metime

If I'm correct, the purpose of the feminist movement is to equalize the social, cultural, and professional statuses of men and women, affording equal rights regardless of gender. I would also say that women in third world countries suffer inequalities much greater than those suffered by women in the United States. If this is true, should feminists choose to direct their efforts towards the plight of women in developing countries rather than America?

Please provide support for your answers.

You most likely know that affirmative action programs in America stemmed from the fact that it was harder for African-American individuals to achieve the same place in society as Caucasians. They were equal by law, but in reality they were in a social and economic hole stemming from their previous treatment. So my question is, do you think that similar measures ought to be enacted for women?

A follow-up: If you don't think affirmative action is appropriate, would you then be able to say that there is a substantial gender-equality problem in America?

Have you ever thought to ask God whether you should be taking your particular holy book as his word? Since you have recourse to him, it seems that getting the answer to that question would be very important. If you have asked God that question, what was his response?

For the purposes of this question, I'll assume that salvation through faith in Jesus is the only way to get into Heaven.

There were Jews who lived out their lives before Jesus walked the earth. Unfortunately, they lived and died before his birth, so they couldn't place their faith in him. Some of these Jews probably led wholesome lives; some probably disregarded God's teachings. My question is, who did God decide to let into Heaven, and why? What were his standards for admission--a good life or a good/bad life tempered by the knowledge that they would have accepted Jesus into their heart if he had been born a little earlier?

If you think that God would consider whether they would have accepted Jesus if they knew him, do you believe in predestination? Why or why not?

Much thanks to user Muhammad for inspiring this question.

ensure that justice remains proportional to the original crime?

Assuming the existence of both Hell and an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God:

Why would Hell need to be? The first thing that comes to mind is, God created Hell to punish the wicked. Assuming this is true, we must ask, why punish? The answer here seems to be, "So that the wicked will not sin in the future." However, God does not provide a future for the inhabitants of Hell; they burn eternally. So we can reasonably conclude that Hell is not about rehabilitation, but punishment. This is punishment for punishment's sake. Punishment for punishment's sake does not fit the description of an all-loving God.

So let's use our sense and get around this. Perhaps God is all-loving, and gives sinners the chance to redeem themselves. In this case, Hell may yet be about rehabilitation. However, if God is really being fair, he must offer the wicked unlimited chances to redeem themselves. Otherwise, he would be imprisoning the wicked in Hell forever with no chance of parole (again, punishment for punishment's sake). Let's say that there exists an individual for whom no amount of Hell will change their ways. In this case, wouldn't an all-loving, all-knowing God see this, and be required to terminate their existence? Otherwise, they will be punished for the sake of punishment.

Given that I understand what it means to love, it would seem that an all-loving God wouldn't allow for an eternal Hell. Once Hell has worked to rehabilitate the lost, it is no longer necessary. What are your thoughts on Hell? Would you argue that some people receive an eternity in Hell, and why? What does that imply for your concept of God?

What does Muslim theology say about sin?

If you don't like the term, please don't write me your reasons why. I'm well aware that it represents a logical fallacy and that it comes off as smug. I would just appreciate a definition, so that I can find whether believers agree on what attributes a true Christian must have.

What methods did you find particularly effective?

While I understand that the posting of these verses is motivated by misogyny, I'm led to another question.

When (if there is a set date) did Christians decide which verses of the Bible they ought not to follow? Also, who (or what body of individuals) chose which verses could be disregarded as they are written?

In the case you feel my two choices are inadequate to express your position, please explain your position.

For whatever case you argue, what are the implications of such an existence for the possibility of eternal torment?

This is strictly hypothetical.

I will start with the premise that an evil God exists who will send you to eternal torment if you don't follow his written demands. Note, I'm not implying that a God of this nature exists in reality. Would you follow him, simply because he is all-powerful? Why or why not?

Not saying that anyone's God is malicious. It's strictly hypothetical.

I seek an in-depth analysis of what faith is, preferably by one who considers themselves to have faith.

It's fine if you can't explain faith well. However, I must warn you that if you can't describe your faith in a reasonably intelligent manner, please don't expect me to apply anything gained from your reply to my life. I don't know any of the people on Y!A personally, and therefore can only respect you based on the quality of your reply. A thought-out, carefully explained reply will garner my full attention.

I am curious as to why certain Christians feel so strongly that evolution needs to be debunked. While I know that Genesis records a rather specific account of creation, I never realized why some factual errors in Genesis were enough to discredit an entire religion.

I'm not sure that the possible mistakes in the recording of Genesis are enough to debunk Christianity itself. However, I see many people for whom evolution remains a very sore point. What about evolution and its implications for the Bible threatens Christianity?

I seek to avoid giving offense. Please, your honest and thought-out answers.

At what point do you stop attributing your actions to the interaction of your brain and its environment, and start attributing it to the influence of your soul?

In your opinion: What are the qualities of the soul, and how do they affect brain processes? Example: Is the soul capable of decision-making, or is decision making merely a futile attempt on the part of the brain to justify the orientation of the soul?

Please, don't bash any answerers for a lack of citation. In this question, I only seek opinions, not facts.