The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it. Saying, "Rape is wrong for the same reasons murder is wrong." doesn't exactly tell me why either of them are wrong now does it? So don't use that same bad argumentation here. Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

I would happily make the sacrifice of fucking you senseless in the ass to prove how rape is just as bad as murder, besides, you sir are a waste of good oxygen !

This could be the most ridiculous post I have seen on here. How does that make it wrong? Bad logic. So just because something hurts it is morally wrong? So is eating a hot pepper wrong? Tell me why it is your wrong according to your worldview. It should not be that hard of a question to answer.

---

P.S. Gliding mammals are not flying mammals.

Did you just refer to a bat as a 'gliding mammal'?

Nope, the person I was replying to included gliding mammals in with bats.

---

---

Man's reluctance to obey a command does not make the command itself wrong. Simple.

I didn't say the command was wrong. I was trying to point out the disparity between what is commanded of men and what is commanded of women. But I see that's lost on you.

Let's see... men are commanded to love their wives. The wives are told that the husband "rules over" them. And you think this is equal? The husband can beat the snot out of his wife for not obeying and still claim to "love" her. Which side of this fence would you rather be on?

Where in scripture does it say men can beat the "snot" out of their wives? I thought you said you understood scripture, where is this verse?

Considering that Genesis 3:16 tells women that their husbands "shall rule over you", that pretty much gives the husband carte blanche to enforce his will as he sees fit, doesn't it? If the wife doesn't obey and do as the husband says, the husband can beat her as necessary. All the while professing to love her, of course.

And I notice that you didn't answer my question. Men are commanded to love their wives. The women are told that the husband rules over them. You think this is equal?

And what "role" do they have? Other than "shut up and don't ask questions"?

I think that being a mom is the toughest and most important job on Earth. If you do not think so then maybe you are the one who thinks women are inferior to men.

Non sequitor.

And how the hell is being a mom a "role" in the church? How does this in any way relate to being told to sit down shut up, and don't ask questions? It doesn't!

And this is not the context of the passage. It says, "Let your women keep silent in the church". It does NOT say, "Women are to keep silent in the church". See the difference? In this context, "your" implies ownership. As in "your goats" or "your pigs". And this is exactly what we would expect people of that time period to write. These were people who considered wives to be the property of their husbands. And it is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I would expect to be written by a loving and just deity.

Oh so using your same bad logic, if I asked you, "hey is YOUR girlfriend coming with you on Saturday?", this would mean you owned your girlfriend?

Did you even read what I wrote? Let me try a different tack. Why is this passage written the way it is? Why is it directed at the men? Because the women were considered to be property. If not, the passage would have been directed at THE WOMEN. Deny it all you want. At that time in history (and even today in some cultures) women are considered to be the property of the men (father, brother, husband, etc.). This verse reflects that attitude.

When scripture is addressing women it refers to their husbands as "your husbands", do they own the men in that case?

Not the same context at all.

Learn basic grammar.

Try learning something about the context of words.

So when a verse makes all races and both genders equal under Christ it does not count?

Apparently not. Believers used (and still use) much of the crap in the Bible to justify repressing women. I've encountered believers who tell me the Bible makes them the boss of the house. I guess they missed that stuff where "Jesus" makes everyone equal.

I thought someone understood scripture? Then why are you trying to apply a law under the Mosaic Convenent under the New Convenent Christ fulfilled?

Ah, yes. The "Mosaic Law" bullshit. Please show me somewhere in the Bible that says the "Mosaic Laws" no longer apply. And if they don't apply, why are they still in the book? I must also point out that many believers like to use "Mosaic Law" when they rail against homosexuals.

What kind of dumbass question is this? It's wrong to view women as inferior for the same reason it's wrong to view black people as inferior. What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Wow, you guys are really having issues answering this question. I am glad I asked it.

I have no issues about answering it. It's just an incredibly stupid question.

Tell me, as an Atheist, why you think viewing women as inferior is morally "wrong"? I have my reasons for why it is wrong, I want to hear you give your's.

It's morally wrong because I wouldn't want anyone I care about to be discriminated against based upon an irrelevant factor such as their sex, skin color, ethnicity, etc. Now, what are YOUR reasons?

---

I think I am just going to start using your guys' tactics against you. You are not a Theist, therefore you cannot talk about Theology for this reason. Atheists have never had their atheistic work published in Theological Journals so you are not allowed to talk about Theology. I can see why you guys use this ridiculous argument, it's kind of fun.

There are Bible versus addressed to women, wise up.

People misusing the intent of scripture does not make the scripture itself evil, so you can stop using that tactic.

I think it is you who needs to learn about context.

Homosexuality was not prohibited only under the Mosaic Covenant, so again wise up.

When Christ had communion with his disciples the new covenant had begun, so the laws that only applied under the Mosaic Covenent do not apply. Just like laws under the Adamic Covenent were changed under the following Covenent. This is basic stuff, though considering you are not qualified in this area I am not surprised you'd muck it up.

So it's only wrong because YOU don't like it and you think it is wrong? Yeah that's not going to cut it, I'll let you take another swing at that one though.

---

So we're not responsibl for our sin, because we inherited it from Adam.[

No man is still responsible. When the representative of a country declares war on another country that whole country is at war. When Adam rebelled we all rebelled.

You have a strange definition of justice.

Not really, it's the only true definition of justice since justice must come from a higher authority- justice that comes from the highest and only perffect authoirty is the only true justice.

But a pretty ambiguous way of demonstrating his glory.

I disagree.

Why is God just in punishing us for something that Adam did?

Everything God does is Just. Here I will write it out as a logical syllogism for you.

Premise 1: Everything God does is just.
Premise 2: God punishes the un-believer for their sins.

Conclusion: Therefore God punishing un-believers for their sins is just.

Scripture is on perfectly valid logical ground on this one.

So, you admit that if God told you to torture babies, you'd do it? If so, I admire the intellectual honesty, if not the sentiment. But basing morality on God's purpose, and specifically the Christian god's purpose, seems pretty arbitrary to me.

This is not a real appropriate hypothetical because God does not command me to torture babies.
]

That which causes suffering to sentient beings.

So by your definition shooting someone in the back of the head would not be evil because they didn't even feel it so it did not cause them suffering?