If the Abrahamic God exists, and all good and evil come from God, then suffering must be a punishment for sin. If punishment comes from sin, then all we have to do is correct ourselves.
Which sin would God most punish if He exists? I would say idolatry and blasphemy because these are forbidden in the Ten Commandments and the Noahide laws.
The three global empires so far have been Christian.
Those claiming to believe in the Abrahamic God who reject the Noahide laws because they are Jewish are antisemites and those who reject Islam as being the second and final revelation of God for gentiles are Islamophobes.
To be an Islamophobe is to have already lost the argument since the person with the irrational argument loses to the person with the rational argument.
To be an antisemite is to reject God's ordering of the Universe.
To claim to believe in the Abrahamic God and deny the status of Jews as God's Chosen People as well as the Noahide laws is ipso facto a rejection of God's ordering of the Universe as well as reason, since the entire basis of Christian belief is based on the story of the Jews.
The irony and absurdity of Christianity is that it is a religion of antisemites that requires Christians to worship a Jew.
To reject Islam while refusing to read the Koran when already aware of the failure and absurdity of Christianity is to suffer from Islamophobia.
At this stage, the punishment for willful blindness to the sin of idolatry while claiming to believe in the Abrahamic God who has explicitly and specifically forbidden it can only be wondered at.
Not if you don't believe in religion or Gods/Goddesses, fairies, Santa, the Easter bunny and other mythical creatures.
ReplyDeleteAs an Atheist, I do not recognise God or his laws, so this had no meaning for me, and I obey no one.
Do you have principles you follow?
ReplyDeleteI do, but they do not involve religion or gods.
ReplyDeleteWhat do they involve?
ReplyDeletePrinciples are subjective, and numerous, but also personal. And my principles may not be anything like other people's principles.
ReplyDeleteWe won't know till you declare them.
ReplyDeleteI have the usual ones most people have. Fairness. Equality. Inclusion. Honesty. Integrity etc. Nothing special.
ReplyDeleteI see principle as a rule of doing or not doing something. I try to make a point of always submitting to truth, logic and morality. I think these are the absolute minimum one can have.
ReplyDeleteYou've described universal principles. We all have that.
ReplyDeletePlenty of people lie, behave irrationally and have no principles.
ReplyDeleteYes, they do. Nothing anyone can do about it.
ReplyDeleteEncourage them to do better?
ReplyDeleteBelow is how I think women can help raise standards of Truth, Logic and Morality:
If you don't feel morally and intellectually capable of defending even the principle of submitting to Truth, Logic and Morality, you should be assigned the status of Nihilist which means you will be considered lower status than someone who has principles to declare and defend. Women who want to be married mothers can then exclusively focus their energy on finding husbands who are principled rational men and not give nihilists even the time of day.
since most crimes are committed by men, and the biggest prison population is male, I rather think its they who could raise the standards. Women have done more than enough.
ReplyDeleteNot every woman wants a husband or marriage or kids, and who can blame them!
I am saying that those women who want to become married mothers should deal only with men who are moral and rational.
ReplyDeleteAnd unmarried mothers shouldn't deal with only the men who are moral and rational?
ReplyDeleteI don't subscribe to such discrimination and judgement.
Unmarried mothers are by definition immoral, I would say.
ReplyDeleteI'm unmarried. That must make me immoral then.
ReplyDeleteIt's a ridiculous, judgemental belief. But that's religions for you. It's your belief, which you are entitled to.
Children are better off being brought up by their two married parents living together in a loving relationship. This should be the rule. I am sure you were brought by your two married parents living together.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you consider it "ridiculous" to question the morality of anything you do? Are you saying that nothing you do can ever be immoral?
What do you mean by "judgmental"? Shouldn't we exercise judgment in making decisions?
Why do you consider the nature and purpose of religion to be inherently "ridiculous"?
"Children are better off being brought up by their two married parents living together in a loving relationship."
ReplyDeleteChildren across the world are brought up with two parents, one parent, grandparents, same sex parents, foster parents...there is no golden rule.
Parents do not need to be married to be good parents.
"Why do you consider it "ridiculous" to question the morality of anything you do? Are you saying that nothing you do can ever be immoral?"
I did not say is was ridiculous to question the morality of anything I do.
I said it’s ridiculous to state that unmarried mothers are immoral, when clearly they're not.
Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.
ReplyDeleteA study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.
https://rightwingnews.com/top-news/ann-coulter-on-single-mothers-the-statistics-from-guilty/
How is it clear that unmarried mothers are not immoral if illegitimacy was once considered a sexual offence?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2007/apr/14/guardianspecial4.guardianspecial215
What do you mean by "judgmental"? Shouldn't we exercise judgment in making decisions?"
ReplyDeleteMaking an informed decision is different from judging someone prejudicially, i.e stating unmarried mothers are immoral.
If you make such claims, back it up with hard the evidence and establish it as factual. If not, then you’re judging someone because of a perception and your own biases, and that's when it becomes judgemental.
"Why do you consider the nature and purpose of religion to be inherently "ridiculous"?
“Unmarried mothers are immoral”.
You are aware of the concept of sexual immorality, are you not?
ReplyDeleteYour assertion that unmarried mothers are immoral has no grounds. Again, by that statement, I am immoral because I'm unmarried.
ReplyDeleteIllegitimacy was was not a sexual offence. The act of raping a woman was, which often resulted in bastardy. So rather than the woman being immoral, it tends to be the man being a....what's the word...ah yes....a right immoral bastard.
And if there was no sexual attack, two consenting adults could still make an illegitimate baby, so that would make both the male and female immoral.
"Criminal act of bastardy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_American_bastardy_laws
ReplyDelete"Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators"
ReplyDeleteA book by a deeply religious politician isn't peer-reviewed or fact based and cannot be even taken seriously.
"You are aware of the concept of sexual immorality, are you not?"
Of course. What is the point of your question?
Since you are aware of the concept of sexual immorality, you must also be aware that extramarital sex was once considered a sexual offence.
ReplyDeleteThe act of bastardy in common was an offence. But illegitimacy (as you said in an early comment) was not a sexual offence, as no newborn could commit such.
ReplyDeleteBut if two people committed adultery, they were deemed to have committed a sexual offence.
It cannot be denied that convicted prisoners overwhelmingly come from fatherless homes, can it?
ReplyDeleteFornication attracts the punishment at quran.com/24/2
"Since you are aware of the concept of sexual immorality, you must also be aware that extramarital sex was once considered a sexual offence."
ReplyDeleteRather than talk about what was deemed bad in the 1600s, how about we talk about the importance of now, because one actually cares who's having sex with who nowadays.
What we do care about are the sex traffickers. The sex gangs who deal in children. The paedophiles. The rapists. The sex attackers. Those who commit incest or bestiality.
There's your sexual immorality.
"It cannot be denied that convicted prisoners overwhelmingly come from fatherless homes, can it?"
So when a bloke buggers off and leaves a woman to bring up the kids, who may or may not become a prisoner, the fault lies with the man who leaves them to it.
I have no interest in the Quran and it's outdated laws. That's not a valid argument.
How is marriage outdated? Don't children still need both parents?
ReplyDeleteIt is incumbent on the one always left holding the baby to take more care.
Fornication is the "gateway" sexual offence to the worse ones you mention, it would appear.
The one left holding the baby is left with the responsibility of looking after the child, but thankfully we have agencies that make fathers cough up the money to look after the offspring they create.
ReplyDeleteYou mention fornication. People do it.
None of our business.
Why is marriage "outdated"?
ReplyDeleteIt is far far easier for a woman to induce a man to have sex with her than to marry her and pay for her babies.
A women might be able to induce a man to have sex, but he has a choice to decline. If he doesn't and makes her pregnant, he's equally at fault.
ReplyDeleteA man should only be legally obliged to maintain his legitimate offspring.
ReplyDeleteMarriage was created for many reasons - religion, family alliances, money and status. Marriage was never about love. Which is why it's outdated.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is only considered outdated because fornication is now normalised.
ReplyDeleteA man who, gets someone pregnant, then does a runner, is, by law, required to financially take care his kids, regardless of legitimate or illegitimacy.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is outdated because of the reasons I gave, not because of fornication. Yet another absurd argument.
Men these days ask themselves "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" Marriage is the most expensive form of sex, after all.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is expensive, which is why many people don't bother.
ReplyDeleteThe next generation would be better off being brought up by their married biological parents living together in a loving relationship.
ReplyDeleteMany generations have been bought up without married parents, or even biological ones, with no affect on society.
ReplyDeleteTo say kids need parents who are married, or biological is even more absurd than the previous statements.
You deny that the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents tend to be over-represented in the crime statistics? This is well documented.
ReplyDelete"Crime linked to absent fathers
Boy lacking dad more at risk of turning to crime
Having a biological father who maintained a close relationship with his son, whether or not he lived in the family home, might be crucial in preventing susceptible boys becoming criminals, research presented yesterday suggested.
But stepfathers appeared to do little to decrease the risk that a boy will turn to crime, the conference of the British Psychological Society's division of forensic psychology heard in Birmingham."
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/apr/05/crime.penal
"You deny that the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents tend to be over-represented in the crime statistics?"
ReplyDeleteI don't deny anything.
The evidence from reports over the last 50 years suggests there is a high proportion of prisoners who come from dysfunctional families/broken homes, where fathers beat their kids, abuse them, or their is alcoholism from either parent, and drug abuse, or the father has done a runner and left the mother to cope. This is regardless of being illegitimate or legitimate.
"Crime linked to absent fathers
Boy lacking dad more at risk of turning to crime"
Then dad shouldn't bugger off then, should he?
Are you really saying that it would be better for children to be singly parented by their unmarried mother?
ReplyDeleteMum shouldn't have allowed herself to be impregnated by a man not prepared to marry her, should she?
"Are you really saying that it would be better for children to be singly parented by their unmarried mother?"
ReplyDeleteMillions around the world are. Millions have been singly parented for thousands of years.
"Mum shouldn't have allowed herself to be impregnated by a man not prepared to marry her, should she?"
If a bloke is willing to have sex with a woman without protection, then impregnation is a responsibility that belongs to both of them.
Your anti-women views are getting more absurd.
Millions around the world are parented by their unmarried mothers, you say. But it is in the national interest to have mostly married parents rather than most unmarried parents.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see why it is "absurd" or "anti-women" to support patriarchy if it is indeed the case that most women want to be married mothers. Supporting patriarchy would make more marriageable men available to more marriageable women. Feminism harms women too, after all.
"But it is in the national interest to have mostly married parents rather than most unmarried parents"
ReplyDeleteThat's your personal view. It's not a national interest. You cannot force people to marry against their will. This is 2021, not 950BC.
Patriarchy isn't needed. Women have had it for the last 7000 years and they're a understandably fed up with patriarchal bullshit.
You are indifferent to the national interest, aren't you? Legislation can encourage or discourage any behaviour.
ReplyDeleteA survey should be conducted of childless women past the age of childbearing to see if their greatest regret was their failure to become a married mother. Patriarchy is needed if the government wants to support the rearing of the next generation in optimum conditions. Matriarchy would be a society indifferent to the preferences of married parents and those who wish to become married parents. The West is a matriarchy which explains the increasing chaos and criminality of our society. Your parents were married, were they not?
National interest to me is economics, security, law and order etc.
ReplyDeleteBeing married doesn't make the list. It's utterly unimportant.
It is in the national interest to have a low crime rate and a stable society.
ReplyDeletewhat you believe about matriarchy is your view. A survey of childless women past childbearing age proves absolutely nothing. It's yet another absurdity.
ReplyDeleteMany women are childless. Some chose it. Some had no choice. It affects no one and nothing, so the posit is a non-sequitur.
My parents married because that was the trend. Today, that trend has changed. People are happy to remain in partnerships without the ridiculous expense of a piece of paper.
That piece of paper doesn't cost that much. https://www.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/plan-your-ceremony
ReplyDeletelow crime and a stable society doesn't need people to be married.
ReplyDeleteI have already shown you the statistics of convicted criminals mostly coming from fatherless homes.
ReplyDeleteIf statistics show criminals are from fatherless homes, then that says more about absent fathers than it does criminals!
ReplyDeleteThat piece of paper comes with hidden expenses! I've attended enough of them to know.
My advice to people is save your money.
Was the mother mentally deficient or raped?
ReplyDeleteWeddings can be modest affairs.
which mother do you refer as being raped or mentally deficient?
ReplyDeleteWeddings can be modest. Just don't see the point.
The hypothetical unmarried mother whom you seem to be saying was the victim of a man who tricked or raped her.
ReplyDeleteThe point of marrying before you have children is obviously to make men and women choose their spouse carefully.
Most unmarried mothers choose to be unmarried mothers. Because they don't need to get married.
ReplyDelete"The point of marrying before you have children is obviously to make men and women choose their spouse carefully".
How utterly illogical.
Marriage doesn't make anyone choose a spouse carefully. People are capable of choosing a spouse because of their qualities. Marriage has zero to do with it. What an absurd argument.
Why is it illogical to make men and women choose the other parent of their legitimate offspring more carefully if this would have the effect of lowering the crime rate?
ReplyDelete"Unmarried motherhood should be discouraged for this reason if we want to lower the crime rate, shouldn't it?"
ReplyDeleteNo, because that's illogical. Lots of friends of mine are unmarried mothers and they have fabulous kids.
Statistics might show a correlation, but not EVERY child born to unmarried mothers will turn into criminal.
"Why is it illogical to make men and women choose the other parent of their legitimate offspring more carefully if this would have the effect of lowering the crime rate?"
It won't. Parents do not choose their spouse based on the ability to spawn a legitimate child.
Just because not every child of every unmarried mother turns into a criminal does not mean it should not be discouraged if most convicted prisoners are from fatherless homes.
ReplyDeletePeople should choose their spouse based on their perceived potential to be a good spouse and parent.
People should choose whatever they want. It's a freedom most of us enjoy.
ReplyDeleteThe freedom to do as one pleases is a hard fought right. That's why we don't have any right to "encourage or discourage" anything in anyone.
If people don't like it, I would suggest they move to a region of the Earth that such freedoms don't exist.
Good government should protect society from foreseeable harm and to prevent your society from becoming a matriarchy in which most parents are unmarried parents because this would mean you are a nation in decline suffering from the chaos and criminality of a degenerate society whose social problems corrupt and incompetent politicians lack the courage to address.
ReplyDeleteA matriarchy isn't what you've described. Far from it. We've had the discussion on previous occasions.
ReplyDeleteGovernments do protect their societies, without infringing their rights.
Are matriarchies known to be societies that practise social conservatism ie marriage and family values?
ReplyDeleteIs it the perception of those around you that the government is doing what it should be doing to protect their rights?
What rights do you think your government best protects?
A matriarchal society is mostly headed by women in power, who make the decisions, make the laws and rules and generally rule society.
ReplyDeleteA patriarchal society is mostly headed by men in power, who make the decisions, make the laws and rules and generally rule society.
It has nothing to do with the concept of marriage. Men invented marriage over 4000 years ago as a way to bind women to them by making them their property and chattel, which is why it's just so outdated and unnecessary in the 21st century.
It really doesn't matter what matriarchy does. No one cares.
The government best protects the rights afforded to me by law.
The West is now a matriarchy and there are no rules other than that the feminine preference rules.
ReplyDeleteVictims of the matriarchy would care what the matriarchy does and its victims are those who want to become married parents in order to properly parent their legitimate offspring.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct and soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
You seem unconcerned about rising crime.
If the West is a matriarchy, then brilliant.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so "brilliant" about living in a degenerate society?
ReplyDeleteRising crime is a concern for every country on the planet. But it has nothing to do with matriarchy.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned victims of matriarchy. Who are?
We have already established several times already that convicted criminals come mostly from fatherless homes.
ReplyDeleteThe victims of matriarchy are the men and women who want to become married parents and stay married parents but for the policies of feminism designed to undermine marriage and by extension the patriarchy whom feminists have now equated with domestic violence which they have sworn to destroy.
A degenerate society occurs because of the mostly male population breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, it has zero to do with your notion of a sinister "matriarchy".
I look beyond the sex of the supposed victims and perpetrators. The victims as I see it are people who wish to practise marriage because they want to properly parent their legitimate offspring and the perpetrators are those who desecrate the institution of marriage who have been allowed to do so for the best part of half a century.
ReplyDeleteFatherless homes do better if the father hasn't done a runner. We've established that several times.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is outdated, unless one is religious. Which is why plenty of people don't bother.
Fatherless homes wouldn't be fatherless homes if unmarried mothers married a man prepared to commit to the marriage.
ReplyDeleteMarriage is only "outdated" because feminism has normalised fornication.
Fatherless homes happen because the man buggers off to avoid commitment and looking after a baby and paying for it. It's got nothing to do with unmarried mothers marrying a man prepared to commit.
ReplyDeleteStop this obsession with blaming women for the men being being complete, utter arseholes.
A married father is less likely to bugger off than an unmarried father, wouldn't you agree?
ReplyDeleteMarriage is outdated not because of feminism, but because it's a stale and and old fashioned and a patriarchal concept.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be the case that only married couples were allowed to have recreational sex with each other and it was considered a disgrace to be an unmarried parent. If men do not have to marry to have sex and status, then they won't bother.
ReplyDelete