Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Wolfy]

I do want to point out the time frame, back then women DID NEED it, just like back then kings provided protection to those he ?”ruled” over or should I say server (if they followed the bible)Women are not weak no, but when it comes down to it a man can get stronger, will be stronger, and women cant stop them, more so back then when strength was all power was

So I’d say God did this to protect them from those who did not follow Gods world, I mean women where treated badly, both form Christians and non Christians but if Christians had followed the bible then they would not have been as badly.

the women would have been respected and watched over
Huh, is that not what we do now?
We tell women not to walk down dark alleys alone, we tell them travel in groups, we tell them many things to “protect” these women you claim don’t need it, we have all sort of things set up for them to protect them, things that give them more rights, rights that men don’t have

Seems to me we still are doing it but in  different way to reflect the times, no more dose a man need to fight off the raiders attacking the girl (thank God) we now focus on other things as well but we still watch them, its why we have excite health care for them, special insurance and  other breaks

[citation_needed]

Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog".  Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.





 

Take your pick, then. There is, of course, no shortage of injustice.
]Or perhaps we should stay on topic and look at misogyny. Then again, why be so specific when we can just look at all of the intolerance? //skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html]But nothing gets quite so flat out crazy as the violence.

How’d I guess you were going to do that? Oh yeah only about a million others who never read the bible have used the same thing. How about reading the bible? or at least LOOKING for an example instead of seeing a guy point out all the "flaws" did you even look at the whole site? Did you read the fact he has a page that has answers to ALL of those “problems” many multiple times over.


Here is one of the links form his page.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/christian.html

you did not look did you? you just said "okay there are flaws here, no need to check them"
So now I ask you READ these, can I answer every single one? nope, but I could ask same questions about ANYTHING its easy to find "problems" with anythin


here is one example out of the bat that you guys LOVE to use  (form this very site, its used so much I have it freaking benched marked

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/answering.htm

once again another one set up for it, but you did not bother to look you just posted that it take it as proof, you wont read these, you will deny them, and still use your link as proof and  nothing will chnage

And don't go all "Old v. New Testament" on me. If you want just the New Testament examples, you need but scroll down.

funny if you did the same you would see the "
Christian answers" link and looking around you will see ALL of them have been answered in one way or another.

[Starver]

Hmmm... which of the ten six hundred and thirteen(-ish) commandments should I break?

[Hiiri]

mur·der  [mur-der]
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.

Yeah, that's right! The commandment is actually against bad pronunciation! I'd like to know which dictionary God used.

[Eagle_eye]

Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.

[Spinning Fly]

So I’d say God did this to protect them from those who did not follow Gods world, I mean women where treated badly, both form Christians and non Christians but if Christians had followed the bible then they would not have been as badly.

Why on earth would it have been not as bad if the Christians had followed the Bible? You think the Westboro Baptist people would treat women very kindly?

I think something you need to understand is that you simply cannot base your morals on a book like the Bible, which has too many conflicting passages. Just consider the passage in Deuteronomy 17 that Micro102 mentioned earlier, as well as Jesus' teaching to love thy neighbour.

You look at those 2 passages and feel that "love thy neighbour" overrides the other one.

Other people can look at the 2 passages and feel that "love thy neighbour" does not always apply, and can justify killing people with different beliefs. And no other Christian can say they are wrong, because they are simply following the Bible.

[Spinning Fly]

Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.

As any Christian worth his salt would tell you, "but God gave us free will". Thereby absolving him of all blame from any crime committed by humans.

But what I really wonder is how they reconcile this with their view that God is like a loving, caring father. A good father will give his children freedom to make their own choices. But if he were to see his child fighting with someone, would he not stop the child and scold him?

[Wolfy]

Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.

unless they are letting others make their own choices and letting THEM not him have their own preference

But what I really wonder is how they reconcile this with their view that God is like a loving, caring father. A good father will give his children freedom to make their own choices. But if he were to see his child fighting with someone, would he not stop the child and scold him?

Not always, there was one time when it was "okay?" for kids to fight and thought of as "being a man"
He sees his kids fighting and you claim he would scold them, but God did, look at when he sent them to Egypt, when he destyoed citywide when he flooded the earth, when he sent his prophets, he DID scold, and it did not work

He gave us punishment and we kept doing it, so now he trys a diffident aprouch, one of love and of forgiveness rather then being a stricked father he gose to one who you talk to for all your problems

The OT is pretty much him scolding for doing wrong and it got him no where

[Eagle_eye]

Wolfy, why would an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god reduce women to a lower social status to protect them, when he could just as easily(as he's omnipotent) and far more effectively protect them, and all people, by simply making it physically impossible for people to do bad things? If an omnipotent god exists, they're sacrificing morality in favor of their own preferences.

unless they are letting others make their own choices and letting THEM not him have their own preference

Exactly my point. They're acting immorally by allowing others to do bad things, because they prefer that humans have "free will".

[Spinning Fly]

Not always, there was one time when it was "okay?" for kids to fight and thought of as "being a man"

Not "one time" per se, several cultures have encouraged sparring among kids to get them prepared for military training. But these fights were more in the nature of sparring and testing their strength, trying to improve their abilities. Not bullying or beating the crap out of some weak kid.

I suppose I could have been more clear. Why would God sit and watch as millions lose their lives, loved ones, livelihoods and homes due to war and conflict everyday? I'm not talking about the soldiers who actually signed up for this - I mean the civilians whose lives turn to shit because of war.

He sees his kids fighting and you claim he would scold them, but God did, look at when he sent them to Egypt, when he destyoed citywide when he flooded the earth, when he sent his prophets, he DID scold, and it did not work

He gave us punishment and we kept doing it, so now he trys a diffident aprouch, one of love and of forgiveness rather then being a stricked father he gose to one who you talk to for all your problems

The OT is pretty much him scolding for doing wrong and it got him no where

His idea of scolding is quite retarded then. Usually a scolding involves telling the child what he's done wrong and why it's wrong, and making the child apologise. Scolding does not involve killing everyone and destroying everything. Being omnipotent, God has no excuse for not being able to change people's natures such that they don't want to kill or harm others.

Plus the diffident approach doesn't work at all. Thousands of Christians have and still continue to kill and harm others.

But leaving aside the people who suffer due to war and conflict, what about all the innocent people in poverty-stricken places around the world, dying of starvation and disease? Does God not care about their plight? I can't imagine how a theistic god, if it existed, could even remotely be considered to be loving or caring towards humanity.

[Graknorke]

[citation_needed]

Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog".  Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.

Do we really need to do this whole burden of proof thing again?
Really?

[MonkeyHead]

[citation_needed]

Seems to me you need to, find one example of him talking down to a women, OTHER then calling one a "dog".  Before you say it, it was not a term for bitch, it was a term on her people, not gender, and it was a test to see her response.

Do we really need to do this whole burden of proof thing again?
Really?

That plea will fall on deaf ears most probably. Wolfy has had this point made to them several times recently and chosen to ignore it, or used circular reasoning.

[Scoops Novel]

Incidentally, what do the demographics for atheism look like in the third world?

[Scoops Novel]

Is this including India as the third world?

[MonkeyHead]

I think its fair to put India, Brazil and China into an up-to-date category of "Second World" - high GDP, low GNP or GDP per capita.

[Fenrir]

Even if a nonsensical concept like free will existed, it would not absolve God from responsibility. To excuse God’s neglect by saying that God wanted us to make our own choices is to tacitly imply that crimes are committed between consenting adults. If a woman is attacked, or, for that matter, anyone is attacked, she certainly isn’t being given a choice. No one chooses to be raped or murdered. If God is willing to permit a malevolent power to impose his will over another, why would it be worse for God to intercede? Either way, someone is having a particular circumstance forced upon them, so why not make it a good one?

Further, he has already impinged upon our free will. I want to fly under my own power as easily as I run. Can I do that? No. Strange how it was considered important for me to have the choice to murder someone, but he did not give me the choice to fly.

This is, of course, omitting all the torture and murder that God commits without people, unless someone wants to argue that cancer and tsunamis have free will.