Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Many Christians, for instance, idolize and idol worship Jesus for his goodness but tend to forget that the stupid Trinity concept ties his to his genocidal son murdering vile demiurge, Yahweh.

You seem to believe too much of the OT is literal, as opposed to mythology, written by bronze age savages, to impress other bronze age savages.

Did it ever occur to you that God's requests were a test of human reaction, and not an expectation that people would actually carry out those requests?

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
A lot of men seem to agree with this, given that 50% of households are one parent households, --- mostly manned by women.

The problem with those stats is that most of the 50% of dads are deadbeat dads.

So much for men knowing their responsibility.

Pardon the digression.

Regards
DL

I think you are wrong on this issue.
First I'd like to point out the natural sexism of suggesting that women "man" the family.
On the issue of single parent families.
This in no way implies a dead beat dad. In fact for the most part, or at least in my experience, it is the result of the selfishness of women, who upon having children find no need for a man about the house and the law, being what it is, gives them all the power to control the children; throw out the father and either invoke the law to take him for everything he owns; or to rely on the state to provide for her children.

But my commandments make no mention of the family as I do not see that as part of the suggestions that a society can make to enforce what is in effect a private contract between two people.
My commandment was intended to ensure that men and women are to be treated as equal under the law, and should be equally considered for employment, not on grounds of gender, but on their ability to do a job.
If, and when the law needs to be invoked on family matters judgements ought not favour the mother, but also consider the father's potential to bring up the kids.
It seem that your women and children first attitude is the other side of the coin of discrimination against women, both patronising and discriminatory.

It is discrimination in favor of women and children and I do not apologise for it.
Regards
DL

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
I think you are wrong on this issue.
First I'd like to point out the natural sexism of suggesting that women "man" the family.
On the issue of single parent families.
This in no way implies a dead beat dad. In fact for the most part, or at least in my experience, it is the result of the selfishness of women, who upon having children find no need for a man about the house and the law, being what it is, gives them all the power to control the children; throw out the father and either invoke the law to take him for everything he owns; or to rely on the state to provide for her children.

But my commandments make no mention of the family as I do not see that as part of the suggestions that a society can make to enforce what is in effect a private contract between two people.
My commandment was intended to ensure that men and women are to be treated as equal under the law, and should be equally considered for employment, not on grounds of gender, but on their ability to do a job.
If, and when the law needs to be invoked on family matters judgements ought not favour the mother, but also consider the father's potential to bring up the kids.
It seem that your women and children first attitude is the other side of the coin of discrimination against women, both patronising and discriminatory.

It is discrimination in favor of women and children and I do not apologise for it.
Regards
DL

Then you have already broken my commandment.

Greatest I am wrote: 70 odd % of all Christians believe in a literal Satan and hell and all are literal enough to believe in a literal and real Jesus.

That is why I use a literal reading when I argue with Christians. I focus on the majority and not the minority which need less correcting for poor thinking.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
It is discrimination in favor of women and children and I do not apologise for it.
Regards
DL

Then you have already broken my commandment.

It was a poor commandment that goes contrary to nature.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: 70 odd % of all Christians believe in a literal Satan and hell and all are literal enough to believe in a literal and real Jesus.

That is why I use a literal reading when I argue with Christians. I focus on the majority and not the minority which need less correcting for poor thinking.

Regards
DL

Then I'll let you to rail at the majority that does not include me, if you want to discuss anything with me, address my views and not those of the majority.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Then you have already broken my commandment.

It was a poor commandment that goes contrary to nature.

Regards
DL

If human equality is contrary to nature, that's fine. But more so does 'women and children first" so I do not take that as a criticism.
I think all rules for human society are likely to be contra-nature.

Greatest I am wrote: You have made up your own god but let me try.

If your god is an all knowing god, why does he confirm what he already knows with tests and why does he refuse to confirm his judgement by allowing a test subject the right to argue the score?

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:If your god is an all knowing god, why does he confirm what he already knows with tests and why does he refuse to confirm his judgement by allowing a test subject the right to argue the score?

Regards
DL

God does allow the test subjects to "argue the score" for example the people of Nineveh repented, God did not destroy them. Abraham argued for God to spare Sodom if there were 10 good men in the city.

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:
It was a poor commandment that goes contrary to nature.

Regards
DL

If human equality is contrary to nature, that's fine. But more so does 'women and children first" so I do not take that as a criticism.
I think all rules for human society are likely to be contra-nature.

Nature put's females and offspring ahead of the males of all the species I know of.

Name any hierarchical animal that send the smaller females to fight ahead of the larger males.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote: Nature put's females and offspring ahead of the males of all the species I know of.

Name any hierarchical animal that send the smaller females to fight ahead of the larger males.

Regards
DL

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: You have made up your own god but let me try.

If your god is an all knowing god, why does he confirm what he already knows with tests and why does he refuse to confirm his judgement by allowing a test subject the right to argue the score?

Regards
DL

God does allow the test subjects to "argue the score" for example the people of Nineveh repented, God did not destroy them. Abraham argued for God to spare Sodom if there were 10 good men in the city.

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:If your god is an all knowing god, why does he confirm what he already knows with tests and why does he refuse to confirm his judgement by allowing a test subject the right to argue the score?

Regards
DL

God does allow the test subjects to "argue the score" for example the people of Nineveh repented, God did not destroy them. Abraham argued for God to spare Sodom if there were 10 good men in the city.

God knows what will happen, of course: that would probably be analytic in being the Supreme Being, or at least stipulated by the idea of "omniscience." However, that doesn't mean that we do. It also doesn't mean that we don't learn a great deal through the conversation.

A Supreme Being would, by definition, transcend time, and so could see all that is happening or can happen. But that is not our situation. On the assumption that the Supreme Being is interested in our relationship with Him, he would necessarily make condescension to our time-boundedness, the limitations of our knowledge, and the other frailties of our humanity. The ensuing dialogue would be no news to Him, but certainly very edifying to us.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If human equality is contrary to nature, that's fine. But more so does 'women and children first" so I do not take that as a criticism.
I think all rules for human society are likely to be contra-nature.

Nature put's females and offspring ahead of the males of all the species I know of.

Name any hierarchical animal that send the smaller females to fight ahead of the larger males.

Regards
DL

You are deluded.
Species do not send anyone 'to fight ahread', not that that is relevant.
And nature does not put any gender ahead of any other since nature has no volition.

thedoc wrote:

Greatest I am wrote: Nature put's females and offspring ahead of the males of all the species I know of.

Name any hierarchical animal that send the smaller females to fight ahead of the larger males.

Regards
DL

your knowledge is somewhat limited, the Lion sends the female out to hunt, and bring down the prey, so that the bigger male can then feed.