Women's Rights and Religion

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What's wrong with distributing rights as we see fit? Is it so much more nobler to accept rights without question? Like the bible, it doesn't believe in human rights, it condones slavery, for god's sakes. Are you going to sit around and say, well they have less value so they don't deserve these rights. That makes you kind of an asshole. Value is not needed in understanding rights. How much you're worth doesn't figure into whether you have rights.

Concepts can exist even if they cannot be true. The concept of god is a perfect example, the concept is always there, but if you really want to knock out the details you'll find that hey, this thing, it's so illogical it cannot exist. Same as the concept of utopia, the concept is almost coherent, but it's not logical.

Oh by the way, what you felt for your baby was hardwired by evolution. And you do not have an inalienable right to take care of her, if you commit some kind of crime, you'll be in prison and be denied this right. Because now her right to be safe takes over.

[FiniteImmortal]

What's wrong with distributing rights as we see fit? Is it so much more nobler to accept rights without question? Like the bible, it doesn't believe in human rights, it condones slavery, for god's sakes. Are you going to sit around and say, well they have less value so they don't deserve these rights. That makes you kind of an asshole. Value is not needed in understanding rights. How much you're worth doesn't figure into whether you have rights.

Concepts can exist even if they cannot be true. The concept of god is a perfect example, the concept is always there, but if you really want to knock out the details you'll find that hey, this thing, it's so illogical it cannot exist. Same as the concept of utopia, the concept is almost coherent, but it's not logical.

Oh by the way, what you felt for your baby was hardwired by evolution. And you do not have an inalienable right to take care of her, if you commit some kind of crime, you'll be in prison and be denied this right. Because now her right to be safe takes over.

Pineapple, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking your view, I'm just trying to engage the points that you made. Your view is yours, and you are entitled to believe how you see fit.

My main point is that real "rights" by actual definition cannot be redistributed. It is impossible to do so. You have a right to believe what you want. If some governing body votes as a majority that you no longer have that right, it doesn't change the fact that you still do. If a society decides that Jews need to be eradicated from the earth, that doesn't mean that Jews no longer have a right to life and liberty. It means men have put them in the place of God to decide who lives and dies, and end up committing atrocities unimaginable against life and truth.
Rights don't come from the bible, the right to life and liberty still existed for the humans that lived before the bible was even written, just as the rights of Americans existed just the same before the Constitution was written to protect them. The right of human kind to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness is a truth that is held universally to be self-evident.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the bible condones slavery and ignores human rights, I'd be interested in reading some commentary on that. I read a common thread of freedom from the slavery and addiction of sin, and that humanity at its core is sacred and worth upholding and protecting at all costs.
I'm not sure why it is so morally repugnant to suggest that people have essential worth, and are more that that sum of our parts, and that we are made to love and be loved.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down. Unfortunately, the ones that can't protect themselves, like infants and the elderly are the first to go, followed by other inconvenient undesirables. Take a look at Africa, Syria, Albania, and of course 1940's Germany and Poland.
When we debunk everything we shouldn't file a grievance with God and complain that there is no wonder or beauty left in the world. Truth exist, regardless of our legislation or sales of it, as do rights. We can't reallocate them any more than we can reallocate gravity.

[Lion IRC]

I don't think there are any women's rights in any modern religion.

Well then you are wrong.
Women have as much say in the running of the catholic church as men. (Probably more so, by virtue of the fact that, like many religions, female parishioners outnumber men.)
http://www.sale.catholic.org.au/parishes...urvey.html

And if women stopped VOLUNTARILY going to Church, guess what would happen?

[Captain Colostomy]

And if women stopped VOLUNTARILY going to Church, guess what would happen?

A papal bull declaring all women witches?

Nothing, because the inattentive priests are busy eyeballing boys?

Ex-nuns would 'maculately' conceive in record numbers?

Minimalist will choke on his liver pills?

The church would shit the bed within a generation?



(This is fun!!! :p )

---

---

What's wrong with distributing rights as we see fit? Is it so much more nobler to accept rights without question? Like the bible, it doesn't believe in human rights, it condones slavery, for god's sakes. Are you going to sit around and say, well they have less value so they don't deserve these rights. That makes you kind of an asshole. Value is not needed in understanding rights. How much you're worth doesn't figure into whether you have rights.

Concepts can exist even if they cannot be true. The concept of god is a perfect example, the concept is always there, but if you really want to knock out the details you'll find that hey, this thing, it's so illogical it cannot exist. Same as the concept of utopia, the concept is almost coherent, but it's not logical.

Oh by the way, what you felt for your baby was hardwired by evolution. And you do not have an inalienable right to take care of her, if you commit some kind of crime, you'll be in prison and be denied this right. Because now her right to be safe takes over.

Pineapple, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking your view, I'm just trying to engage the points that you made. Your view is yours, and you are entitled to believe how you see fit.

My main point is that real "rights" by actual definition cannot be redistributed. It is impossible to do so. You have a right to believe what you want. If some governing body votes as a majority that you no longer have that right, it doesn't change the fact that you still do. If a society decides that Jews need to be eradicated from the earth, that doesn't mean that Jews no longer have a right to life and liberty. It means men have put them in the place of God to decide who lives and dies, and end up committing atrocities unimaginable against life and truth.
Rights don't come from the bible, the right to life and liberty still existed for the humans that lived before the bible was even written, just as the rights of Americans existed just the same before the Constitution was written to protect them. The right of human kind to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness is a truth that is held universally to be self-evident.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the bible condones slavery and ignores human rights, I'd be interested in reading some commentary on that. I read a common thread of freedom from the slavery and addiction of sin, and that humanity at its core is sacred and worth upholding and protecting at all costs.
I'm not sure why it is so morally repugnant to suggest that people have essential worth, and are more that that sum of our parts, and that we are made to love and be loved.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down. Unfortunately, the ones that can't protect themselves, like infants and the elderly are the first to go, followed by other inconvenient undesirables. Take a look at Africa, Syria, Albania, and of course 1940's Germany and Poland.
When we debunk everything we shouldn't file a grievance with God and complain that there is no wonder or beauty left in the world. Truth exist, regardless of our legislation or sales of it, as do rights. We can't reallocate them any more than we can reallocate gravity.

---

FiniteImmortal- You seem to be woefully underinformed. Atheists are exactly the same as you...except for that pesky god attribution you subscribe shit to. For instance, I can see the beauty of childbirth, even while knowing it's 'only' a natural phenomenon. Bag of guts? No doubt. 'Only' a bag of guts? Not even close. I personally don't dwell on the science of light diffraction when witnessing a rainbow. I just enjoy. Actually, I suppose I could argue I enjoy it more than any christian...assuming the christian is 'wasting the scenery' on praising a non-existant god.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What's wrong with distributing rights as we see fit? Is it so much more nobler to accept rights without question? Like the bible, it doesn't believe in human rights, it condones slavery, for god's sakes. Are you going to sit around and say, well they have less value so they don't deserve these rights. That makes you kind of an asshole. Value is not needed in understanding rights. How much you're worth doesn't figure into whether you have rights.

Concepts can exist even if they cannot be true. The concept of god is a perfect example, the concept is always there, but if you really want to knock out the details you'll find that hey, this thing, it's so illogical it cannot exist. Same as the concept of utopia, the concept is almost coherent, but it's not logical.

Oh by the way, what you felt for your baby was hardwired by evolution. And you do not have an inalienable right to take care of her, if you commit some kind of crime, you'll be in prison and be denied this right. Because now her right to be safe takes over.

Pineapple, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking your view, I'm just trying to engage the points that you made. Your view is yours, and you are entitled to believe how you see fit.

Why not? I'm clearly attacking yours. Of course I am entitled to my views, why would I feel compelled to change it because a guy on the internet disagrees?

My main point is that real "rights" by actual definition cannot be redistributed. It is impossible to do so. You have a right to believe what you want. If some governing body votes as a majority that you no longer have that right, it doesn't change the fact that you still do. If a society decides that Jews need to be eradicated from the earth, that doesn't mean that Jews no longer have a right to life and liberty. It means men have put them in the place of God to decide who lives and dies, and end up committing atrocities unimaginable against life and truth.

No no no, your original point was that this right is given by god and is demonstrated by his dying for us. To which I countered that you were talking about value (paying with god's life), which is not needed when talking about rights.

But anyway, here you once again say that it's ok for god to decide who lives or dies. Well .... no, human rights shouldn't be violated, even by god. Thank god god doesn't exist though.

Rights don't come from the bible, the right to life and liberty still existed for the humans that lived before the bible was even written, just as the rights of Americans existed just the same before the Constitution was written to protect them. The right of human kind to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness is a truth that is held universally to be self-evident.

Alright, agreed.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the bible condones slavery and ignores human rights, I'd be interested in reading some commentary on that. I read a common thread of freedom from the slavery and addiction of sin, and that humanity at its core is sacred and worth upholding and protecting at all costs.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

I'm not sure why it is so morally repugnant to suggest that people have essential worth, and are more that that sum of our parts, and that we are made to love and be loved.

I wasn't opposed to the the idea that humans have "essential worth" (although as it so happens I do not agree that all humans have some kind of inherent worth), I opposed to using value or worth to determine human rights. That's the capitalism model, whoever is worth more gets more. That's not how human rights work.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often?

Personally, I'm afraid of babies. But when I see a baby, I see something that against many odds (I know them but it's a long list) is born healthy and happy and I know that many have come before this baby to allow for this birth to happens, I know that if this baby were born mere 30 years ago, it would have to face much more problems than it does now, I know that this being that we regard as perfect came from generations and generations that if any of them had died, this baby wouldn't be here. If a dinosaur hadn't sneezed, as Dawkins puts it, we would all not be here. And I know that this baby will age and grow old and die and I know that it is made from atoms of life that had grown old and died. That is a beauty in itself.

We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down. Unfortunately, the ones that can't protect themselves, like infants and the elderly are the first to go, followed by other inconvenient undesirables. Take a look at Africa, Syria, Albania, and of course 1940's Germany and Poland.

Are we talking about eugenics? Eugenics isn't an argument of evolution, it's an argument of equal rights, which I have never said I was opposed to. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of.

When we debunk everything we shouldn't file a grievance with God and complain that there is no wonder or beauty left in the world. Truth exist, regardless of our legislation or sales of it, as do rights. We can't reallocate them any more than we can reallocate gravity.

Truth is that the bible is fake. You can't change that just like you can't change gravity. Truth is that evolution is real, you can't change that just like you can't change gravity.

I don't complain that there's no wonder or beauty, if I were to complain it wouldn't be to a nonexistent god. [/quote]

[FiniteImmortal]

[hide]

Pineapple, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking your view, I'm just trying to engage the points that you made. Your view is yours, and you are entitled to believe how you see fit.

My main point is that real "rights" by actual definition cannot be redistributed. It is impossible to do so. You have a right to believe what you want. If some governing body votes as a majority that you no longer have that right, it doesn't change the fact that you still do. If a society decides that Jews need to be eradicated from the earth, that doesn't mean that Jews no longer have a right to life and liberty. It means men have put them in the place of God to decide who lives and dies, and end up committing atrocities unimaginable against life and truth.
Rights don't come from the bible, the right to life and liberty still existed for the humans that lived before the bible was even written, just as the rights of Americans existed just the same before the Constitution was written to protect them. The right of human kind to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness is a truth that is held universally to be self-evident.
I wholeheartedly disagree that the bible condones slavery and ignores human rights, I'd be interested in reading some commentary on that. I read a common thread of freedom from the slavery and addiction of sin, and that humanity at its core is sacred and worth upholding and protecting at all costs.
I'm not sure why it is so morally repugnant to suggest that people have essential worth, and are more that that sum of our parts, and that we are made to love and be loved.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often? We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down. Unfortunately, the ones that can't protect themselves, like infants and the elderly are the first to go, followed by other inconvenient undesirables. Take a look at Africa, Syria, Albania, and of course 1940's Germany and Poland.
When we debunk everything we shouldn't file a grievance with God and complain that there is no wonder or beauty left in the world. Truth exist, regardless of our legislation or sales of it, as do rights. We can't reallocate them any more than we can reallocate gravity.

FiniteImmortal- You seem to be woefully underinformed. Atheists are exactly the same as you...except for that pesky god attribution you subscribe shit to. For instance, I can see the beauty of childbirth, even while knowing it's 'only' a natural phenomenon. Bag of guts? No doubt. 'Only' a bag of guts? Not even close. I personally don't dwell on the science of light diffraction when witnessing a rainbow. I just enjoy. Actually, I suppose I could argue I enjoy it more than any christian...assuming the christian is 'wasting the scenery' on praising a non-existant god.

Its funny how we are actual more similar than different. When the imagery of "praising god" come up in our minds, most of us see a syrupy-sweet slick talker in a suit palming some old lady on the head and speaking with a ridiculous tone. It bums me out to have to perpetually fend off this automatic lumping-in with fakery. When I see a rainbow, I too ponder the wonder of light refraction, after all i work with optics for a living. It is two fold for me, to enjoy a sunset or a mountain top, because I can appreciate the amazing complexity and beauty in the world around us, and also see that same Majesty in a personal deity who character reflects the wonder I see. I think we all instinctively "praise" when we are confronted with enormous beauty, before I came to realign my own thinking, I praised nature, though I didn't feel nature or an empty material universe caring if i did or not. When i hear an amazing guitarist or see an amazing painter, I can't resit going up at telling him," man, that is truly bad-ass".

[max-greece]

Hundreds of years before "Women are from Mars, Men are from Venous" was written, God payed the biggest compliment to Womenhood when he told men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church. That is an unconditional love that transcends all time and space. When Jesus first appeared after his Resurrection, he chose to reveal himself to a woman, he called her by name "Mary". At that time in that oppressive culture a woman's testimony wasn't even valid in court. When he spoke to the woman at the well, he cut through all her struggles and life of brokenness and offered her living water in which when she would drink would never thirst again. When she caught a glimpse of who he was, she ran as fast as her feet could carry her to tell everyone about the man who told her about herself, as she felt like she was on the brink of the most monumental discovery of her life. Feminine imagery is used through out in reference to beauty, majesty, and something that needs be protected and nourished. The bible describes them as the weaker vessel, which conforms to reality as we know it, politically correct or not. It is a description of reality, not a prescription for women to be weak. There are some really tough women and some fairly fragile men out there, but as a whole we are bigger, tougher, and usually dumber : ) Womenhood should be esteemed by men above all other earthly things. It is when we deviate from the instructions of "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loves the church", that we have a 6 in 10 divorce rate. We have the capacity and admonition to love unconditionally because god first loved us unconditionally.

This might be slightly off topic but I really have to pull you up on your understanding of unconditional love. God's love is anything but unconditional - it bears no relation to the love I have for my daughter.

God's love is based entirely on sub-subservience. You obey his rules - including the command to love him and he will be good to you in the next life. Disobey these rules, however, and its a lifetime in Hell for you. Forgiveness is only given if you beg him for it.

The Bible is littered with stories of God punishing men for one thing or another, with no sense of "fitting the crime."

- Humanity cursed forever for one couple eating the wrong fruit.
- The Flood
- Turning a woman into salt for looking at the fireworks.
- innumerable deaths throughout the bible (1.5 - 3 million people) invariably for failing to obey.

The very fact that you use "God payed the biggest compliment to Womenhood when he told men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church," shows that you are not talking about unconditional love.

I love my wife. I love my daughter. Only one of those 2 is unconditional.

Of course my love for my wife is not based on her obeying me as God demands. It is based on a lifetime of mutual respect, trust and sharing.

Equally, of course, one would seriously hope that Jesus' love for the Church was not unconditional. I'd hope he would be as fucking furious with it as I am over the whole child-molesting and cover-up thing, along with a whole variety of other crimes.

[FiniteImmortal]

This might be slightly off topic but I really have to pull you up on your understanding of unconditional love. God's love is anything but unconditional - it bears no relation to the love I have for my daughter.

God's love is based entirely on sub-subservience. You obey his rules - including the command to love him and he will be good to you in the next life. Disobey these rules, however, and its a lifetime in Hell for you. Forgiveness is only given if you beg him for it.

That is an especially twisted and shallow representation of the narrative. I'm sure you don't really believe that is an accurate portrayal of it, anymore than "Hitler was an atheist, so all atheists are despicable and going to go down the same road, and they all secretly worship Darwin." is an accurate portray of the atheist perspective.
As far as the Father-son relationship with God, I'm not sure that its all that different from the relationship with my own dad. He is clearly above me, I am, or was, under his authority. I still had the free choice to go against his wishes, even though his wishes for me were for me, and my protection, and proper raising. Though it was because of him I ever existed at all to even have to option of either living by his will or not. In my life I can remember several times I went against his wishes and paid dearly in consequence of reality, not because he punished me, but because the real world did. When I new I screwed my self, fully informed and knowingly, it was regretful and hellish. Hell is a bed we make for ourselves, by trying to engineer our own happiness apart from the natural order of things and apart from truth.

The Bible is littered with stories of God punishing men for one thing or another, with no sense of "fitting the crime."
- Humanity cursed forever for one couple eating the wrong fruit.

Was this for eating the wrong fruit? Wasn't it for willfully and intentionally attempting to redefine good and evil, and to attempt to be as gods ourselves?

- The Flood

The pinnacle of a creation gone wrong, and ending in utter debauchery, rape, murder, thievery, and every heinous act conceivable. If I built a robot i could somehow give freewill to and that is what it ended up doing, I'd trash it too and start over. Anyone being honest would too.

- Turning a woman into salt for looking at the fireworks.

Imagery used to convey what it is like when you are on the cusp of deliverance from sin and all manner of perverseness, and then looking back with desire.

- innumerable deaths throughout the bible (1.5 - 3 million people) invariably for failing to obey.

The old testament is littered with history demonstrating the Israelite's and their on-again-off-again relationship with god. It conforms to the reality we know as sin leads to death, go spend a night in the ghetto and see how the meth crowd is looking.

The very fact that you use "God payed the biggest compliment to Womenhood when he told men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church," shows that you are not talking about unconditional love.

I love my wife. I love my daughter. Only one of those 2 is unconditional.

If unconditional love is a real thing, which anyone with children will likely admit it is, it is because God loved us first, unconditionally, and it is because of him passing that on to us that we have the ability. Unconditional love has a built-in necessity to transcend a material universe. A cold, empty, material-only universe offers no such notions.

Of course my love for my wife is not based on her obeying me as God demands. It is based on a lifetime of mutual respect, trust and sharing.

God doesn't want us to love him for his benefit, he's not a chubby 15 year-old looser desperately wishing for someone to like him, he wants humanity to love him and observe his admonitions for our benefit and happiness. Loving god with all our strength, and loving our neighbor as we love ourselves is the crux of all of it, how would do societies and corrupt organisations arrive at genocide, oppression, and depravity when following these wishes?

Equally, of course, one would seriously hope that Jesus' love for the Church was not unconditional. I'd hope he would be as fucking furious with it as I am over the whole child-molesting and cover-up thing, along with a whole variety of other crimes.

The church you mention is Catholicism, and is obviously an abomination and a ritual club or fakery. No argument there, it it disgusting and has absolutely nothing to do with the "Church" referred to in the bible. And, actually it is mentioned in there as The Mother of Harlots.

[max-greece]

This might be slightly off topic but I really have to pull you up on your understanding of unconditional love. God's love is anything but unconditional - it bears no relation to the love I have for my daughter.

God's love is based entirely on sub-subservience. You obey his rules - including the command to love him and he will be good to you in the next life. Disobey these rules, however, and its a lifetime in Hell for you. Forgiveness is only given if you beg him for it.

That is an especially twisted and shallow representation of the narrative. I'm sure you don't really believe that is an accurate portrayal of it, anymore than "Hitler was an atheist, so all atheists are despicable and going to go down the same road, and they all secretly worship Darwin." is an accurate portray of the atheist perspective.
As far as the Father-son relationship with God, I'm not sure that its all that different from the relationship with my own dad. He is clearly above me, I am, or was, under his authority. I still had the free choice to go against his wishes, even though his wishes for me were for me, and my protection, and proper raising. Though it was because of him I ever existed at all to even have to option of either living by his will or not. In my life I can remember several times I went against his wishes and paid dearly in consequence of reality, not because he punished me, but because the real world did. When I new I screwed my self, fully informed and knowingly, it was regretful and hellish. Hell is a bed we make for ourselves, by trying to engineer our own happiness apart from the natural order of things and apart from truth.

The Bible is littered with stories of God punishing men for one thing or another, with no sense of "fitting the crime."
- Humanity cursed forever for one couple eating the wrong fruit.

Was this for eating the wrong fruit? Wasn't it for willfully and intentionally attempting to redefine good and evil, and to attempt to be as gods ourselves?

- The Flood

The pinnacle of a creation gone wrong, and ending in utter debauchery, rape, murder, thievery, and every heinous act conceivable. If I built a robot i could somehow give freewill to and that is what it ended up doing, I'd trash it too and start over. Anyone being honest would too.

- Turning a woman into salt for looking at the fireworks.

Imagery used to convey what it is like when you are on the cusp of deliverance from sin and all manner of perverseness, and then looking back with desire.

- innumerable deaths throughout the bible (1.5 - 3 million people) invariably for failing to obey.

The old testament is littered with history demonstrating the Israelite's and their on-again-off-again relationship with god. It conforms to the reality we know as sin leads to death, go spend a night in the ghetto and see how the meth crowd is looking.

The very fact that you use "God payed the biggest compliment to Womenhood when he told men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church," shows that you are not talking about unconditional love.

I love my wife. I love my daughter. Only one of those 2 is unconditional.

If unconditional love is a real thing, which anyone with children will likely admit it is, it is because God loved us first, unconditionally, and it is because of him passing that on to us that we have the ability. Unconditional love has a built-in necessity to transcend a material universe. A cold, empty, material-only universe offers no such notions.

Of course my love for my wife is not based on her obeying me as God demands. It is based on a lifetime of mutual respect, trust and sharing.

God doesn't want us to love him for his benefit, he's not a chubby 15 year-old looser desperately wishing for someone to like him, he wants humanity to love him and observe his admonitions for our benefit and happiness. Loving god with all our strength, and loving our neighbor as we love ourselves is the crux of all of it, how would do societies and corrupt organisations arrive at genocide, oppression, and depravity when following these wishes?

Equally, of course, one would seriously hope that Jesus' love for the Church was not unconditional. I'd hope he would be as fucking furious with it as I am over the whole child-molesting and cover-up thing, along with a whole variety of other crimes.

The church you mention is Catholicism, and is obviously an abomination and a ritual club or fakery. No argument there, it it disgusting and has absolutely nothing to do with the "Church" referred to in the bible. And, actually it is mentioned in there as The Mother of Harlots.

Interesting - the only thing you have written that I agree with is the last line about the Catholic Church, which, I should point out, claims to be THE Church.

Other than that:

Yes - I stand by my interpretation of the Bible. There's no unconditional love there from God.

You had free choice to go against your father probably, after a certain age, because you had no fear of punishment from him. God's version - free choice, but choose the wrong way and go to hell is the same free choice a highwayman gives you with "Your money or your life."

Free choice doesn't have to have anything to do with engineering our own happiness, it may do, but it may be totally unrelated to it.

"Wasn't it for willfully and intentionally attempting to redefine good and evil, and to attempt to be as gods ourselves? "

That would have to be no from the narrative. Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until they ate from the tree. The idea that they were trying to subvert what those are is ludicrous. How could they understand enough of good and evil to understand subverting it when they knew not good and evil? It makes no sense.

Even if they did - how can it be right for God to punish their off-spring. In other parts of the Bible it clearly says the "sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son." Contradictory much?

"The pinnacle of a creation gone wrong...."

Too many issues here to deal with in a single post. How can the perfect God's creation have gone wrong? Are you implying this surprised him? If it did - so much for omniscience. If it didn't why didn't he fix it before it happened?

Further, if his aim was to purge the world of sin he failed, unless you are saying it is without sin now?

There's no indication that Lot's wife looked back with desire. Even if she did - the death penalty for a thought crime? Realy? What a horrible God you have!

Now with unconditional love I think you are on to something. The fact that we can experience it, and it patently doesn't come from God, who can't, shows us that there is no God in the first place.

I quite like this proof. I usually use a sense of humour to show we made God and not the other way around as God doesn't have one and we do - but unconditional love works just as well.

Now I know you are not getting this at all but I will give it a try:

Whatever my daughter does I will love her. However heinous her crimes/sins I will always love her no matter what. She does not have to earn my love in any way, shape or form. She gets my love simply by having existed. This is not the case for my wife and it is not the case for God's love. I would no more sentence my daughter to an eternity in hell than I would shove the moon up my own ass.

Surely you see the difference here?

"Unconditional love has a built-in necessity to transcend a material universe. A cold, empty, material-only universe offers no such notions."

Just nonsense. We have evolved to the point where our childhood is long lasting and requires parental care for an extended period of time. This requires extreme devotion of the parent. We are programmed to love our offspring, pure and simple. That the programming is not perfect (some don't love their children, some abuse them and some transfer this parental type love to pets) shows that it is of non-divine origin. Exactly the sort of thing one would expect from evolution acting through the process of natural selection.

"he wants humanity to love him and observe his admonitions for our benefit and happiness. Loving god with all our strength, and loving our neighbor as we love ourselves is the crux of all of it, how would do societies and corrupt organisations arrive at genocide, oppression, and depravity when following these wishes?"

Its not working very well is it? Loving him is for our benefit because he will punish us if we don't - peachy!!
Loving our neighbour as ourselves can hardly be the crux of anything other than a theoretical analysis of Christianity. In practice....lets just say it hasn't been shown much.

The child molesting thing was an example, just one that happens to apply to the Catholic Church. The protestant church has had a whole host of its own crimes throughout its history from oppression, the support of slavery, witch burning, the torture of Catholics, Jews, and so on and so forth.

Which church is yours anyway?

[FiniteImmortal]

[quote='FiniteImmortal' pid='549189' dateline='1385360362']

Pineapple, I hope I'm not coming off as attacking your view, I'm just trying to engage the points that you made. Your view is yours, and you are entitled to believe how you see fit.

Why not? I'm clearly attacking yours. Of course I am entitled to my views, why would I feel compelled to change it because a guy on the internet disagrees?

Wow, hostile much? Not trying to change your views, you will believe them forever and nothing can ever change that. This internet guy is merely offering a counter-perspective to other thinking individuals who might offer intelligent discourse.

My main point is that real "rights" by actual definition cannot be redistributed. It is impossible to do so. You have a right to believe what you want. If some governing body votes as a majority that you no longer have that right, it doesn't change the fact that you still do. If a society decides that Jews need to be eradicated from the earth, that doesn't mean that Jews no longer have a right to life and liberty. It means men have put them in the place of God to decide who lives and dies, and end up committing atrocities unimaginable against life and truth.

No no no, your original point was that this right is given by god and is demonstrated by his dying for us. To which I countered that you were talking about value (paying with god's life), which is not needed when talking about rights.

But anyway, here you once again say that it's ok for god to decide who lives or dies. Well .... no, human rights shouldn't be violated, even by god. Thank god god doesn't exist though.

Actually, God does decide who lives and dies, he breathed life into you, and it will leave one day when he calls you back, we all will. Being born is a death sentence. You pass a moral pronouncement that it is "wrong" and utterly immoral for God to decide who lives and dies, but when a pregnant woman decides who lives and who dies, it is her god-given right, err, I mean voted-in right.

Rights don't come from the bible, the right to life and liberty still existed for the humans that lived before the bible was even written, just as the rights of Americans existed just the same before the Constitution was written to protect them. The right of human kind to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness is a truth that is held universally to be self-evident.

Alright, agreed.

I wholeheartedly disagree that the bible condones slavery and ignores human rights, I'd be interested in reading some commentary on that. I read a common thread of freedom from the slavery and addiction of sin, and that humanity at its core is sacred and worth upholding and protecting at all costs.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Wow, New living translation; thoroughly twisted by Catholic hacks. An utter abortion contrived form the equally absurd The Living Bible. If you have a barf bag handy, read Roman 13, its epic. If you would like accurate context, look at a manuscript that isn't wholly painted with blatant crap, and any scholar worth anything cringes at the mention of NLT. Try KJV:
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

Servants have always existed in the world, not the same as slavery. We are all servants to something, most of America is servant to US Bank, and Visa. We weren't captured in a net and drug off, we voluntarily checked in to our servitude.

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)[quote]
NLT is so poetic huh? Pure rubbish. KJV: Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
2 And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Any difference in tone? Guess which version came first, and can be traced back through the centuries to the first early manuscripts? You guys love to dig up the most aborted, magled turd or a version, like anyone drink us that drivel. I guess some do, bummer for them. Counterfeits everywhere. Bottom line, people in all walks of life and all situations can do their best to succeed. As Abraham Lincoln said, what ever you are; be a good one.
[quote]I'm not sure why it is so morally repugnant to suggest that people have essential worth, and are more that that sum of our parts, and that we are made to love and be loved.

I wasn't opposed to the the idea that humans have "essential worth" (although as it so happens I do not agree that all humans have some kind of inherent worth), I opposed to using value or worth to determine human rights. That's the capitalism model, whoever is worth more gets more. That's not how human rights work.

You are confusing social stature having anything to do with the essential worth God esteems for all mankind. So in your intuition and feeling, you decide who has essential worth and who doesn't? Newsflash, that's not essential worth, that attributed worth. And again, it cannot exist apart from a transcendent framework, it cannot exist in a purely material world. We don't value our kids based on how fast they run, or how good of drawers they are, or how good at checkers they are. They are infinitely valuable and have untold essential worth to God, and to parents that aren't jacked up.

When I hold by newborn, should I remind myself that it is really just a bag of guts, and a needy inconvenience that needs its disgusting diaper changed way too often?

Personally, I'm afraid of babies. But when I see a baby, I see something that against many odds (I know them but it's a long list) is born healthy and happy and I know that many have come before this baby to allow for this birth to happens, I know that if this baby were born mere 30 years ago, it would have to face much more problems than it does now, I know that this being that we regard as perfect came from generations and generations that if any of them had died, this baby wouldn't be here. If a dinosaur hadn't sneezed, as Dawkins puts it, we would all not be here. And I know that this baby will age and grow old and die and I know that it is made from atoms of life that had grown old and died. That is a beauty in itself.

I'm sorry you are afraid of babies. They can be vicious; Charlie bit my finger and it is still hurting.

We must be very careful here. When we drop the sanctity of life and trade it in for material evolution and nothing else, we walk down a very treacherous slope that other societies have gone down. Unfortunately, the ones that can't protect themselves, like infants and the elderly are the first to go, followed by other inconvenient undesirables. Take a look at Africa, Syria, Albania, and of course 1940's Germany and Poland.

Are we talking about eugenics? Eugenics isn't an argument of evolution, it's an argument of equal rights, which I have never said I was opposed to. So I'm not sure what you're trying to accuse me of.

What I am saying, is when Evolution is the prime backbone of a societies' values, eugenics comes into play. Human rights are trampled for "the greater good" and men with short mustaches wreak havoc. When we adopt a new societal value based on nothing other than evolutionary biology, we mustn't cry foul when we reap the extrapolated metaphysical outworkings; ie., unbridled bloodshed. I fear a world where the checks and balances of life's sanctity is removed and exchanged for a morality firmly planted with it's feet in mid-air.

When we debunk everything we shouldn't file a grievance with God and complain that there is no wonder or beauty left in the world. Truth exist, regardless of our legislation or sales of it, as do rights. We can't reallocate them any more than we can reallocate gravity.

Truth is that the bible is fake. You can't change that just like you can't change gravity. Truth is that evolution is real, you can't change that just like you can't change gravity.

So even the most esteemed secular scholars from Oxford and Harvard are buying into that silly old book? Most of recorded human history, is contained therein, you don't have to believe everything you read, but to blatantly call the bible "fake" is a bit childish and exposes your mis-understanding of top-level secular scholarship..

I don't complain that there's no wonder or beauty, if I were to complain it wouldn't be to a nonexistent god.

One day, when this facade of a non-moral construct erodes and collapsible under the weight of its "new morality", as did our Roman ancestor's, complaining will fall on deaf ears.[/quote]