[Vision2020] Submission

[lfalen]

As a rule in biology males are stronger and females faster learners .Using lambs, goats and calves as an example, the females learn where the bread basket is quicker than the males. Some males would die without some help. In nature this is ok, because fewer males are needed to maintain the species. Because of their  strength men have asserted a dominate role in most societies down through the ages regardless of their religious creed.Women being some what brighter as a rule have developed cunning and  connivance to get what they want. Males and females do have different biological roles. Women are the only ones that can give birth. therefore their mothering instinct is usually greater than men.  Most Dairies hire women  run the calf barns, because they have more TLC and the calves do better. Aside from biological roles everything should be even in a marriage, not wi6hstanding the semantics on submission.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Chasuk chasuk at gmail.com
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:51:29 -0700
To: Michael metzler at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Submission

> On 6/20/06, Michael <metzler at moscow.com> wrote:
> 
> > Sharing Keely's premises, I'm content exploring this new argument against
> > Christianity.  This is kind of like a suped up, more focused Problem of Evil
> > argument, and I invite our fellow atheists to the discussion.  If some of
> > the fundamental assertions in the New Testament with respect to the nature
> > of the Godhead and the nature of the gospel offend our most basic, a priori
> > moral judgments about submission, then we would know that the God of the New
> > Testament gospel is some kind of patriarchical creep.  God cannot be the
> > source and standard of all that is good and lovely while also explicitly
> > commanding women, for the purposes of illustrating the nature of the gospel
> > itself, to live in precisely the way we do not think women ought to live.
> > Andreas' personal distinction between ethics and reality will be of no use
> > to the Christian when confronted with this beast of an argument.
> 
> I'm not comfortable arguing "against" Christianity, although I am not
> a Christian, and my rejection was deliberate, not due to intellectual
> laziness or lifestyle inconvenience.  I am not an atheist, as that
> implies that I am anti-theistic, which wouldn't be true.  I generally
> dislike labels, having wasted far too many hours in pedantic arguments
> over their definitions, but the word "agnostic" describes me with
> reasonable accuracy.  Let it suffice for the purposes of this
> discussion.
> 
> Christianity has one major point in its favor, but that point isn't
> unique.  That point is the Golden Rule.
> 
> "Do to others as you would have them do to you," Jesus said.
> 
> "Love your neighbor as yourself," Moses said.
> 
> "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man," Hillel said.
> 
> "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others," Confucius said.
> 
> Do you see where this is going?  Christianity brings nothing into my
> life that that wasn't already available from other sources.  As I
> definitely don't believe in the barbarism of blood atonement, that
> removes it from logical consideration, for me.  Debating the nature of
> the Godhead becomes ridiculous.  My a priori moral judgments about an
> omnipotent, omniscient superbeing who could do no better than human
> sacrifice already makes him some kind of creep.  God cannot be the
> source and standard of all that is good and lovely while also being
> such a bad planner.  I know, God works in mysterious ways.  Who am I,
> to question God's design, when I am so insignificant before him?
> Those arguments don't work for me, as we have not even established
> that God exists.  I could say the same about the purple flying
> chipmunks who keep the earth spinning, and it satisfies no one except
> for those who already have faith.  Forget the Problem of Evil.
> Concentrate instead on the Problem of God.    What Paul wrote about
> submission (or anything else) then becomes as moot as the spectacles
> of those flying chipmunks.
> 
> Sorry, but you did invite me to the discussion.  ;-)
> 
> -- 
> http://emmagoldman.wordpress.com/
> 
> "Aren't people absurd! They never use the freedoms they do have, but
> demand those they don't have; they have freedom of thought, they
> demand freedom of speech." -- Søren Kierkegaard
> 
> =====================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ====================================================
>