Why does Christianity, Judaism and Islam discriminate against women?

Daddy issue = Easy target, perhaps this is where you are going wrong Harry?

Science at its best...=)

[Deleted by Amazon on 25 Apr 2012 16:32:11 BDT]

Exactly.

And that's from the woman's mouth :)

Take it baby, You know you want it!
Oh, yes, harder, harder...
(Equality, my left nadger)
=)

So many uncultured swine, here. "Mohammed" was obviously not the "final prophet" then, Spin, as it turns out.

"Uncultured Swine"; The title of this Forum...

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

I tend to agree somewhat.

In my discussions with members of a church that believes full immersion water baptism is the essential component of Christian salvation - I don't - they say the word baptizo in Greek means to dip, plunge or immerse and that has to be solely a water reference. I pointed out that the words of John the Baptist state that Jesus will baptize { exactly the same Greek word } with The Holy Spirit { not water } and fire, defiantely not water. The Greek in the Interlinear uses the SAME word, not another, to de-scribe both water and fire { hellfire } baptism, which I believe tends to shoot down the water immersion people's viewpoint on baptism.

You can indeed be "baptised" / immersed in mediums other than water.

I ffind it incredible that women want to go to church and listen to a man preaching at them about how to live in accordance with the bible. I also find it incredible that they love such a misogynistic god (if he exists). It seems incredible to voluntarily participate in one's own subordination.

Reader
So you don't understand the meaning of Christianity, but enjoy lecturing christians on what it is all about.

Get in line with the rest of the atheists on this site. No need to have any beliefs of your own that you need to stand up for, all you need is to be an 'opposer of religions'.
There are many 'opposers of religion' here, they hide their irrational hatred behind the name of atheism.

Spin: Please understand that this question is not purient, but were you both supposed to be naked when you carried her around the house? Maybe in the interest of science, mind you, I should try it. There is one problem, my girlfriend weighs more than I do. Do you think I should risk a hernia for science or for sex?

Time to check for that plank in your eye again, Diane.
You'll be able to build your own ark soon.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

"He doesn't even know that the whole Christian church is feminine in Christian reality, a spousal relationship."
*This* is a religious allegory, a metaphor, you refer to the church as feminine, give it and the rhetoric you'd use to describe it qualities we associate with women but you don't actually think it a woman because that would be literalist. The charge isn't that religion or Catholicism diesn't give any due to femininity or remember the commonly held qualities of women in their patronising rhetoric but that it fails to actually treat women equally in actions and position.

DB;"irrational hatred" it is perfectly rational to loathe damaging and ridiculous beliefs, what is irrational is obeisance to an invisible, inaudible, sky fairy with a penchant for genocide, misogyny and homophobia.

No, I do not have to show anything to ask a hypothetical question. The implications of the hypothetical question were what's interesting here, so you missed the whole point!!

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Hypothetically you'd first have to show that there was an order created by God.

"No Clive, it is irrational to 'loathe' something you don't believe exists, and to 'loathe' others who do believe it."
Nobody loathes something they don't believe exists. Nobody here is talking about loathing others. What CA was talking about was Loathing beliefs of others, and that's extreme but rational.

"You might say that Unicorns are not 'damaging' and don't commit 'genocide, misogyny and homophobia', but if God doesn't exist, neither does he."
But whether "unicorns" or your "imaginary friend" do these things is irrelevant, hating the belief is rational when it is based on the effects of that belief on people, and there is great evidence on these forums of the stultifying effect of that belief, I could rationally hate the belief for that effect, not the people or the content of the belief but the belief itself.

DB, you are confusing dislike of religion (which demonstrably does exist) with dislike of God. I dislike many religions (although not all), but I do not dislike God, because I don't believe s/he/it exists.

Religion does not automatically make a deity real (otherwise the existence of Hinduism would prove the existence of Vishnu). It is therefore perfectly possible to acknowledge the existence of a religion (and even to dislike it) without believing in its gods. You do it yourself, unless you're also a Muslim, Hindu etc and you just haven't told us.

db- Well done, as always missed the point.
As far as I am aware, there is no cult of the unicorn that preaches homophobic, misogynistic drivel, brainwashes children and has been complicit in torture, child rape and genocide. The book you allege is the truth from god contains genocide, violence on an unprecedented scale, and cruelty to levels that would make any sadist whoop with joy.

Whether god exists or not is irrelevant to the damage done by theists who do believe in a god.

If there is a god which I doubt totally ( and no-one knows), I suspect he would spend his time laughing at theists stupidity, and crying at their actions, and is probably wholeheartedly embarrassed by the lot of you.

People who believe in unicorns generally don't fly planes into buildings for a reward of virgins in the afterlife, kill abortion doctors because Jesus santified sperm, or circumcise babies after 8 days because Abraham chopped his own foreskin off in a deal with God.

Now you may argue, that the Abrahamic monotheistic religions, can produce some wonderful attributes to society. But generally, these people tend not to be wholly practicing and they often disregard certain fundemnetal flaws in their theology.

Believing in God is fine DB. It's actually a nice thought and I believe in a creator. But to believe that this God has personally commanded a certain species of ape, to be offensive towards any of it's kind that does not believe in it; which is essentially what all religion teaches bar buddhist branches... is completely ridiculous.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]