Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[John V]

JohnV, where's your proof that an intelligent being created the universe?

missluckie, you granted that for purposes of this discussion:
"Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right, god exists, and god created the system now in place."

I have lots of evidence to claim otherwise.

Present it if you like.

---

How did this god tell these things to such people?

A number of ways. I thought I was dealing with someone who was at least familiar with the Bible. Am I wrong?

---

Well, I'd suggest that, objectively speaking, harmful behaviours like drug consumption, rape and serial murder, should be stopped by mutual agreement for the good of the group.

The fact that such people exist shows that they don't mutually agree with stopping those things.

An opinion based upon certain objective, evidently demonstrable facts. That's important to most people, though I'd understand why demonstrating things might be unimportant to a theist.

So far it's an ad hoc opinion which ignores certain objective, evidently demonstrable facts that are inconvenient for it.

Which is why there was an extra sentence that you happened to delete from the quote, I'm sure by accident, the part about society being self correcting.

I ignored it because you can't support it. Go ahead and try if you like, though.

See, it's not just about majority vote, and I'm amused at your continued need to make my arguments as simplistic as you possibly can; it's about the moral arguments one makes in support of positions that eventually leads to a majority. You can see it time and again through history; slavery was abolished, segregation was abolished, gay marriage bans are quickly going the same way... we learn. Again, this is what you'd expect from a bunch of imperfect humans stumbling through moral issues and gradually growing more complex.

This line of your argument assumes an objective morality which we are progressing toward. You haven't shown such objective morality. Change is not necessarily progress.

An optimally functioning society, then.

By your subjective idea of optimal. Go it!

Right, so you're saying that there's a context in which kidnapping, slavery and rape are morally permissible.

No, I'm saying it's arrogant to apply the modern western definition of rape to all times and cultures. I've already noted that the law prohibits kidnapping, and I've said that slavery was allowed as a compromise due to the times and circumstances.

No, I'm setting myself up as a human being capable of having an opinion of the actions of others. There's nothing egotistical about that; I disapprove. Deal with it.

IOW, judging, as I said.

[pocaracas]

How did this god tell these things to such people?

A number of ways. I thought I was dealing with someone who was at least familiar with the Bible. Am I wrong?

yes, sorry to disappoint... my knowledge of the bible is somewhat limited... much like my knowledge of the qu'ran and the vedas...

Are you wanting to tell me that this bible contains not only the messages from this god, but also the means by which the messages were conveyed?
Are these methods trustworthy?

[Esquilax]

The fact that such people exist shows that they don't mutually agree with stopping those things.

Well then, it's lucky that there are more people that exist than just drug dealers and rapists and serial killers, isn't it? And it's equally lucky that these people can see the negative effects of drugs, rape and murder, and band together because they don't want to be subject to that, no?

I've never once said that everyone agrees on this standard. I've never once said that things don't happen in the heat of the moment, or that some won't lack the empathy or moral compunction to follow the laws, but those are in place to protect people, not merely for show. The fact that criminals exist just details the need for laws in the first place, it's not an argument against them.

So far it's an ad hoc opinion which ignores certain objective, evidently demonstrable facts that are inconvenient for it.

Such as?

I ignored it because you can't support it. Go ahead and try if you like, though.

I can't support the idea that society self corrects? What is it that you think changes to the laws are?

This line of your argument assumes an objective morality which we are progressing toward. You haven't shown such objective morality. Change is not necessarily progress.

No, it assumes a set of objective facts that we can know to be true: life is preferable to death, pain is not preferable, etc etc. I hope I don't need to explain why those are so. We are living in a universe that adheres to physical laws, and so we can come up with a set of stimuli that are unpleasant to us, and that we'd wish to avoid; even the drug addict doesn't enjoy the downsides of drug addiction, they're just trapped in a cycle. Rapists probably wouldn't want to be raped. Serial killers probably wouldn't want to be murdered. This is the basis of our system of laws, and our concept of good and bad; why is it that hell is depicted as a place filled with fire? Because fire burns us. Why is "thou shalt not kill," a commandment? Because murder is bad.

The ideal is to try and come up with a set of social rules for a community, without knowing what you will be when you enter it. Equality and fairness are necessary because they are the only way that we can be sure the worm won't turn on us and the people we've oppressed/hurt won't do the same in turn, because we've deemed those behaviors unacceptable.

Is it an imperfect system? You bet. Does that mean it's untrue?

Well, it your belief in the bible shaken by the immoralities there? You just put that down to the imperfect nature of the people who wrote it, why won't you accept that from anyone else?

By your subjective idea of optimal. Go it!

Until you can demonstrate the existence of your god with his objective standard, subjectivity is really all any of us have.

No, I'm saying it's arrogant to apply the modern western definition of rape to all times and cultures. I've already noted that the law prohibits kidnapping, and I've said that slavery was allowed as a compromise due to the times and circumstances.

So if your entire family was transported back to that time, you'd be okay with these things happening to you and yours? If not, why would you accept it from them?

In a way, it's weirdly racist to hold them to a more lax standard than you do yourself, like they're idiots who didn't know any better.

[Brakeman]

I'm sure John V. Would approve of this, after all, it was an arranged marriage.

http://news.yahoo.com/child-bride-yemen-...32059.html
SANAA (Reuters) - An eight-year-old Yemeni girl died of internal bleeding on her wedding night after marrying a man five times her age, a social activist and two local residents said, in a case that has caused an outcry in the media and revived debate about child brides.

Arwa Othman, head of Yemen House of Folklore and a leading rights campaigner, said the girl, identified only as Rawan, was married to a 40-year-old man late last week in the town of Meedi in Hajjah province in northwestern Yemen.

"On the wedding night and after intercourse, she suffered from bleeding and uterine rupture which caused her death,"

After all it is their culture, and fuck you if you try to look at rape through the victims' eyes.

[Ryantology]

An atheist typically says "you should not kill" because death is a permanent state and represents the end of everything that person is, and you would not want to be killed. Except in self-defense, ending a person's life against their will is thought of, almost universally, as wrong.

A Christian says "thou shall not kill" because unless God is killing people or telling people to kill other people for him, God doesn't want you to kill. Killing, even when it is brutal, cold-blooded and sadistic, even when the victim is defenseless. is perfectly acceptable as long as God is directing you in doing it. Because, if a reputable authority figure says that God wants them dead, it's obvious that they deserved it.

It's funny, how little value human life holds to people when they swallow fairy tales about afterlife, isn't it?

It's a wonder we made it this far, really.

[Mystical]

JohnV, where's your proof that an intelligent being created the universe?

missluckie, you granted that for purposes of this discussion:
"Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right, god exists, and god created the system now in place."

The god of the Bible has superior mental ability to ours, so he has rights over us.

You stated this, I asked for proof of intelligence.

I have lots of evidence to claim otherwise.

I do. I'm more interested in you explaining why you believe there is intelligent design. If everything was created by god, there would surely be signs pointing to design since there would be a designer. I've been going over quite a bit of knowledge about nature and evolution; I'd like to get your side of the story.

[John V]

Well then, it's lucky that there are more people that exist than just drug dealers and rapists and serial killers, isn't it?

Not necessarily. Considering pollution, global warming, etc., the world might be better off with far fewer of us, or none at all.

And it's equally lucky that these people can see the negative effects of drugs, rape and murder, and band together because they don't want to be subject to that, no?

Again, the point is that desires do not necessarily generate rights. Here you acknowledge that yourself.

Such as?

Such as people who desire things which you want to forbid. You claim happiness as a basis for rights, but only when you agree with the things that make people happy. Therefore, ad hoc.

I can't support the idea that society self corrects? What is it that you think changes to the laws are?

Changes. Again, saying that society is correcting itself implies that there is an objectively ideal state of society. You haven't shown that.

No, it assumes a set of objective facts that we can know to be true: life is preferable to death, pain is not preferable, etc etc. I hope I don't need to explain why those are so.

Considering that there's always a war somewhere or other, and science is continually inventing better ways for us to kill each other, yes, you do need to explain these things.

We are living in a universe that adheres to physical laws, and so we can come up with a set of stimuli that are unpleasant to us, and that we'd wish to avoid; even the drug addict doesn't enjoy the downsides of drug addiction, they're just trapped in a cycle. Rapists probably wouldn't want to be raped. Serial killers probably wouldn't want to be murdered. This is the basis of our system of laws, and our concept of good and bad; why is it that hell is depicted as a place filled with fire? Because fire burns us. Why is "thou shalt not kill," a commandment? Because murder is bad.

Sure, slave owners don't want to be slaves themselves. So what? Look at nature. There are plenty of species in which the stronger take more than their equal share of food, mates, etc. And even to the extent that you are correct, the principle only applies within the group. We wage war on outsiders if it's in our interest. Biblically the slaves were mostly outsiders.

The ideal is to try and come up with a set of social rules for a community, without knowing what you will be when you enter it. Equality and fairness are necessary because they are the only way that we can be sure the worm won't turn on us and the people we've oppressed/hurt won't do the same in turn, because we've deemed those behaviors unacceptable.

That may be your ideal. Some people are less risk-averse.

Is it an imperfect system? You bet. Does that mean it's untrue?

It's neither true nor untrue. It's opinion.

So if your entire family was transported back to that time, you'd be okay with these things happening to you and yours? If not, why would you accept it from them?

If you had been born into a slave-owning family, do you think you'd feel exactly as you do about slavery now?

---

yes, sorry to disappoint... my knowledge of the bible is somewhat limited... much like my knowledge of the qu'ran and the vedas...

Are you wanting to tell me that this bible contains not only the messages from this god, but also the means by which the messages were conveyed?

Moses and the burning bush, various people having dreams, Paul taken up to heaven are examples of the means being stated. Sometimes we're not specifically told.

Are these methods trustworthy?

That's a matter of opinion.

---

missluckie, you granted that for purposes of this discussion:
"Let's assume for sake of argument that you're right, god exists, and god created the system now in place."

The god of the Bible has superior mental ability to ours, so he has rights over us.

You stated this, I asked for proof of intelligence.

Ability to create a universe ex nihilo indicates greater intelligence than ours. Seems pretty obvious.

I do.

So let's see it.

I'm more interested in you explaining why you believe there is intelligent design. If everything was created by god,

You already granted for purposes of this discussion that everything was created by god.

[pocaracas]

yes, sorry to disappoint... my knowledge of the bible is somewhat limited... much like my knowledge of the qu'ran and the vedas...

Are you wanting to tell me that this bible contains not only the messages from this god, but also the means by which the messages were conveyed?

Moses and the burning bush, various people having dreams, Paul taken up to heaven are examples of the means being stated. Sometimes we're not specifically told.

Are these methods trustworthy?

That's a matter of opinion.

Indeed... a matter of opinion...
Would you agree that the method for passing these messages is/was somewhat sub-optimal?

[John V]

Would you agree that the method for passing these messages is/was somewhat sub-optimal?

No. God made them for his own purposes. I doubt you consider that in your assessment. Also note that we're discussing these messages thousands of years later. Seems pretty effective.

[pocaracas]

Would you agree that the method for passing these messages is/was somewhat sub-optimal?

No. God made them for his own purposes. I doubt you consider that in your assessment. Also note that we're discussing these messages thousands of years later. Seems pretty effective.

How did they fare in the middle-east?
And India?
And China?
Anywhere in the world, where the europeans didn't overtake the indigenous population?