You need to write down all your ideas on a piece of paper and give it to God, he could sure benefit from it, amirite.

But seriously, if God did this we would all be robots with no free will - He has seen that us having free will and choosing to love is better than forcing us all to love.

Every time someone says something like this a little piece of heaven dies.

...the principle distinction is when you feel someone should have rights. I don't believe that point is conception. There's no inconsistency here, there's just you trying to assign your own moral principles re: when human rights exist to our beliefs on the matter.

Don't tell me that God can't do something, sport.

You're basing this assumption on what, exactly? I'd guess that you're assuming that if he COULD do it he WOULD because that would clearly be a superior situation. Which is the point.

Impossible sir, heaven is not a living so it cannot die. Or if it is living it is God and God cannot die, except for Jesus, which was... well... <wanders off into the hall>

What do you think happens when you all go to heaven? Are you gonna be protected from each other by being confined in padded cells? Maybe remove the ability to feel pain? So no physical bodies in heaven? How does God protect sensitive feelings from nasty comments? Suffering possible in heaven? Are there limits to that suffering?

Notice that I gave a solution that did not involve taking away free will (although I doubt there is such a thing as free will if God really does exist).

In heaven, there will be no sin, as it is written in the Bible. We will each be purified (in Purgatory if need be, I think I'll go there) in such a way that we will have NO attachment to sin whatsoever. We will be back in the original state of Adam and Eve but have no temptation to sin either. We will be so enveloped in God that we could not even think about sinning. This seems like it removes free will, and I do need to read more about that, but even if it does restrict free will, we have all made our choices and our freedom (to do the good) is greatly increased in heaven.

Likewise, there will be no sin in Hell, only the punishment of being separated eternally from God. Where heaven is a place of light, communion, Hell will be dark and alone.

I think we're only in about the 4th or 5th part of a 6 or 7 act play.

God does everything for his own glory and if I can make it through to see the last 2 or 3 parts then he will lift the curtain and reveal everything.

As for Job I doubt it was a prop bet. Sometimes I read between the lines and wonder if maybe Job's sin was a hidden sin like spiritual pride which is the most dangerous sin of all.

What kind of arrogant god gives up one of his most pious worshippers that easy?

EDIT: You really have to read the whole book to see how messed up it is.

Right. I have no idea why Jib decided this would be a good thread to point out that we disagree on when a person is a person.

What we all do agree on is that mutilating children is wrong. I think this is something that both atheists and progressive theists should be rallying against. There is no place for fundamentalism that results in that kind of behavior in our society.

Also, a distinction here is that it is wrong to drink a lot of alcohol while pregnant, even though the fetus is not yet a human. We have enough foresight to know that fetal alcohol syndrome will cause suffering in a human at a later time, whereas no suffering is caused when a fetus is aborted. Note that this is not a pro-choice argument, I'm just showing that mutilations and abortions are not analogous.

While I agree that this is a troubling policy, I'm getting really sick of like yeah's constant hyperbole and distortion of facts.

Yeah, I don't engage him anymore. I think the only reason he's here instead of Politics is that stuff like this is more apt to be shredded to oblivion there.

Excuse me? Are you really saying that the choice of a significant portion of parents coming from such cultures isn't affected by the availability and comfortability of this procedure?

Think of circumcision for Jews or americans for an example. You really think that if circumcision was made illegal in say an US state, circumcision rates in that state wouldn't drop at all? Seriously?

No.

I said 'No'.

Maybe you'd like to tell an entire community of people you're going to deport them unless you can examine their daughters' genitals once a year.

Politics people do tend to believe that any change outside the realm of "change you can believe in" is awful, yes. Putting your foot down is bad. Big change is bad. Constant little steps in any direction which can be presented and packaged nicely is the way to go.

Why doesn't the reasoning behind this apply to the sexual abuse of children?

Do you think the examinations would be sexual abuse or do you mean sexual abuse can be confirmed with an examination? Sorry I'm a bit tick and don't quite get what you mean.

Sexual abuse can often be inferred from an examination.

Yes, in the UK, they have a rule where two people have to be present to witness each other. When I was about 8 I had the examination from two women and I didn't think I was being abused. The doctor had to feel for a pulse behind the gonads. This would be even less intrusive as you only have to look rather than touch with probing fingers. Without the examinations, girls from those cultures are pretty much going to have FGM done and so I guess you have to decide which one do you consider less abusive. Certainly from the perspective of the child, I know what would make me feel more abused.

No. I am referring to annual examination of all children by the State as a preventative measure against their being sexually abused. Why does your thinking on the FGM issue not extend to this?

Oh, I see.

I think the main difference is that children can be expected to not be abused unless there is something to suggest that they are at risk. I don't know how much evidence there has to be before a physical examination can be permitted for sexual abuse, but presumably there is a line somewhere. Like a complaint from the child for a start. People from these communities are pretty much guaranteed to perform FGM, so that would be enough to suggest they are at risk.

So the procedure is criminalised - what of families who say they will not perform the procedure? Their children must also be examined, right?

They will all say they won't do it. That is how they will get to do it. Remember over 95% of girls have it done in countries like Somalia so it is a given that it will happen if the family comes from communities that favour it. So yes of course. If they come from high risk communities they should be checked.

But that's my point. All parents who molest their children say they don't. Compulsory examination of children will prevent molestation and detect it where it occurs. Why is this not acceptable?