nothing to do with reality.

[Consilius]

@pineapplebunnybounce
I don't know where you got "only religion has morals" from. The "natural law" I referred to is the moral standard of nature.
If someone goes around selling their lives to people, that's their own business, although it would be odd in the 21st century. Do you have a right to tell them that they can't pay their debts by working for households?
God was weaning people from expecting social rights to leading good lives. There is injustice in the world today, and God isn't rallying the marginalized to strike back at their offenders, because some wars are never won. Establishing justice is good in itself, but that shouldn't be the focus of life. Dying with an unheard cry isn't a failure because life is more than your marriage rights or your wealth or your race. It's not about winning the fight for rights either. It's about being the best person you can be.
Paul didn't defend slavery neither did he oppose it. His message was that it simply didn't matter if you were free or in bondage, because God is always with you and he cares about you if no one else does. He said that we shouldn't worry about if the government will ever hear our voices or if we are stepped on the wealthy, because there were more important things than standing up for rights.
One passage is enough for you? The Bible is a unified whole, and not a word of it is self-sufficient. The only reason I see that you don't want to accept it that way is because I gave you evidence that conflicted your conclusion. A conclusion you got from five words.

I mean, come on, does anyone think that's fair? Are we going to take Bible snippets and throw them at Christians without even finishing the sentence? I'm not saying it's true, but it just makes the claimant look desperate. Really.

[Ryantology]

So don't go after my religion because Christians are being intolerant, go after it if you can prove that Christianity is inherently intolerant.

Homosexuality is different, therefore it's a sin. Oh, I know, you can justify it by citing an inability to reproduce making it unnatural but we all know how that never matters with heterosexual couples containing one or more infertile people.

If so many Christians can be intolerant based upon their interpretations of Christianity, perhaps Christianity is the problem.

[Consilius]

Omnipotence: God is a supernatural being, not my pet dragon. Why would God work against himself if he wills everything he does?

Why does god's "perfect" creation work against his "perfect" plan? From the very beginning his beloved creation fucked up and slighted him. Now he has to burn most of them, even though it makes him sad to do it.

Makes sense.......

Omniscience: God knows past, present, and future, forever has, and forever will. God is love, and he wanted to express this love by creating other beings to love so that they could love him.

He sure chose a fucked up way of expressing his love through this creation.

Onmibenevolence: Countless men, women, and children stub their toes on doorsteps every day. If you're going to bring up the question of evil, you have to go all the way. Life and the world are nothing compared to a gift that God doesn't take: his always being there. Life is a path towards this gift. Suffering weans us from life, health, family, possessions, and the other physical things we rely on and show us that our lives of something else, and it has something to offer us. Some people say it's chance leading us to uncertain fate, while others take suffering as a step closer to God and his gift.

Stubbed toes......you're right, if we're going to go to the question of evil, we have to all the way. The rest of your answer doesn't even come close to addressing the absurd atrocities and downright unjust lives lived by millions of people around the world who are never given the chance to experience anything other than hardship and suffering. And then they starve to death. God loves all his children. Give me a fucking break with this and your pretty, privileged life.

Omniprescence: God is everywhere in the sense that his love and power can be felt by people all around the world, no matter in what place or conditions they are in.

Bullshit. Just because the thought of an all loving/knowing/powerful dude in the sky tickles your taint, doesn't negate the fact that this world, all facets of it, makes more sense if god doesn't exist than if he does. You're apologetics are neither warranted nor wanted.

Loving someone is about forgiving their mistakes. Not about starting over the second it stops acting exactly how you would have preferred it. Hell is for those who don't want to love God, and so they spend eternity in his absence. I'm sorry, it's not an inferno made for kids who use swear words.
The world isn't perfect, and some know that better than others. All suffering, from stubbed toes to dead loved ones, if proof of an imperfect world, and invites us to look for perfection. God, morality, offers itself as that perfection. If the world was perfect, it would require admiration and worship. An imperfect world is a signal on a road to the perfect creator of that world.

---

So don't go after my religion because Christians are being intolerant, go after it if you can prove that Christianity is inherently intolerant.

Homosexuality is different, therefore it's a sin. Oh, I know, you can justify it by citing an inability to reproduce making it unnatural but we all know how that never matters with heterosexual couples containing one or more infertile people.

If so many Christians can be intolerant based upon their interpretations of Christianity, perhaps Christianity is the problem.

I'm pro-gay. Homosexuality has been scientifically proven to be completely natural.

[NoahsFarce]

For crying out loud... Can God create a rock he can't lift or not? Nevermind whether or not he needs reason to.

Just answer the question so we can continue our debate.

[Consilius]

The concept itself is logically impossible. A perfect being with an ultimately perfect will cannot subject itself to its own will.
What you are suggesting is "I declare that I shall be unable to declare something."
A similar question would be, "Can God make himself disappear?" or "Can God take away his own power?"

[pineapplebunnybounce]

@pineapplebunnybounce
I don't know where you got "only religion has morals" from. The "natural law" I referred to is the moral standard of nature.

Really, I'm done with this part of the discussion.

If someone goes around selling their lives to people, that's their own business, although it would be odd in the 21st century. Do you have a right to tell them that they can't pay their debts by working for households?

Don't change slavery to "working for households". How many times do you want to try this? It's selling themselves to a household, there's a difference between being an employee and being someone's property. And yea, we do have laws that say that people cannot become property. How immoral of us.

God was weaning people from expecting social rights to leading good lives. There is injustice in the world today, and God isn't rallying the marginalized to strike back at their offenders, because some wars are never won. Establishing justice is good in itself, but that shouldn't be the focus of life. Dying with an unheard cry isn't a failure because life is more than your marriage rights or your wealth or your race. It's not about winning the fight for rights either. It's about being the best person you can be.

So your religion's view is that, yes, bad things happen, I'm not going help you change that, neither should you focus on changing that, but just be a good person?

Paul didn't defend slavery neither did he oppose it. His message was that it simply didn't matter if you were free or in bondage, because God is always with you and he cares about you if no one else does. He said that we shouldn't worry about if the government will ever hear our voices or if we are stepped on the wealthy, because there were more important things than standing up for rights.

Didn't matter to him. Because he wasn't a slave. Religious people do seem very impervious to others' suffering.

One passage is enough for you? The Bible is a unified whole, and not a word of it is self-sufficient. The only reason I see that you don't want to accept it that way is because I gave you evidence that conflicted your conclusion. A conclusion you got from five words.

I mean, come on, does anyone think that's fair? Are we going to take Bible snippets and throw them at Christians without even finishing the sentence? I'm not saying it's true, but it just makes the claimant look desperate. Really.

ok fine, it's not just one passage. it's also all those OT laws and crap about women. Which you're going to say doesn't apply anymore, because jesus came and lalala, but they apply to me. and really however much you dance around the issue of women's rights in the bible, i doubt you'll convince me that the bible believes in equality, just like you failed to convince me that god killing children was just. Somethings are just impossible to justify.

Loving someone is about forgiving their mistakes. Not about starting over the second it stops acting exactly how you would have preferred it. Hell is for those who don't want to love God, and so they spend eternity in his absence. I'm sorry, it's not an inferno made for kids who use swear words.

1. noah's ark
2. the NT says if you call someone stupid you'll burn in hell.