Should a good Christian overthrown God?

For sure, but that does not mean that mistakes will not be made and if a mistake is made or the love turn cold, people should be allowed to try to make up for their mistake instead of having to live with a mistake that can be corrected.

Not quite as people change over time and you will not the statistics that say about 40% of all female children get abused by their own fathers. I think that that % includes step fathers, but it does show how having female children changes otherwise possibly good men.

See above and recognize that some foundations are built on sand instead of a solid footing. Life is long and people change.

See above.

A good happy marriage, yes. One where abuse of men, women and children enters a marriage, no.

Not if the child is being abused or when a child has to watch a man or woman abuse their partner.

If that remedy takes, perhaps. If it does not then to not allow a divorce forces people to live in loveless situation.

Like by what, and if the relationship turn to a loveless one, who is society to force misery onto people?

Those restrictions are not working as the stats I put above are fairly accurate. To have a child sit across from her rapist is also a form of mental abuse.

[/quote]
You had better re-write this last as it sounds like you would allow such rape or abuse situations because you do not find them immoral.

Regards
DL

You misunderstood what I wrote, so I will expand on it for you:

  • All sorts of relationships are restricted for the good of society and individuals within the society. Restricting relationships is not in itself immoral.

  • Calling something immoral does not make it immoral. You have to provide reasons why it is immoral.

  • Morality is a set of trade-offs. Every person does not get everything that he/she wants.

You should edit your post because it looks like I wrote the stuff that you actually wrote. Very confusing. But here goes:

Do you have a reference for that statistic or should I take it on faith?

It doesn’t support your arguments in any case. If divorce is allowed, then the divorced mother may remarry another abusive man. The divorced father is free to remarry and abuse another child. Therefore, divorce is not a solution to abuse since the abusers are still “out there”.

The only solution is to jail/punish the abusers.

“People change”. Is that a valid argument in contract law? “I changed my mind so the contract no longer applies.”
I bet it doesn’t work.

Abuse again? Already covered.

Abuse again?

Society isn’t forcing misery onto people. There are plenty of ways to find happiness besides a romantic relationship with a spouse.

Abuse again? Jail the abuser.

But then you’d have to jail the jailer, then jail the jailer who put the jailer in jail, because putting people in jail is abuse, its an infinite cycle.

Can you give a couple of examples of what you mean? Who is enforcing these restrictions would also be required.

True. I usually ass an argument with the criticism.

No they are not. A moral tenet stands on it’s own.

Give an example again here.

Done. Apologies.

Do you have a reference for that statistic or should I take it on faith?
[/quote]
You should take it by googling for yourself. Too often have I done another’s leg work to have him ignore it because he did not like the source.

Even if wrong, any smaller % would not effect the argument I put.

Yes it does. Again you make statements without arguments.

That is not a reason to force he to stay with the original abuser. She might get lucky the third time.

The divorced father is free to remarry and abuse another child. Therefore, divorce is not a solution to abuse since the abusers are still “out there”.
[/quote]
Yes but eventually he might find a wife with the balls to lay a charge and have the prick jailed.

See above. I did not look down quickly enough.

?? There is nothing in marriage law that says people cannot divorce. Only religious dogma and law is that backwards.

Eh. No fault divorce mean anything to you.

Not well.

We are talking reasons for divorce. Should I ignore the main one?

Only if both parties agree.

[/quote]
When you check the stats on abuse, if you do that is, you will see how many parents talk their children out of laying charges because of what women know the lawyers and courts do to them and their children and their reputations.

I do not see where you have justified denying people a divorce and you seem to not see love as a major component to a married good married life.

Regards
DL

I already did … pedophilia, incest, adultery. Most people agree that restrictions on these “loving relationships” are moral. (They probably agree on restricting at least one if not all three.)

Morality is a set of rules which enable a group of people to live together. That means that people agree to give up some things that they want in order to get something else as compensation. For example, many people would love to get “free stuff” by stealing it, but they understand that a society where theft is allowed would require violent defense of their own stuff. So they agree to give up the “free stuff” in order to get safety and stability.

If you look at any particular tenet, you see compromise … for example, free speech does not permit you to say “hijack” in an airport or to yell “fire” in a theater.

Why would I need to do “leg work” if you already know where the statistic comes from and you can just stick a link on the page??
You’re the one trying to convince me of something by even stating the statistic. If you can’t provide a reference, it makes me think that you could be mistaken about it or you just made it up.

Since you have been wrong about statistics before and since you cannot provide a reference, there is no reason to believe this statistic. I will just ignore it.

Just because you can’t get divorced in a no-divorce society does not mean that you have to live with an abuser … people can separate and live in different areas. That’s the same kind of “solution” as divorce offers. It’s not really a solution at all. It passes the abuser on to someone else. It mirrors the solution that the Roman Catholic Church used when priests molested kids. They moved the priest to another parish. And he would molest kids there again. ← NOT A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM

Marriage is a contract just like a contact to buy a car or condo. “People change” is not a valid reason to break the contract.

I presented a number of arguments which show that marriages would be stronger and stable in a no-divorce society. This would be particularly beneficial for children.

Your main counterargument is centered on a small number of abusive relations. And you don’t show that divorce is an effective solution to abuse.

You know how the song goes : “if you can’t be with the one you love, love the one you are with”. :smiley:

The solution to pedophile priests is to either buy him an attractive prostitute or cut off his balls.

Thanks for the chat my friend.

I learned what I wanted to learn in terms of bolstering of negating my position.

Love between people and love of life is what we should all be seeking and you have not given me any reason to change that view in terms of how restricting that search is somehow creating a greater good.

Life is too short to be miserable in a situation that is loveless.

Regards
DL

I’m glad that you learned something.

I’m reminded of the Ashley Madison slogan :

“Life is short. Have an affair.”

:smiley:

I think their mental condition and desires would not be appeased by those.

Like rape, a large part of their mind set is control with the sexual part as a secondary component.

As to castration. That does not effect sexual performance but only inhibits reproduction as far as I know.

Regards
DL

Confirmation of my view is ok but I learn and enjoy the experience of learning something new more, even if I actually lose a debate.

Learning something new or having my ideology improved is much more rewarding.

Regards
DL

Do you want to overthrow the Christian God?

If so, re instal him first, dig him up from his grave, he might be smelly.

“Apokatastis”, the reconciliation of all created things with the God who created them is an ancient Christian belief and IMHO the only view of a god whose morality surpasses that of humans. The god who offers heaven and hell as reward or punishment for what humans do is less moral than the humans this god judges. We do not merit an eternity of bliss, nor do we deserve an eternity of torture. We must see beyond the dualism of heaven and hell (see Wm. Blake’s “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”) before we can follow the Tao that is Jesus, which is a moral path.

Jesus has more than one morality as there are more than one Jesus who speaks out of scriptures.

The Rome created Jesus is not moral at all while the esoteric mystic is quite oral.

The Jesus you likely recognize, the Roman creation, promotes a no divorce policy for women and substitutionary atonement.

Both immoral concepts.

Care to engage and debate those immoral tenets?

Regards
DL

There is no God to overthrow, retards.

Please don’t do that.
Imagine if there were people at church, and you run in, open the door, and say “There is no god, retards!”

that is not how a civilized person would handle things.

If you want to make an argument about or against god, that is all well and good.
But this is supposed to be a philosophy forum, not a monkey house.

Why should I waste my time debating tenets some people consider immoral?
The Jesus I recognize is not a Roman creation.
We exist in the last throes of an era of dispersions. I believe the next era will be one of reconciliations.
The concept of ecological morality based on teleological existence is a
far more pressing concern than are divorce or substitutionary atonement.

I agree. It seems that your name calling antagonist is the retarded one.

That or too stupid to answer a simple question.

I quote this to such retarded name calling replies that attack a person instead of the issue at hand.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

Regards
DL

Nice that you would ignore these issues which lend to reconciliation towards the second class status of women.

So much for equality in your new world order.

Regards
DL

To be fair, the church is sustained by the taxes of atheists too. But ok, I’ll be nice.

There is no god, and these guys are not necessarily retards, though most probably they are.