Women Inferiority in Christianity

[Harkonnen]

in Christianity women are not inferior but have different roles,you confuse us with muslims.

Women are inferior. This is just another proof of how fucked up Christianity is.

[kuqezi]

Atheism implies amorality. In a cold, wholly material existence in a world created by mere chance with absolutely no purpose whatsoever behind it could never have morality in it. Good and bad would be completely meaningless concepts. In fact, in the atheistic framework concepts themselves are meaningless. A concept is not something, although somehow we know of it and can think of it, which is one thing that shows how contradictory atheism is. Even assuming something like an atheistic Platonism morality could never exist.

Then, if atheism is true (truth, another concept devoid of meaning in atheism), it would be meaningless to call religion evil or bad or imply it in any way because these things wouldn't be real to begin with. It's like Wittgenstein going out of his way to prove that language only consists of word games by writing a book, only to, in his conclusion, state that the whole book consists of word games and is meaningless and should therefore be disregarded. Quite stupid, but he was consistent and honest about it at least.

I wouldn't say morality is a consequence of Theism, but rather that morality and religiousity stem from the same source--man and his valuation system. From a noble breed will spring a noble morality and conception of the Divine.

Where N1019-Valtaves is wrong is by assuming religion and morality are strictly unrelated. For example in the Greco-Roman mythology many Gods behave quite immorally yet the Greeks and Romans were known for a keen morality and at the same time were also very religious...

[Profileid]

Btw, you are quoting from some atheistic site full of Bezprym's with their annoying commentaries.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Atheists are degenerate and overall scum people, they think they're superior and smarter because they don't believe in God. Their logic is, B-but.. science man, SCIENCE.
They value nothing, most that i met don't value anything. All they care about is themselves, bunch of hedonistic faggots. Like the fedora wearing pseudo intellectuals atheists bashing religion here.

Atheists are on average smarter than religious people. There have been studies done. Every atheists I knows values something. They may value their family, integrity, truth, etc. or *gasp* a number of different things. What they all have in common besides being atheists I've noticed is that they don't like being treated like a child.

If I wiped your mind clear of your past history and I presented you with the argument that there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God and he did all this stuff the Gospels claim he did you would be pissed at me. You would be pissed that I had such little respect for your intelligence.

Now remember... I didn't say I would tell you there was no God. All I did was tell you the story of Jesus. If you believe in an omnipotent being, I can respect that. You can derive a reasonable argument for a omnipotent being. If you believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. however I'm sorry but you are a child but unlike those atheists who mock you I actually prefer that you and millions of people stay as children. It's unfortunately a necessary evil to allow millions of people to stay child-like. Children need a threat to keep them behaved or they run a muck. If Christianity will keep all those people well behaved without harming them then it's a positive. Not everyone can take the Red pill.

btw, am I the only one who notices that the native populations of countries that generally don't give a rat's ass about gawd are more civil minded than those who come from countries that are more highly religious? Except for the US with its large highly religious population all these nations where people live well and take care of each other (in other words actually show real concern for their fellow man) are nations where the populations don't care about religion.

It makes you wonder, no? Of course it doesn't make you wonder.

[Harkonnen]

however I'm sorry but you are a child but unlike those atheists who mock you I actually prefer that you and millions of people stay as children. It's unfortunately a necessary evil to allow millions of people to stay child-like. Children need a threat to keep them behaved or they run a muck. If Christianity will keep all those people well behaved without harming them then it's a positive. Not everyone can take the Red pill.

Yes I think you are right. The Christians in this thread have been very honest about it; if not for Christianity they do not see any point in being a good moral, basic honest human being

[Herr Abubu]

Yes I think you are right. The Christians in this thread have been very honest about it; if not for Christianity they do not see any point in being a good moral, basic honest human being

The point is that morality can't exist if one assumes atheism to be true. Thus, saying that atheists are in fact more moral than Christians is begging the question, because the very existence of morality is in question. Assuming atheism is true, morality doesn't exist.

When you can't even understand this much you shouldn't expect anyone to argue with you seriously, just like a child shouldn't expect the elders to argue for everything they say—the child isn't in a position to question or argue with the elders who have more experience, knowledge and wisdom.

[adsız]

It is quite evident when reading the NT that Jesus brings a new covenant and abolished the rules of the OT.

Btw, you are quoting from some atheistic site full of Bezprym's with their annoying commentaries.

True, i quote from another site who quote from Bible.
My english is not as good enough as theirs to express all what i want to say. What they say is what i want to say actually .

[Insuperable]

Atheists are on average smarter than religious people. There have been studies done. Every atheists I knows values something. They may value their family, integrity, truth, etc. or *gasp* a number of different things. What they all have in common besides being atheists I've noticed is that they don't like being treated like a child.

If I wiped your mind clear of your past history and I presented you with the argument that there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God and he did all this stuff the Gospels claim he did you would be pissed at me. You would be pissed that I had such little respect for your intelligence.

Now remember... I didn't say I would tell you there was no God. All I did was tell you the story of Jesus. If you believe in an omnipotent being, I can respect that. You can derive a reasonable argument for a omnipotent being. If you believe in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. however I'm sorry but you are a child but unlike those atheists who mock you I actually prefer that you and millions of people stay as children. It's unfortunately a necessary evil to allow millions of people to stay child-like. Children need a threat to keep them behaved or they run a muck. If Christianity will keep all those people well behaved without harming them then it's a positive. Not everyone can take the Red pill.

btw, am I the only one who notices that the native populations of countries that generally don't give a rat's ass about gawd are more civil minded than those who come from countries that are more highly religious? Except for the US with its large highly religious population all these nations where people live well and take care of each other (in other words actually show real concern for their fellow man) are nations where the populations don't care about religion.

It makes you wonder, no? Of course it doesn't make you wonder.

I don't think you need studies to show that people who hold a strict naturalistic view of the world are on average smarter than average religious people who maybe don't hold such a view. But there are people who at the same time have a strong hold of such a view and adhere to non-materialistic ideas.

If I wiped your mind clear of your past history and I presented you with the argument that there was a guy named Jesus who was the son of God and he did all this stuff the Gospels claim he did you would be pissed at me. You would be pissed that I had such little respect for your intelligence.

Do you think that we are so smart or retarded so that you expect us to believe or not to believe in something just like that, after an atheistic mind (who usually knows little and superficial about certain religions) tells a story? If someone would hypothetically truly believe in Christianity just like that after you tell a story I would be the first to leave the Christianity.

[kuqezi]

The point is that morality can't exist if one assumes atheism to be true. Thus, saying that atheists are in fact more moral than Christians is begging the question, because the very existence of morality is in question. Assuming atheism is true, morality doesn't exist.

When you can't even understand this much you shouldn't expect anyone to argue with you seriously, just like a child shouldn't expect the elders to argue for everything they say—the child isn't in a position to question or argue with the elders who have more experience, knowledge and wisdom.

According to Nietzsche "There are no moral phenomena at all, only moral interpretations of phenomena."

"The point is that morality can't exist if one assumes atheism to be true."--Your having problems with these guys understanding you because your inserting your theological assumptions without calling them to attention. With the same logic "nothing can exist if one assumes atheism to be true". Without this battle being won with them it is pointless to proceed, unless your point is to circle to this. I'm not endorsing either view by the way.

Morality falls into the realm of instinct and its development more than anything I believe. Your going at it from the opposite direction of that from which it should be approached, top down instead of bottom up. Anyways having this argument within the framework of Christianity or the other 'revealed religions' is pointless as even mans instinct to religion or God is necessarily denied to proceed. Man is rejected so even good morality by him has to be explained away by mental gymnastics. Immature spirituality is no point from which to proceed to such questions.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I don't think you need studies to show that people who hold a strict naturalistic view of the world are on average smarter than average religious people who maybe don't hold such a view. But there are people who at the same time have a strong hold of such a view and adhere to non-materialistic ideas.

It's a question of averages. Do I want to be surrounded by people who think 'God provides' or if something negative happens it must be 'God's Will' instead of looking for a cause so maybe I or others can keep it from happening again? Or do I want to be surrounded by people who don't waste time with nonsense because in the real world wasting time could lead to death and misery?

Do you think that we are so smart or retarded so that you expect us to believe or not to believe in something just like that, after an atheistic mind (who usually knows little and superficial about certain religions) tells a story? If someone would hypothetically truly believe in Christianity just like that after you tell a story I would be the first to leave the Christianity.

What I would be telling you is the core of Christian belief. You see the core as silly, which doesn't make you a good Christian. You only accept the core belief because of the morality attached to Christianity. A morality that isn't new. It was new to the Hebrews and Gentiles of Eurasia and North Africa but it wasn't new in India. You'd be surprised at the similarities between Buddhism and what Jesus supposedly said. There is no one in the Torah who said anything similar to 'love thy neighbor as yourself.' That was a completely foreign concept to Jews and Gentiles in that part of the world. Jesus was bringing something new to the table for Jews and later his followers brought it to Gentiles. What he was promoting, however, wasn't anything new in of itself.