the right religion

[Agnostic75]

Not long ago, I made an argument that Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and that it is reasonably possible that it is God who is actually masquerading as an angel of light. You said that God has given Christians ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil supernatural beings. However, that is a very poor, and illogical argument since if God is evil, and omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive, including you, and it would have been easy for him to inspire the Bible. You are not able to provide any reasonable proof that you, a mere fallible, imperfect human, would be able to outsmart an omnipotent, omniscient evil God. No rational person would believe such a thing.

I get the point but it is not that simple because the same book also gives ways to detect a false angels of light. For example a false prophet will not be 100% accurate, etc.......We are certainly no left hopelessly without methodologies to separate the two.

That does not make any sense at all since an evil God could easily have inspired all Bible prophecies. Obviously, that would be part of his deceptions.

Very few original first, and second century New Testament manuscripts exist. Such being the case, why do you believe that the New Testament does not contain a number of forgeries, and interpolations since many Bible scholars have said that there are at least some of them? I didn't really want to mention something that deals with biblical criticism and history since it is so vast. Even experts on both side who know far about it than you and I ever will often disagree about many issues that deal with it. One argument often leads to another, and one article often leads to another, and one book often leads to another, so much that many people on both sides spend their entire lives debating only biblical criticism and history. I am not going to get into any lengthy discussions about biblical criticism and history, especially since I believe that there are many arguments from other fields that reasonably prove that a God did not inspire the Bible, or at least reasonably prove that it is reasonable for people to be agnostics, or deists. Surely the majority of people will never know enough about biblical criticism and history to have informed opinions about it.

William Lane Craig touts the issue of "multiple, independent eyewitness," but what is he talking about since Matthew, Mark, and Luke seldom if ever claim to have Jesus perform miracles.

Even if there were ten Gospels instead of four, most Christians would not accept them if they said that God will send everyone to hell. That has to be the case because of since self-interest, which largely causes people to become religious in the first place. According to self-interest, it would not be beneficial to spend a lot of time reasonably proving that God will send everyone to hell.

I think that you once made an argument that many Christians have done things that are against their self-interest. That is true regarding how you meant it, but not regarding how I meant it. What I meant was that few, or no Christians willingly do anything that is against their "ultimate" self-interest, which is having eternal life. If the Bible said that everyone will go to hell, it would definitely be in everyone's self-interest to try to discredit it, and hope that some other God, or even aliens, would provide them with a comfortable eternal life, and only a relative handful of people would accept the Bible.

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. In some cases, their parents give up Christianity as a result. What justification is there for God to allow, or cause that?

If you don't mind, I would still like your explanations for the flood story. Did a flood happen? If so, was it global, or regional? Why was the story written?

 

[Agnostic75]

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

No he did not. Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That is false. Every specific thing that God does, and does not do, is dictated by his nature. God specifically must not lie, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific inaction. God must create humans, which is an example of God's nature dictating a specific action. If God acted contrary to those two examples, he would not be God.

John 3:16 says:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

If God had not given the world his only begotten Son, he would not be God, and such inaction would have been against his nature, which dictated that he give the world his only begotten Son. God cannot act, or inact, contrary to his nature.

You said:

Nothing in his nature forced him to create anything. Creation is an expression of his nature not a dictate of it.

That suggests that God giving the world his only begotten Son was optional, but it certainly was not optional since if God had not done that, he would not have been God, and quite obviously, God must always be God. Logically, in order for God to give the world his only begotten Son, he first had to create humans.

Since God's love dictates specific inactions, such as not telling lies, it logically follows that his love also dictates specific actions, such as creating humans, and giving them his only begotten Son. If God is never bound by specificity, then all of his actions, and inactions would be equal, and it would never matter what he specifically does, or does not do, and that cannot be true.

William Lane Craig has said that God is the greatest conceivable being. J.P. Moreland, who is a very distinguished colleague of William Lane Craig, has said that it is impossible for God to have his attributes to a greater degree that he already has them. That implies that if God could have done anything better than he already has, he would have done it, and that when God does anything, it has to be the best that he can do, or he would not have done it. When God created man, and gave man his only begotten Son, that was the best that he could have done at that time. God's perfect, omnibenevolent nature dictated that he do those things.

Justification is the determining element in right thing. It is what separates killing from murder.

God's nature is always his only justification for doing things, and the only reason why he ever does anything.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things.

Repeat of the repeat above.

None of what you previously said adequately refutes what I just said. Just plain old common sense indicates that no being is admirable if he always has to do what he does. Therefore, morality has no meaning without choice.

Please reply to my previous two posts.

 

[1robin]

Again - hilarious - as that is exactly what YOU - and every person in every other religion, are doing -

Come off it. Inventing metaphysical ideas devoid of any justification has nothing to do with a faith so evidenced and that included the most studied text ever written that it has convinced hordes of the most critical and intellectual among us for thousands of years.

AND again, - YOU have no proof for anyone else, that your religion is any more true then the next one.

I never claimed proof, nor does faith have that burden. I do have however more than enough justification for what I believe. Your claim had none even theoretically possible in any category.

You argue that your religion is true - BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE IT IS!

No I do not. I have never ever stated anything like that.

That does NOT make it so.

Probably why I never said it did.

I pick on you because much of your claims are so bad but I actually like you. Do not take offense at my calling what maybe the most unjustifiable and potentially harmful claims possible as such, personally. You seem to easily get rattled a bit.

 

[1robin]

What "IS" may-or-may-not come from a Deity.

The lack of a ? and no relevance to anything I said lost me here.

However, ALL religion is man made.

Unless you are omnipotent God himself you cannot know this. It is quite impossible. Yet you make another claim to knowledge and again do not even hint at the supply of it.

What merit do you think there is in this exactly? What is your goal here?

 

[1robin]

So very-very true.


It is amazing that religious fundamentalists can't see and understand this.




*

Have you labeled me as fundamental now? If a fundamentalist is that which believes truth is fundamental I will take that rap.

 

[1robin]

That is hilarious - YOU just put up a bunch of "psycho babble" - as what I said, is exactly what YOU and every other religious follower are doing.


NONE of you has any real proof of your Deity.


You are born into a faith, or decide you want to believe a particular one; BUT -You take it on faith - ALWAYS - as there is no real proof.




*

I have adopted a faith at one time I literally hated. I am a hostile not a friendly witness. So much for that. There is no real proof for anything. Since you deny belief in anything without certainty you have just doomed almost everything you think you know about anything. Great work.

 

[1robin]

While I would agree with this, the difference is that I see the Bible as also the result of the "crooked timber of man."

Is prophecy the result of natural speculation. Your belief here would have to be justified to be relevant. I simply disagree.

While I know you have you're arguments to justify it otherwise, first every "true" religions has their arguments to justify the truth of their religion. Second the arguments presented to justify the truth of the Bible doesn't hold the applesauce. For some simple reasons that are just obvious to anyone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt.

Every belief has an argument but they do not have equal arguments or all have rational arguments. Are only claims that have no justification and perfect agreement valid? Obvious to those that resent the dog in the hunt maybe. I can't really counter opinions, you must supply arguments or evidence in a debate.

Or I suppose like I've heard atheists say, "Christians believe in no others gods and I believe in one less them them."

This is not an argument either.

The justifications you have you are not willing to apply to your own religion.

I constantly complain of double standards. I will subject my faith to any test I subject any other claim to that is similar. I am constantly doing just that and nothing else can pass the tests.

 

[Ingledsva]

What "IS" may-or-may-not come from a Deity.

The lack of a ? and no relevance to anything I said lost me here.

No question mark because it isn't a question. Replace "is" with "exists."


What "exists" may-or-may-not come from a Deity

However, ALL religion is man made.

Unless you are omnipotent God himself you cannot know this. It is quite impossible. Yet you make another claim to knowledge and again do not even hint at the supply of it.

What merit do you think there is in this exactly? What is your goal here?

As I said, there is no proof for any religion being from a Deity.


For instance, the God of the Abrahamic religions is nasty, murderous, jealous, etc, BECAUSE the religions are written by MEN, and they write their own human failings into their God stories. AND because it was written by a patriarchal culture, the "laws" are written for the benefit of the MALE.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

I have adopted a faith at one time I literally hated. I am a hostile not a friendly witness. So much for that. There is no real proof for anything. Since you deny belief in anything without certainty you have just doomed almost everything you think you know about anything. Great work.

LOL! We are talking about invisible beings, that supposedly created everything, and thus we are being told we must worship them, or go to Hell.


BULL! BULL! BULL!


You need real proof when you want people to believe such crap.




*

 

[psychoslice]

Yep, bull bull bull lol.

 

[1robin]

No question mark because it isn't a question. Replace "is" with "exists."


What "exists" may-or-may-not come from a Deity

Ok, gotcha. Don't know why I did not see that sooner. I guess because I was in a hurry.

So you admit that reality must be explained and that it's explanation has two categories. Fine so far. If I can eliminate at least as far as current scientific understandings go the natural as the explanation (non-determined constants, abiogenesis, and the fact something exists instead of nothing would be a few) by your agreement that only leaves the supernatural as an explanation.

As I said, there is no proof for any religion being from a Deity.

And I said proof is not what faith issues nor virtually any other claim are decided upon. All claims involve assumptions and belief. So your accusation here is not meaningful. To be meaningful you would have to show two impossible things.

1. That religious faith requires a lot more belief given a lot less evidence than other acceptable claims.
2. That you by some omnipotent means know exactly what the excepted level of the above is and that theological faith violates that objective standard.

You must do both and can do neither so this is not really an argument at all.

For instance, the God of the Abrahamic religions is nasty, murderous, jealous, etc, BECAUSE the religions are written by MEN, and they write their own human failings into their God stories. AND because it was written by a patriarchal culture, the "laws" are written for the benefit of the MALE.

I can understand how a critic who simply refuses to include context can believe God may be warlike (which is not really an indictment alone and is not true if purpose and context is included), but I have never understood how anyone through any means can conclude God is sexist. Women's rights are constantly asserted in the bible. Men are given strict instructions on treating women with benevolence even to a sacrificial level. I saw this women who stood up and yelled at Ravi Zacharias that God hated women. She was fuming mad and later she said why. Some lady she knew was raped and somehow she had blamed it on God. No one else could have done this but this is Ravi's specialty. With a kindness it is impossible to comprehend Ravi explained how women were favored by God many times (the first at the tomb, the mother of Christ, etc....) that women was so floored by his kindness she sat back down a defeated and sobbing mess relieved at least for that moment of all her anger towards God.

However for a moment let's pretend God is 100% in favor of a male dominated culture. BTW patriarchal is not strictly men rule anyway. It is an elder rule system that usually means the elder male. Since life back then depended on hunting and war (which males exceed in) why would not cultures be dominated by men. Men are by nature dominant and assertive. It is as if they are given the nature to rule. In our strange culture this is no longer as important so I have no problem with women having an equal or even at times a dominant role. However it is not unjustifiable to suggest men are the natural leaders of history. I am not saying God favored men, I am saying it is rational even if he did. From the bible I conclude God favors neither and assigns each very appropriate responsibilities. One is not better than another but they are as nature demonstrates, different, and that necessitates differing ability.

Are you wanting a sexism debate?

 

[1robin]

LOL! We are talking about invisible beings, that supposedly created everything, and thus we are being told we must worship them, or go to Hell.


BULL! BULL! BULL!


You need real proof when you want people to believe such crap.




*

Apparently that post was bull because while not having proof billions have believed. History demonstrates your insistence of proof for faith is not only unjustifiable but is hypocritical since you constantly make decisions based on faith.

My post was not about this. It was about the fact I did not adopt my faith based on expectations or peer pressure. I in spite of that completely turned on that faith with a vengeance. I was as adamant against faith those days as I am for it now, because I was 100% wrong then. Nor was my eventual adoption of faith a result of what you claimed. When I was born again, I was in no church, had no family pressure whatever, and only knew of one Christian out of everyone I associated with.

So on both counts your claim is demonstrably false as applied to me for one case and to faith in general for the other. Wrong, wrong, wrong and unlike your bull, bull, bull demonstrably so.

 

[1robin]

Yep, bull bull bull lol.

Since you have not responded to a single request from me that you back up any of your claims that seem to be pulled out of thin air, I can only conclude you are here to vent, and have no interest in debate. That is more appropriate to do by yelling at cars on the freeway not by making unknowable taunts in a education forum.

 

[Ingledsva]

No question mark because it isn't a question. Replace "is" with "exists."


What "exists" may-or-may-not come from a Deity

Ok, gotcha. Don't know why I did not see that sooner. I guess because I was in a hurry.

So you admit that reality must be explained and that it's explanation has two categories. Fine so far. If I can eliminate at least as far as current scientific understandings go the natural as the explanation (non-determined constants, abiogenesis, and the fact something exists instead of nothing would be a few) by your agreement that only leaves the supernatural as an explanation.

You have given this argument several times now, - and it still isn't so.

As I said, there is no proof for any religion being from a Deity.

And I said proof is not what faith issues nor virtually any other claim are decided upon. All claims involve assumptions and belief. So your accusation here is not meaningful. To be meaningful you would have to show two impossible things.

1. That religious faith requires a lot more belief given a lot less evidence than other acceptable claims.
2. That you by some omnipotent means know exactly what the excepted level of the above is and that theological faith violates that objective standard.

You must do both and can do neither so this is not really an argument at all.

Pure religious babble. I don't have to prove anything - as you have no proof of your Flying spaghetti Monster/insert any God here.

For instance, the God of the Abrahamic religions is nasty, murderous, jealous, etc, BECAUSE the religions are written by MEN, and they write their own human failings into their God stories. AND because it was written by a patriarchal culture, the "laws" are written for the benefit of the MALE.

I can understand how a critic who simply refuses to include context can believe God may be warlike (which is not really an indictment alone and is not true if purpose and context is included),

Pure BULL as usual. You got plenty of context from me, and others, in past arguments on this subject.

YOUR Bible, says YOUR God, killed innocent babies, and other people, for the "supposed" crimes of others. Nothing else needs be said!

but I have never understood how anyone through any means can conclude God is sexist. Women's rights are constantly asserted in the bible. Men are given strict instructions on treating women with benevolence even to a sacrificial level.

I didn't say any God was sexist. I said the MALE writers of the Bible, whom are from a patriarchal culture MADE-UP the Bible to their advantage.

I saw this women who stood up and yelled at Ravi Zacharias that God hated women. She was fuming mad and later she said why. Some lady she knew was raped and somehow she had blamed it on God. No one else could have done this but this is Ravi's specialty. With a kindness it is impossible to comprehend Ravi explained how women were favored by God many times (the first at the tomb, the mother of Christ, etc....) that women was so floored by his kindness she sat back down a defeated and sobbing mess relieved at least for that moment of all her anger towards God.

LOL! Read Spong's Born of a Woman. It deals with the patriarchal crap imposed by the church. Mary M. got labeled a whore, and any texts dealing with her as more, were altered, or left out.

Mary the "virgin," got changed from a normal women giving birth to a spiritual leader, to a perpetual virgin impregnated by a Deity, which women "impossibly" were told to emulate. Leading to the Virgin-Whore sex ideas that women have had to fight against ever since!


Women being passed from male to male as a broodmare transaction - isn't equality!

Raping little girls - isn't equality.


The RIGHT to rape female prisoners isn't equality.


Being S****ed by your husband's brother to insure A male to inherit - isn't equality.


Your father having the right to sell you as a sex slave - isn't equality.


We could go on-and-on-and-on, as we already have. Just re-read this full thread.

However for a moment let's pretend God is 100% in favor of a male dominated culture. BTW patriarchal is not strictly men rule anyway. It is an elder rule system that usually means the elder male. Since life back then depended on hunting and war (which males exceed in) why would not cultures be dominated by men.

I suggest you look up the word Patriarchy.


1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power


2: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy


Patriarchy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


And by the way - I AM A HUNTER. Women have been hunters from the beginning of human history.

Men are by nature dominant and assertive. It is as if they are given the nature to rule.

Men are by nature - more aggressive - which does not translate to better government.

In our strange culture this is no longer as important so I have no problem with women having an equal or even at times a dominant role. However it is not unjustifiable to suggest men are the natural leaders of history.

YES - it absolutely is unjustifiable! As long as men continue to dominate - we will be in constant war.

I am not saying God favored men, I am saying it is rational even if he did.

LOL! Look at the state of the whole world. If your God thinks men should be in charge - he would be an idiot, - and it is more proof of his non-existence.

From the bible I conclude God favors neither and assigns each very appropriate responsibilities. One is not better than another but they are as nature demonstrates, different, and that necessitates differing ability.

Are you wanting a sexism debate?

LOL! Of course we are different, - or there would be no humans.


However, my ability to pop out a baby, - does not mean that is my only role, - especially with aggressive, murdering, raping, dominating males that think they are Gods image and I'm an afterthought from a male rib. LOL!


Such fantasies you guys dream up. LOL!


I think - if there is a God - males are far-far-far form its image.



*

 

[Ingledsva]

LOL! We are talking about invisible beings, that supposedly created everything, and thus we are being told we must worship them, or go to Hell.


BULL! BULL! BULL!


You need real proof when you want people to believe such crap.

Apparently that post was bull because while not having proof billions have believed. History demonstrates your insistence of proof for faith is not only unjustifiable but is hypocritical since you constantly make decisions based on faith.

And BULL again.


It doesn't matter if "billions" believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster/insert any God here.


For those of us that do not believe in your religion - you need actual proof.

My post was not about this. It was about the fact I did not adopt my faith based on expectations or peer pressure. I in spite of that completely turned on that faith with a vengeance. I was as adamant against faith those days as I am for it now, because I was 100% wrong then. Nor was my eventual adoption of faith a result of what you claimed. When I was born again, I was in no church, had no family pressure whatever, and only knew of one Christian out of everyone I associated with.

What is the long drawn out point you are trying to make here?


You still chose to believe what you believe on faith, without any proof.

So on both counts your claim is demonstrably false as applied to me for one case and to faith in general for the other. Wrong, wrong, wrong and unlike your bull, bull, bull demonstrably so.

No I am not wrong, And as usual you just go in circles.


It is quite funny that folks like you cannot understand where people like me are coming from.


Your religion is no different to us then any other of the thousands of religions out there.


Try imagining your statements - coming out of another religion. They sound pretty stupid when it is another "un-provable" religion, - that you don't believe in, right?


That is how you sound to us. You have no proof of your religion being true, just as none of the others have any proof of their religion being true.


Yet you want us to accept what you say without proof, - even though YOU don't accept any other religion because they have no proof.




*

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Apparently that post was bull because while not having proof billions have believed.

Millions of people also believed that Hitler would create a better Germany, guess they were wrong too. That's what happens when you blindly follow something without question.

 

[psychoslice]

Since you have not responded to a single request from me that you back up any of your claims that seem to be pulled out of thin air, I can only conclude you are here to vent, and have no interest in debate. That is more appropriate to do by yelling at cars on the freeway not by making unknowable taunts in a education forum.

I have already said enough to you, its up to you if you want to investigate what I have said, you just can't let it go can you, what does that prove, you may be wrong ?.

 

[psychoslice]

Since you have not responded to a single request from me that you back up any of your claims that seem to be pulled out of thin air, I can only conclude you are here to vent, and have no interest in debate. That is more appropriate to do by yelling at cars on the freeway not by making unknowable taunts in a education forum.

This is what I said to someone on another thread.

And that was a very nice testimony, but I have also heard many others people from other religions say the same thing, is their testimony worthless to yours ?. You will of course believe your religion was God sent, but again people of my own religion that I use to go to also believe the same.

You believe you have correctly translated the scriptures, and also did my church, especially concerning the Sabbath, and the second coming of Jesus.

To each religion it all sounds wonderful, and through arrogance each are believing their system is the right one.

I don't think any of them is the right one, there all man made, true so called religion isn't found in any arrogant church who believes they are the chosen. religion is found within each one of us, its yours and nobody else's, no one has the right to shove it down anyone's throat, to do so is nothing but egotistical in its highest order.

 

[1robin]

You have given this argument several times now, - and it still isn't so.

Need for new arguments until the current ones have been countered. What I said is a proposition absolute. Since you granted the proposition what it necessitate is absolute. And without the slightest hint of an argument against it, it is standing stall.

I don't have to prove anything - as you have no proof of your Flying spaghetti Monster/insert any God here.

Nothing I said has any religious connotation. The burdens I mention are true in any subject. You constantly just blurt our assertions as if they are facts. That necessitates a burden of proof no matter what subject is under discussion.

My spaghetti monster as you like to put it for pure biased effect, is not claimed by me to be certain knowledge so I do not have the burden you most certainly do. Your requirements are the result of sloppy language us in a debate.

Pure BULL as usual. You got plenty of context from me, and others, in past arguments on this subject.

No I did not. I saw a complete disregard for the surrounding biblical narrative for every single claim, and even an ignorance concerning even simple ANE cultural norms. The only context I got was context invented out of thin air for effect and the use of modern connotation associated with words that the bible was translated into.

For example biblical slavery did not contain the word slavery. It contained a word I will provide if you wish that meant forced servitude. You and others of course invoked the 19th century meaning of the word to call to mind pulling people apart by horses, whipping them for minor offenses, and working them to death. Which has nothing at all to do with even the most stringent of biblical "slavery". Nor did you even acknowledge that it's laws were by far the most benevolent of any ANE culture known. If the Bible was as evil as you say, it would not require such linguistic gymnastics to show it.

YOUR Bible, says YOUR God, killed innocent babies, and other people, for the "supposed" crimes of others. Nothing else needs be said!

Says the person that supports killing them in the womb by the millions based on a right you do not have unless God exists and the very right you deprive who it is that is killed. That is hyperbolic hypocrisy on steroids. Especially considering God knows their guilt or innocence and can place the innocents in eternal bliss, created the life to begin with, has complete and absolute sovereignty over all life, and is aware of every piece of information needed to make the decision. Not one of those are you in possession of but still pronounce a death sentence that applies to a thousand lives for every one God has taken, and then to top that insanity off the morally defunct accuse the being more associated with goodness than any in history of being a monster. Simply remarkable. Reminds me of a line in apocalypse now. "What do you call it when the assassins condemn the soldiers, It's like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

I didn't say any God was sexist. I said the MALE writers of the Bible, whom are from a patriarchal culture MADE-UP the Bible to their advantage.

The same evidence I gave that refutes this would apply to either.

It deals with the patriarchal crap imposed by the church. Mary M. got labeled a whore, and any texts dealing with her as more, were altered, or left out.

Oh no, we are in the Da Vinci code. Christians revere Mary Magdeline, what is the motivation to smear her?

Mary the "virgin," got changed from a normal women giving birth to a spiritual leader, to a perpetual virgin impregnated by a Deity, which women "impossibly" were told to emulate.

These are all obscure Catholic traditions. Neither are unflattering to women and neither are taken seriously by orthodox Christians. I am not defending men. I am defending the Bible and God, so please concentrate on them.

Women being passed from male to male as a broodmare transaction - isn't equality!

What are you talking about?

Raping little girls - isn't equality.

What are you talking about?

The RIGHT to rape female prisoners isn't equality.

Is there a verse promoting this? What are you talking about?

Being S****ed by your husband's brother to insure A male to inherit - isn't equality.

That was not a requirement it was an option that would continue a family line. It was not mandated if not desired.

Your father having the right to sell you as a sex slave - isn't equality.

What are you talking about?

We could go on-and-on-and-on, as we already have. Just re-read this full thread.

I can't even think of a scripture you are misunderstanding that would result in what you claimed.

I suggest you look up the word Patriarchy.


1: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power

I did. It is a male dominated system but it's emphasis is on the elder male. I was not denying what you said. I was clarifying it for information's sake. I do not believe women were subjugated by any verse and were at times highly favored by God but I do think that at least for those times a male headed family is an extremely logical and necessary requirement.

And by the way - I AM A HUNTER. Women have been hunters from the beginning of human history.

Since women cannot physically compete with men on average and duties must be separated in a family or tribe, then by evolutionary principle or divine command by far the most logical allocation of duties is that men lead, hunt, fight, and handle the more strenuous physical necessities and women do the less physically rigorous chores. That is the most efficient model possible. However in our time I still think man is the leader of the house but should always consult his wife on all decisions, outside that since duties are far less physical I no longer see any need for distinguished roles.

As for your hunting. I believe your an Alaskan. Can you gut a moose and drag him up hill to the truck by your self. Has nothing to do with anything but it is hard to predict. Let me add in an example of one of the few areas women do not belong in in modern times. For purely politically correct reasons women are now allow in special ops. Instantly the physical standards were lowered. There is no way possible this will not cost many men their lives. How many lives is feminism worth?

Men are by nature - more aggressive - which does not translate to better government.

No, men are more able to actualize aggression. When I was in kindergarten though 8th grade, every single fight I was in was with a girl, and some of them won. At age 10 one girl had me so scared I would not go out at break to avoid here and I lifted weights every night hoping in vane to eventually be stronger. However once I grew a bit that ended abruptly. I will grant you this. A world run by Margaret Thatcher's would be infinitely better than one run by Obamas.

YES - it absolutely is unjustifiable! As long as men continue to dominate - we will be in constant war.

I can certainly grant men are at the root of many wars. However many times they are fighting over women and women have a singular ability to intrigue wars into existence. Helen of Troy is a good example. Men at least go toe to toe most of the time and settle issues. Women backbite, recruit clicks, use propaganda like master. Instead of 4 year wars there would be perpetual wars of propaganda and head games that would never end.

LOL! Look at the state of the whole world. If your God thinks men should be in charge - he would be an idiot, - and it is more proof of his non-existence.

It is not God who has placed men in power in 90% the cultures around the world.

LOL! Of course we are different, - or there would be no humans.

Yes you are and physically and mentally mean we are each suited for differing roles and both are vital. Only women resent theirs. I can grant that bad men have contributed to much of women's dissatisfaction. In a good world a good man would lead the family and the women would do her duties and everything would be as it should. However many men abuse their role and fail to do as God commanded so women have rebelled and want to take over his role. I can sympathize but if the Bible was faithfully followed that would not be the case.

However, my ability to pop out a baby, - does not mean that is my only role, - especially with aggressive, murdering, raping, dominating males that think they are Gods image and I'm an afterthought from a male rib. LOL!

I didn't have child birth in mind for my comment. I meant women are more tender and loving toward children. Men are better at hacking apart intruders and honestly negotiating uneasy agreements and throwing spears threw mastodons. If you doubt he physical superiority of men why does every women who competes in a men's sports arena normally loose so bad it's embarrassing. Do you think Layla Alli would last 10 seconds with Tyson.

Such fantasies you guys dream up. LOL!


I think - if there is a God - males are far-far-far form its image.

*

Speaking of fantasies, the bible uses man to indicate mankind's being like God as having freewill and moral agency.

 

[1robin]

I have already said enough to you, its up to you if you want to investigate what I have said, you just can't let it go can you, what does that prove, you may be wrong ?.

I can't investigate what you pull out of thin air and I have no memory of your doing anything else. They are not even arguments, and are devoid of evidence. They are simple speculations without justification and what I regard as a great evil. I am not saying you are evil but that unjustifiable meta-theological speculation is.