Should a good Christian overthrown God?

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.

I’m not talking about a new world order. The problems of taught inequality will definitely be dealt with in any reconciliations that lead to a better world than this one now is. Please do not assign to me ideas I do not espouse or even have.

if you put women in power, they will treat men like second class citizens and ignore their needs.
if you put men in power, they will treat women like second class citizens and ignore their needs.

There’s no easy way to fry this omelette. The only solution, is a hermaphrodite emperor and ruler.

You might be right, although you have not shown where you view is proven, while I can prove the we had 20.000 years of peace with our Goddesses ruling us before the Bronze age, and have been gifted with 5,000 years of war under the male Gods from then till now. Links upon request.

The thing is, it looks to me like men need to be and are 2nd class while women should be first class. They have more class than men.

Your reply is proof of that. See what testosterone does.

Regards
DL

I would say your reply is the typical male response of insulting me for no good reason, while mine is the polite and dignified, sensible and reasonable response.
Second of all, like all men you have a simplified outlook of everything, first of all Satyr was right in saying that the Feminization of Man was a bad thing. Men are becoming excessively feminized and lacking spine. This is why hermaphrodites are superior and will always be superior to your kind, they have the nobility of a man but the beauty of a woman…If you think women are noble all on their own then you are delusional. True goddesses are noble, but most women are not goddesses, they are just commoners and self-righteous assholes. If the word hermaprhodite offends you, it is time you grew a spine and a backbone. If you care about hermaphrodites so much why don’t you try to ban genital mutilation, because that’s what these liberal doctors do in the so-called enlightened age of medicine.