Pullquote: The Christian teachings on submission and divorce cause immense suffering for many Christian women.
“I’m going to be a youth pastor,” my teenage girlfriend said. I was shocked. Women were not allowed to become pastors. “Honey, that’s silly. You know the Bible says women are supposed to be in submission, not authority. I don’t even want you to work outside the home — women should be at home, not at a job.”
The rest of the conversation didn’t go so well.
Christians make much ado about their commitment to family and marriage. They label themselves “pro-family” and “pro-life,” and think of those outside their cult as “anti-family” and “pro-death.” Yet the Christian teachings on submission and divorce cause immense suffering for many Christian women.
Biblical Teaching on Women and Divorce
Pullquote: [Women] are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission.
Jesus, when asked about divorce, said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).
The Apostle Paul, when discussing women, said they “should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission” (1 Cor. 14). He also commanded women to be submissive to their husbands — in the same section he commands slaves to be submissive to their masters (Titus 2), making what most enlightened people would consider an uncomfortable parallel.
Trapped in Terrible Marriages
Pullquote: She is trapped because she is commanded to be submissive to her husband and is not allowed to consider divorce.
Make no mistake: there are many women trapped in terrible marriages due to these teachings. A friend I know, for example, is married to a man who is very harsh with her and their children. He is unkind and unjust. They are both Christians and are very involved in a small church. She is kind and submissive to him and does all she can to make him happy. Not only does she do all the housework and meals, but she also makes all the money — he doesn’t have a job. Yet he is one of the unhappiest people I know.
She is trapped because she is commanded to be submissive to her husband and is not allowed to consider or threaten divorce. In a normal marriage, she would tell her husband to get his act together or face the consequences of divorce. But instead, she tries to cheerfully serve him, be kind to him, and turn the other cheek.
He gets off the hook. There are no consequences for his actions. He gets to be a jerk, and still gets a woman who serves his every whim because she is commanded by God to be submissive to him. By doing this, she believes she is obeying God and pleasing him. She has no way out without disobeying her God and committing a great sin.
A Christian might respond, “But the husband isn’t fulfilling his biblical role of being a servant-leader. If he did, the marriage would be healed.” That is irrelevant — the husband is not a “servant-leader” and is unlikely to become one. He has no incentive to change, and in the meantime, it is he who benefits and the wife that suffers.
I Once Believed This
It is to my shame that I once enthusiastically agreed with these teachings. For many years I commanded my wife to not have a job and kept her home alone to “take care of the house” even though we had no children. When she did not do something I requested, I would lecture her on God’s commandments on submission. “I didn’t choose to be a man,” I’d say, “but God put me in charge and you must obey me.”
Yes, I was thoroughly brainwashed.
The Bible Is the Wrong Guide
Pullquote: It was not the Bible that gave us equality for women — in fact it commands the opposite.
This suffering is caused because a group of people blindly follow an ancient book written by sheep herders and fishermen that is full of lies, bigotry, contradictions and violence. It is not an infallible guide to morality and life, as we have seen over and over throughout history.
Let us remember that it was not the Bible that gave us equality for women — in fact it commands the opposite. It took almost 2,000 years after the New Testament was written for women to have the same basic rights as men.
The Bible calls women the “weaker vessel,” and forbids them to speak in church or to be in authority over men. It also commands them to wear head coverings, to have long hair, and to be at home. Is it any wonder women were not treated as equals when people believe these are commands directly from God?
Christian marriage can be a trap. And not surprisingly, it is men who benefit and women who suffer.
Offred: I was wondering how long it would be before Daniel or someone posted this, dkos has been having some involved discussions... 
Jerdog: Couldn’t they have at least recycled all that paper? Or will anything tainted with evil 50%... 
Elemenope: Solid, except the “stop the hate” at the end blunts it slightly with corniness. 
bigjohn756: Pathetic… 
Kodie: I found this t-shirt on the same website: http://www.cafepress.com/+anti hate_tshirt,417804848 No real Christian, certainly... 
mikespeir: …it’s only a matter of time before some lunatic tries to act on this “biblical advice.” Yeah. It’s not these... 
DCtouristsANDlocals: Why do people take things to such extremes? I guess it makes for good stories and gets people to watch your... 
482 Comments
Women silent in church, head coverings, long hair, home-makers. Was this cultural and therefore to be disregarded today in our culture?
It does seem obvious the bible is not a perfect guide in that you can take what it says at any given point and apply it to us today in any given culture.
But that also shouldn’t lead us to throw the bible out completely.
I’m frustrated as well at the fact that I once was under this view to my detriment. I will not assume that God is not still God or that He is not Sovereign. I won’t assume there is not a good God just because Christian traditional teaching on what the bible or God says is often distorted. I can’t prove it wrong, just because God is not understood easily when you read the bible.
So, it’s complex and makes me want to light something on fire and throw it to the moon.. but I can’t take all the negative things and conclude the whole is negative. If there is any goodness found in religion or elsewhere, conclude it as good and don’t throw away all sources because contamination is everywhere.
it seems that so many ex-Christians/new athiests are doing good by debunking all the twisted/distorted teachings and crap. But they often ’seem/appear’ to throw out christianity and God or Jesus completely and use the negative nasties of tradional or modern christianity as the main reason.
this is how it appears but i don’t conclude that these are the only reasons one might disregard christianity. but see, i agree usually about all the crap in it. i cant’ stand it and im all about debunking anything that’s not true.
Am i rambling too much here? I’m all for dialogue..
Maybe what he is saying is that the Bible isn’t the word of God. If it is the word of God, then we have to look at it in entirety, not pick and choose the parts that make sense. If we decide instead that the “bible isn’t a perfect guide” and isn’t God’s word, than what parts do we believe? That parts that are convenient for our motivations? I think that’s exactly the point: that’s what people have been doing and it is getting people killed, oppressed, and manipulated.
Or…we could just decide the Bible is unmitigated, insipid drivel, dreamt up by people who didn’t have enough knowledge to qualify as morons in the present, who also happened to be bigoted, violent, misogynistic, superstitious, immoral, power-hungry pricks.
I don’t pretend to have all of the answers…because I don’t. I can’t even respond to everything you said. But I do want to say that I’m sorry. I’m sorry that this is the view on marriage that you got from being a Christian and from watching other Christians. I do believe that the Bible is good and true. But I also believe that it was written in a specific time and place, to specific people. The culture during the time the Bible was written is a thousand percent different than the culture we live in today. The principles set forth in the Bible are not first and foremost timeless truths. If we take the original context out of the Bible, we suck the life out of it. That is something that is critical when reading the Bible (and therefore interpreting it…because every time we read, we interpret). If we read the Bible and take everything literally, and try to live it all out in our lives in the 21st century, it’s just not going to work. Life is different now, and that’s ok. The first and most important thing for me to do as a Christian is to love. That can mean a thousand and one different things. I don’t think divorce is good. My parents are going through a divorce now, which is something I thought I’d never have to deal with once I reached my 20s. It’s painful and messy and it sucks. But I do think there are legitimate cases where divorce is ok. It isn’t what God wants, necessarily, but God understands what it’s like to be human. He understands the struggles in life. Most importantly, He understands what sin has done to the world. So while divorce may not have been in God’s original plan, He permits it. Someone who gets a divorce is not going to go to hell. In fact, no one is going to go to hell for their actions (something they do or do not do). The only reason a person goes to hell is because they choose it. They reject God, therefore rejecting a life in heaven.
Anyway, I guess those are just some thoughts from a Christian perspective. Perhaps other Christians would say that I am too liberal and lenient with what I say or believe. But really…if God has grace for me in infinite measure, who am I to deny grace and love to other people? It is possible to be a follower of Jesus without being “religious.” It sounds like you haven’t had very good experiences as a Christian or with other Christians, and I’m sorry for that. I only hope that maybe you will be able to glimpse, even for a second, the infinite grace that God has for you and for everyone else. Grace brings freedom.
(PS: I’m not saying that you should tell your friend to get a divorce…but do tell her that in Christ she has freedom. There is grace for her, there is grace for her husband, and she can be free of that marriage if she so chooses, and there will still be grace for her then.)
Great, if the Bible was written for different people in a different time, let’s just toss it in garbage pail. And I object to your platitude about an “understanding” God. If God is supposed to be omniscient, then he already knew everything that was going to happen long before any of us were ever born. So how can he be understanding about a particular circumstance that is happening to us in the present? That seems totally incoherent to me.
@ Danae
Hmm, that is interesting commentary. Personally, I am a relatively new atheist, so maybe I can help you understand what I am thinking.
I was raised as a Christian, and I believe I have a fairly decent knowledge of the Bible. Of course there are sizable portions of it that I haven’t read, unfortunately.
You regret that people “disregard christianity” because of Biblical inaccuracy. Well, there is some truth to that, but it is not entirely accurate. I agree with your opinion that there is goodness found in religion.
There is goodness in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Islam, Judaism, and many other religions besides Christianity. I’ve discovered in the past few months that there are exemplary moral lessons in many sources outside of Christian tradition. I may not be religious, but I have not chosen to “disregard Christianity” entirely. I still value much of the ethics of the Bible, such as Jesus of Nazareth’s story of the Good Samaritan. While there are certain things I find deplorable in the Bible, such as genocide and other forms of violence, there is some good in it. There is some form of virtue in almost every religion that exists today.
It has been my experience that atheism gives you freedom to incorporate moral teachings from a wider array of sources than merely Christian ones or exclusively from any other religion one may follow. I am still a secular Christian, and I still believe in many of its moral teachings. Though I no longer possess a belief in its dogma, I feel that it would unfair to say that I am disregarding it entirely, or that I am disregarding any other religion entirely. The only thing I am disregarding is belief in the supernatural dogma of these traditions. I assume that many other atheists may feel the same way.
@Rachel:
I’ve had great experiences with Christians, and still do on a daily basis. And I enjoyed being a Christian for a long time. However, I rejected Christianity and the Bible for purely intellectual reasons — that is, because it wasn’t true and there is no evidence for any of the Bible’s supernatural claims (and for many of it’s non-supernatural historical claims). See my about page for more info on that.
I saw many strong women struggle and suffer under this teaching when I was a Christian, including my ex wife. And they had good marriages and good husbands (okay, mine ended in divorce, but I struggled with the whole leadership thing too). But the bible was written by men, for men. It sucked to be a woman back then, and it isn’t much better now for evangelical Christian wives. It’s ironic that breakthroughs for women’s rights were primarily secular in origin. Great post.
Michael, I have to say that it is exactly Not ironic that breakthroughs for women’s rights were primarily secular in origin. Irony is something that happens in the opposite way to what is expected. There is little, if anything, in historical Christian teachings (as well as many other religions) that would lead one to expect breakthroughs in women’s rights.
What? Oppression and falsities in religion?! What a revelation!
I can understand that. The Bible doesn’t make much sense…I don’t understand hardly any of it! I’ve recently been realizing that not everything in the Bible is historically accurate, and that is a real shock to me. I’m still dealing with that. All I really know is that God IS real. I can’t prove it to you scientifically or intellectually, but there have been so many ways I’ve seen Him work in my life, and so many things that He’s done that can’t just be counted as coincidence, and because of those things, I can’t not believe.
I don’t know if you read a lot, or what you think of Lee Strobel (if you’ve heard of him….I get the sense that there are a lot of people who really like him and a lot of people who hate him), but his book A Case for Christ is a pretty good read. I am not one to recommend books normally, and chances are you might think it’s total BS. But it’s just a story of Lee trying to disprove Christianity and the Bible from an atheist point of view, but no matter how hard he tries, he comes up with more evidence that everything he believed was made up and full of crap was actually true. I guess the clincher is that we will never be able to fully prove the Bible or “prove” any of what it says scientifically or intellectually. That’s where we just have to have faith. I think when we try to pick apart God and the Bible, we take away the essence of who God is and what the Bible is about. It loses something and it stops making sense. On a strictly intellectual level, it will never make sense.
On the other hand, I affirm you in your journey, learning to be an unbeliever and a skeptic. I think you will learn many important and life-changing things from it, that most people in the Church will not even consider because they aren’t “Christian.” It will be an interesting journey for sure!
So, you’re recommending a book by a Christian pretending to be an Atheist who unsuccessfully attempts to discredit religion? It’s a miracle!
The shock for people like me reading the thoughts of people like you is that you have made the initial realisations that ultimately lead to a choice essentially between fundamentalism or atheism.
“The Bible doesn’t make much sense…I don’t understand hardly any of it! I’ve recently been realizing that not everything in the Bible is historically accurate, and that is a real shock to me. I’m still dealing with that. All I really know is that God IS real.”
Unfortunately, your sense of identity and perception is obviously deeply rooted in your chosen religion. Your above statement appears unwilling to explore the logical conclusion of the ‘evidence’ you seem to have found against your belief, despite believing the foundation of your religion to be in at least some part untrue.
I guess the essence of identifying yourself with any religion lies with the neccessary agreeance with its fundamental proof (ie the bible). The bible claims to be the word of god – written by man, but inspired and guided by the hand of god and thus making all of its versions and translations 100% accurate.
(2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”)
If there is a single claim in the book that turns out to be untrue, does this not mean that there are possibly more? I mean come on. It claims that god created the universe, all of life and that he has a grand master plan for all of the billions of people alive (and the countless billions that came and will come), is able to create unimaginably complex systems (food chains, cellular mechanics etc) BUT he makes mistakes in THE evidence that is supposed to convince people that this is all true? I would expect better from such a ‘perfect’ being.
The reality is that you are likely (thats likely, not certain) to hold the same religious ideas as those in your immediate vicinity ie. your family, neighbours, school friends etc. At what point did you ‘choose’ to become a christian? Was it after you read the various texts offered by the various religions of the world and came to the conclusion that this particular choice MUST be correct? Or was it more of a case that everyone around you believed it and told you it was true so you just naturally assumed it to be true – a view that was continually reinforced from a very early age (where your ability to criticaly and objectively analise claims is virtually non existent.)
Do you think a child born and raised in afghanistan by devout muslims, living in a society where islam is accepted to be the ‘infallable word of god (or allah)’ is likely to be a muslim? Do you think this child ‘chose’ to be a muslim, or is merely upholding the ideas that they were told were true.
What are the chances that in such circumstances, they would identify themselves as being a christian. Or a Buddhist? Or a Hindu? Or a Mormon? Or a scientologist? Or a Jew? I would argue that as they were bought up in an environment where it was assumed and accepted that a particular viewpoint is true (not restricted to religious views), there is an almost zero probability that that person would believe otherwise.
This is primarily becuase their whole sense of identity, their perception of reality is framed within the boundaries of their core beliefs. Belief in ideas (particularly religios) become so ingrained that it is almost impossible to shake – even when presented with overwhelming proof that the claims made by the text their religion is based on are untrue. So ingrained infact that they recognise the new evidence – as it is sitting right infront of them – AND the old ‘truth’ as both being true even though they are mutually exclusive.
Do you find it at all interesting that there are multiple religions that claim to be the ‘one true god’? Lets say that one of them is categoricaly undeniably true. That means _by definition_ all of the other ones are wrong. Believing what you do, can you imagine the impact it would have on your sense of identity, your very perception of the world around you if it were unqestionably proven to you that your religion was false? This is why a persons religious beliefs are so hard to shake. It is not easy to wake up one day and discover that everything you KNEW was true was completely false.
Lets take judaism, christianity and islam as a small selection of the plethora of monotheistic religions and their variants out there. Lets say, judaism is unquestinably proven overnight to be the one true religion and all others false. Can you imagine the massive reveberations that would ripple across the world if two thirds of the poplulation of this planet discovered that THE thing they believe as unquestinably true, was not?
I encourage you to let your curiosity take you where it wants to go, to allow your mind to question things that dont seem to make sense. To not fear finding out that your basic assumptions about existance could be wrong. To use the only things that you can KNOW are true (your 5 senses, although they can be tricked a little) and explore the world around.
The world is a far more interesting and magical place when you realise that everyone else is a person – just like you – with real thoughts and real feelings and not just a member of some book club that requires them to wear funny hats.
Opinions are not fact. Ask questions, demand answers!
@Rachel: I have heard of Strobel and have read a number of his books. He does make a pretty decent case as long as you haven’t read any of the actual secular scholars. The way he tries to “disprove” it is very superficial and of course he never cities the actual people who make the case against it — only for it. So it appears very strong for it, and very weak against. But in reality, it is the opposite.
I have also had many experiences that I thought were God, but after studying probability, placebo, and similar things I have come to understand that they were not in fact due to a supernatural being. But I certainly understand that thought process.
If you’re stupid enough to believe there is an invisible wizzard, you deserve no better than to have a miserable life to the standard of some nomads living in a desert, 2000 years ago.
.Think.
Interesting thread…
On one level, I prefer to associate with Christians who take their faith seriously but not literally. This applies to all religions, actually, rather than just those who pursue one or the other. I want to be around people who think critically, and have concluded that much of what is portrayed as “truth” is really to be treated with skepticism.
On the other hand, I have to respect those who make claims and choose to live by them (even if there are negative consequences). I can’t stand the literal Biblical interpretation – but if one claims to believe in it, I certainly respect him/her living his/her life according to that belief.
—
I guess I’m just commenting, rather than adding to the conversation.
@Danae:
Why not? We’ve mostly thrown out all other legends, fairy tales, and gods of that era other than as history. We’ve preserved the best of the philosophers. So why do we need this one particular book?
So I should eat the whole sausage because only one end appears to be mouldy?
@Rachel:
In which case, why should anyone take any of what it says seriously at all?
No–that’s where we pick up Occam’s Razor and slash away the ancient superstition.
Agreed: This is one baby that should have been flung out with the bathwater.
Doesn’t sound to me like a very good reason to either assume there’s agod (since the Bible is all there is to tell us so) or to live by the legends of first-century nomadic tribespeople.
Metro:
Don’t eat the whole sausage..but why not just cut off the bad part? I’m saying, don’t throw away the bible completely because of any negative thing. And don’t assume that I have thrown out any book either. I’m open, here.
Telepromter: Im curious about what it means to be a secular christian and or a humanist christian.
I’d like to hear you story, feel free to email me.
also, to teleprompter:
you said this: “It has been my experience that atheism gives you freedom to incorporate moral teachings from a wider array of sources than merely Christian ones or exclusively from any other religion one may follow.”
according to your definition, I’m an athiest. :D
@ Danae
Haha, well, I’m sure that my definition is nowhere near authoritative. I’d really like to avoid an argument on the definition of atheism. I’ve seen too much turmoil on that front already. Those kinds of semantics battles tire me very quickly.
Well, to answer your question, I didn’t consider myself to technically be a Christian, as in a form of religious identification. I guess you could say I consider myself to be a secular Christian in the way that Richard Dawkins or most of Scandinavia does. I celebrate the holidays and the traditions, but technically I’d say that I am an agnostic atheist (in short, I don’t claim to know that there is no god, but I am still an atheist; I think.) I’m sure someone else could give you a more accurate definition than I could.
I try to talk about the positive aspects of atheism rather than the negative ones in many instances because there are so many prejudices and misconceptions out there about atheists. Unfortunately, I used to believe much of the misconceptions. I even told myself that I’d never be able to vote for an atheist. Experience has taught me better. I hope this helps. I don’t know how to e-mail you, but I’ll try to respond on here if nothing else works (without being too much of a distraction).
Teleprompter:
Thanks! danaemesa at Gmail Or if you can visit my blog at wintercityromance. blogspot.com
Part of what was revolutionary about Christianity in the first place was its incredible extension of rights to women.
Jewish religious scholars in Jesus’ day used to pray “Thank God I am not a woman or a gentile.” Jesus, on the other hand, not only preached that the meek and oppressed would inherit the earth (and women in that day were certainly oppressed, if not necessarily meek) but associated with women in ways that were considered disgraceful.
(And no matter how well anyone liked the Da Vinci Code, it is perfectly possible to read the new testament without jumping to the conclusion that the reason Jesus hung out with women was because he was the Judaic version of a rock star.)
Jesus extended offers of eternal life to women who were quite literally pariahs. Paul wrote that he did not allow women to speak in church, that women should keep their heads covered, etc., yes. Jesus did no such thing, which seems to indicate a distinction between cultural practices and purely religious ones. Paul’s letters are intended to help beginning churches in several distinct cultures, and these procedural matters may well be regarded as ways to ease Christianity’s introduction.
Later Christianity has a relatively unusual track record on this issue as well. Monasticism, the preferred medieval method of achieving a highly religious life, was by no means exclusive to men, nor was sainthood. Women could participate to an amazing degree considering the culture they lived in. Early protestantism didn’t overturn this trend either, and with protestantism (eventually) came protestant sects like the Quakers, who allow anyone to worship freely and participate in religious practices equally.
Daniel, I will easily grant you that the current emphasis on male superiority in many (USAmerican) churches is problematic, and almost certainly harmful. I think it is an unfortunate consequence of the so-called “religious-right” movement, which uncomfortably blurred the lines between conservatism and religion. A desire for the “good old days” seems to motivate the relatively recent upswing in this sort of teaching, which strikes me as anomalous to the historical course of Christianity.
Meh, there’s my two cents, for whatever it’s worth. this is a legitimate issue for many Christians, and I think it needs to be solved. I also think you gave it very fair treatment, so thanks!
unfortunately the bible comes in 2 parts, the new testament and the old testament. How can you believe the new testament without giving the old testament authority. The old testament which views women so highly:
(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.
Genesis 19 (NLT)
1 That evening the two angels came to the entrance of the city of Sodom. Lot was sitting there, and when he saw them, he stood up to meet them. Then he welcomed them and bowed with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “come to my home to wash your feet, and be my guests for the night. You may then get up early in the morning and be on your way again.”
“Oh no,” they replied. “We’ll just spend the night out here in the city square.”
3 But Lot insisted, so at last they went home with him. Lot prepared a feast for them, complete with fresh bread made without yeast, and they ate. 4 But before they retired for the night, all the men of Sodom, young and old, came from all over the city and surrounded the house. 5 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to spend the night with you? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”
6 So Lot stepped outside to talk to them, shutting the door behind him. 7 “Please, my brothers,” he begged, “don’t do such a wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you wish. But please, leave these men alone, for they are my guests and are under my protection.”
It is to my shame that I once enthusiastically agreed with these teachings. For many years I commanded my wife to not have a job and kept her home alone to “take care of the house” even though we had no children. When she did not do something I requested, I would lecture her on God’s commandments on submission. “I didn’t choose to be a man,” I’d say, “but God put me in charge and you must obey me.”
I. am. speechless.
I encourage anyone to read books by Joseph Campbell to open your eyes a little to the myth behind religion.
@Rachel (with all due respect)
Why… Oh why… do we have to have faith?
Aren’t a lot of the quotes from the Bible that tell us the things mentioned above (that you say were time and culture specific) the word of God?
Wouldn’t you expect the word of God to transend time and culture? Wouldn’t you expect his way and his will to always be relavant? Especially as far as such a short time (less than 2000 years from when His words were spoken) when compared to the time that man has inhabited this world (over 100,000 years), and even the age of the Earth (4.5 Billion years)?
How on Earth do you presume to know that God permits divorce sometimes, when Jesus clearly states in the Bible “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery”?
Is adultery not a sin?
If you choose to believe that God has in some way changed his mind about how he feels about certain things, just because the culture you live in is very different from the culture that Jesus supposedly inhabited, then you are doing what many many Christians do (and what many many atheists abhor) which is to pick and choose what you want from the Bible, and interpret it the way that makes it convenient to continue to live with this faith that you feel you must have.
You said yourself, you don’t hardly understand any of the Bible. Then, may I ask, how do you come to claim to have understandings of any of the particulars discussed here? Is it perhaps because it is what you have been told? How do you think those people learned about them? Do you presume that they are experts on the Bible and it’s context?
Forgive me if I seem as though I am attacking you. I chose to question a few things you said because they are a very typical Christian way of arguing, and I was hoping to show you that it doesn’t make much sense, and that perhaps you should consider why you have the view of God and the Bible that you do. Is it “just because it feels right”? Don’t you want a better reason than that?
Daniel how are things with your wife that you used to command to stay at home. Did things work out.
On the divorce and remarriage issue here is some interesting stuff for you.
Leslie McFall has an interesting way to deal with the so-called exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that some hold allows for divorce and remarriage in the case of marriage unfaithfulness.
He has written a 43 page paper that reviews the changes in the Greek made by Erasmus that effect the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated. I reviewed McFall’s paper at Except For Fornication Clause of Matthew 19:9. I would love to hear some feedback on this position.
I also have list of good conservative articles on the subject of Divorce and Remarriage.
Yes, the Bible is the WRONG guide.
The very minute I understood that the Bible was man-made and by the powers-that-be at that, I realized how primitively I had been living my life.
Treating women and children using 3,000-year-old ideas is beyond wrong. It is disgraceful.
I have a real problem with the ‘pick and mix’ description of the Bible that is being presented in some of the posts. Either it’s the word of god and so the best you can do is try and read the limited context into it or it’s not the word of god and therefore everything is up for grabs just like any other text holy or otherwise. Are we to suppose to believe that an entity that it’s claimed created the universe couldn’t come up with a text that is valid for all time or even worse in a language that could be clearly understood by his own creations?
I always think that the answer is really simple don’t lead you life from a book written thousands of years ago by men as it’s unlikely to make sense any more.
If parts of the Bible are flat-out wrong, and people have only figured that out in the last century or two, then how do we know which parts are right? After all, in another century or two we might realize that more parts of it are wrong.
If it’s not the divine word of a deity, or at least parts of it are not the divine words of a deity, then which parts do you trust? Which parts are divine? How do you know? How do you know that ANY of it is divine, once you’ve realized that some of it is just the writings of a group of men?
Especially when there’s no actual objective evidence that any of it is divine …. There’s faith. Mostly faith based on stories written by those same men? You read these stories they wrote, and then you see things in your life that you can’t quite explain, and you chose not to try to explain them – to instead tell yourself that you are seeing the workings of the god described by those men. And then you tell yourself that this is reason to believe the stories. Just not the parts that are blatantly wrong. The rest of it is true …. Uh-huh.
@Jonboy:
I like your critical thinking here, but I have a few questions for you:
1) Jesus also said nothing about homosexuality, but Paul did. Does this mean you would discard the Bible’s obvious hatred towards homosexuality? Jesus also said nothing about the church, though Paul did. Do you only follow the words attributed to Jesus?
2) How exactly do you know that Jesus didn’t say the same thing as Paul about women? Very few of his words were recorded. For all we know, he taught the same thing as Paul in these manners.
3) How do you know that the gospels are accurate about what Jesus said? Virtually all secular scholars say that what we have is very unreliable — decades after it happened, written down by non-eyewitnesses (Matthew, Mark, and John are names that were added on top of the manuscripts later by scribes because of church tradition — they do not claim to be written by them.) I have much more faith in what Paul believed, since we have writings from him, than what Jesus believed, who we have nothing from and only tales written long after he lived.
@More Christ Like: We’re still happily married. Actually, more happily since we’re both not Christians anymore. Things are great!
Actually, I don’t really care much about all the manuscript issues regarding Matt 19:9. Either way we have no way of knowing if it reflects what Jesus actually taught, and even if we did, it doesn’t affect my life since I’m not a follower.
The bible is a book that concludes with Jesus fulfilling the
Law.”
So maybe we should figure out if Jesus is the word of God, instead of a book being God’s word. I think this has been misinterpreted and misunderstood.
The bible is just as useful as the dictionary and our English Textbooks.
God is seen through many things. I don’t see how any one book should be viewed as purely perfect.. otherwise we might worship the effing book.
Does this make sense?
Daniel: a good discussion I’d love to have sometime is what’s the purpose of marriage? :)
The bible is no where near as useful as a dictionary or a textbook. The latter two were written with clarity in mind. The Bible, on the other hand, just… conglomerated.
Daniel, I’ve always felt that Christians shouldn’t follow the teachings of Paul. He never met Jesus, after all, and his teachings seem in some places to contradict those of Jesus, as though he’s hijacking the movement almost. From what we know of NRMs, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched.
@wazza: Never met Jesus? What blasphemy! You mean to tell me you don’t believe he was blinded by Jesus himself on the road to Damascus? :)
You do make a good point. Paul pretty much created early Christianity — without him it would have been squelched early. He never talked about Jesus’ life, almost like he didn’t know anything about him. I’ve never put it in the words of Paul “hijacking the movement,” but that certainly makes my thoughts about it more concise.
Well, there’s no proof it was Jesus. It was just a voice. It could have been anyone. I bet it was the Holy Spirit, she must have been pissed about not getting any lines…
Bible scholars are virtually unanimous in saying that the Pastoral epistles (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, where the most misogynist New Testament material can be found) were not actually written by Paul, and some also believe that the 1 Corinthians passage was added by the Pastoral author because it is inconsistent with what Paul wrote elsewhere. Although Paul was certainly a misogynist by modern standards, he was not an advocate for traditional gender roles and family values.
@McBloggenstein:
I didn’t feel too attacked, don’t worry :)
You asked a lot of questions, and I am assuming some of them at least were rhetorical. But I’ll try to explain a little better…I don’t think I did a very good job of it before.
“Aren’t a lot of the quotes from the Bible that tell us the things mentioned above (that you say were time and culture specific) the word of God? Wouldn’t you expect the word of God to transend time and culture? Wouldn’t you expect his way and his will to always be relavant?”
Those are good questions for sure. I really can’t promise to have all the answers, but I’ll do my best. The Bible is hard to understand. Even a surface reading of it brings up a lot of questions. Going in depth will bring up an infinite amount of questions. But if we had it all figured out, we would be able to understand God, and that just isn’t possible. As far as the Bible being the Word of God, that’s harder to explain. The Church stopped adding books to the canon (what we accept as Scripture), but that doesn’t mean things stopped happening. Even throughout the Bible, cultures changed drastically. How could they not? It covers thousands of years. The principles set forth in the Bible, the ideas behind it…those are still the same. The surface is what has changed. For instance, in the Old Testament, there were hundreds of laws set forth, and the people of God were expected to obey them all. However, in the New Testament, Jesus takes all of those laws and he sums them up into one (or two, depending on how you look at it). Instead of “Thou shalt not…”, he summed the entire law up as “Love God and love your neighbor” (essentially). Nothing about that has changed from then to today. Perhaps the ways that we put that into practice have changed, but the summation of the law has not changed. I think that is the point I was trying to get at.
“How on Earth do you presume to know that God permits divorce sometimes, when Jesus clearly states in the Bible “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery”?”
Well…I don’t presume to know anything about what God thinks. I’m still processing my thoughts on divorce, and I’m learning to learn about God’s grace. No matter what we do, God’s grace is enough. Now you can take that to mean that we can go around and do whatever we want and ask forgiveness for it, and we’ll be forgiven, so it doesn’t matter what we do. But if a person is living like that, do they really have faith? A person with living faith will try to live their life in fellowship and discipleship with God, and they won’t constantly be trying to “get away with things” (see Romans 3 and James 2 if you are curious about this, because this post is already long and I don’t want to go into too much detail). The point is, God’s grace is enough no matter what. That’s what I know. I don’t really know God’s thoughts, I was only speculating.
In essence, I am not “picking and choosing what I want to believe in the Bible.” I believe it is all good and true. But like I said, we have to remember that the Bible was written in a different context. Things change. Reading the Bible is never going to be easy. The best I can do as a Christian is read it and interpret it to the best of my ability, with a lot of prayer. Christians don’t have all the answers, trust me. You can question every Christian in the world and you will never get the answer to all of your questions. But we don’t have to have all the answers. Having the right answers isn’t what life is about. The best we can do is try to figure out what the Bible is teaching us and live according to it. We’re going to get it wrong. We are going to screw it up. Trust me…I do it every day. But it’s ok. I live my life under the grace of God.
Maybe this answered your questions, maybe it didn’t. I hope it gave you a little better picture of what I was trying to say anyway.
Peace!
“In essence, I am not “picking and choosing what I want to believe in the Bible.” I believe it is all good and true. But like I said, we have to remember that the Bible was written in a different context. Things change.”
Translation: I pick and choose what I want to believe in the bible, but I have an elaborate story that lets me tell myself that I’m not actually doing that.
“Reading the Bible is never going to be easy.”
Funny that, since it is supposed to be god’s letter to humans telling us what he wants from us. Does he just want it to be opaque?
“The best I can do as a Christian is read it and interpret it to the best of my ability, with a lot of prayer.”
Translation: Pick out the things I like and tell myself that those are the things that actually matter.
“Christians don’t have all the answers, trust me. You can question every Christian in the world and you will never get the answer to all of your questions.”
Perhaps because there ARE no answers? If I asked every physicist in the world about physics, I’d get a pretty complete picture of the current understanding of physics. Why is ‘the Truth of god’ such a confounded mess in comparison?
“But we don’t have to have all the answers. Having the right answers isn’t what life is about. The best we can do is try to figure out what the Bible is teaching us and live according to it.”
Translation: Read the bible and then speak in warm and fuzzy tones about Jesus, then you can pick out the stuff you like and do that.
“We’re going to get it wrong. We are going to screw it up. Trust me…I do it every day.”
How would you even know? You have absolutely no measuring stick for which things are right and which things are wrong. You’ve already said that cultural changes are a good enough reason to ditch the parts of the bible that don’t work for you. Which parts are change proof and which aren’t? And since there is no feedback of any kind from the purported source of the bible, you’re pretty much shooting in the dark there, aren’t you? So, again, how would you know if you got anything wrong or right?
“But it’s ok. I live my life under the grace of God.”
More meaningless and unsupportable statements of faith. But again, how would you know if you had god’s grace or not?
This is a very nicely done blog. Great work! Unfortunately in many religions particularly monotheistic ones, the women do all the praying, and the men demand to be in charge of the praying. At least if they are doing all the praying, they should be in charge. Look what percentage of individuals in any religious group are female. Doesn’t make any sense to me. I know plenty of Christian marriages where the woman is a slave to the man, and the woman is well educated and makes all the money.
After my divorce, I was the “evil one” and pretty much considered a pariah. It didn’t endear me to Christianity though.
I quite agree with Jabster. Either the Bible is the unadulterated word of God and all his sick thinking (in which case I don’t care about any of it) or it’s written, in some part at least, by men in which case it’s just the opinions of some racist, homophobic, misogynist, pig-ignorant dead guys. In which case I don’t care about any of it.
I DO know I don’t need these inconsistent and vile scribblings to make me want to do right by my fellow humans and live a decent life. It just comes naturally.
Paul himself never said that women should keep silent. He was quoting the prevailing opinion of the Corinthian church in a letter he wrote to straighten out their wacky ideas.
Nowhere does the Bible command inequality for women. (It does say in Genesis that there will always be a struggle between the genders as they try to lord over each other.) The writers of the Bible elevated the status of women by considering women as reliable witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. At that time in that culture the testimony of a woman was considered worthless.
“Paul himself never said that women should keep silent. He was quoting the prevailing opinion of the Corinthian church in a letter he wrote to straighten out their wacky ideas.”
Support for this assertion?
And what did Paul mean when he said that the man was head of the woman just as Christ was the head of the man?
And if we go old testament, there are dozens if not hundreds of places where women are treated as property by ‘god fearing’ men.
Lot is prepared to send his daughters out to be gang raped to death to protect two male guests. And he’s a righteous man.
Leah is forced to marry a man who doesn’t love her so that her younger sister doesn’t get married first.
Depending on which version you like, Jeptha either sacrifices or sends his daughter off to be a temple virgin without her consent.
And there are many, many more.
He was quoting the prevailing opinion of the Corinthian church in a letter he wrote to straighten out their wacky ideas.
Well, he wasn’t very clear on the straightening out thing, was he?
adamtree – “Paul himself never said that women should keep silent. He was quoting the prevailing opinion of the Corinthian church in a letter he wrote to straighten out their wacky ideas.”
I add my voice to the rest: where did this come from? I see no indication in the text that Paul is attributing these notions to the Corinthians. For example, in 1st Corinthians 14:33″ “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says” [RSV]
As you see, he attributes the command to the law, not to the Corinthian common wisdom.
If you want to argue that it’s a later interpolation, I’ll be right along side you. It doesn’t fit with the flow of the text – a discussion about prophesy and speaking in tongues, an aside to tell women to shut up, and then back to speaking in tongues. It sticks out like a sore thumb. But once you go down that road, you’re in the realm of the radical biblical critics who can spend weeks arguing over which portions are original to Paul – if any.
Oh, and as long as we’re at it, this line of reasoning is starting to annoy me: “The writers of the Bible elevated the status of women by considering women as reliable witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. At that time in that culture the testimony of a woman was considered worthless.”
Yes, women were not reliable witnesses in legal cases. But the resurrection of Jesus was hardly a legal matter, was it? “Yessir, your honor, that Jesus fella hopped up an’ left the tomb. You Romans should get a refund on that cross.”
It was a religious matter – and a religious vision – that the women experienced. And women were not only accepted as witnesses in religious matters, they were frequently preferred. They could be religious visionaries, seers and dreamers. Think of the Oracle of Delphi, for example.
The right, honorable Bishop NT Wrong had a post about it:
http://ntwrong.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/women-witnesses-visions-of-the-resurrection-of-jesus/
So the women having the vision of, say, the angelic young man at the end of Mark, fit right in to the ancient role of women. Further, to quote Wrong, “As the resurrection accounts are likely derived from vision reports, it was not unexpected, and in fact was quite likely that the vision reports should derive from women.”
Wow!
@ Daniel
1) is tricky, and i confess to not having a hard and fast opinion on this one. I’m rolling up this answer into 2)
2) Yes, Paul is generally thought to have written half the NT, but it is not Paul around whom Christianity is centered. I am prepared to say that the most important issues for salvation are the ones which Jesus concerned himself with most often in his ministry. Jesus says nothing unfavorable about women or homosexuals, and Paul does. There are several possibilities for why this might be, but the activities of Jesus seem to reflect what he thought was important.
3) I have always thought, and continue to think, the case for the inaccuracy of the gospels to be drastically overstated. If I recall correctly (and I’m sure if I didn’t, other posters will correct me) there is a gap of roughly 70 years between Jesus’ death and the gospels. 70 years, on a timescale of 2000+, is a quibble. The provenance of the gospels is arguably as good or better than that of the works of Shakespeare, and although crazies come out of the woodwork for Francis Bacon or Queen Elizabeth, most sensible people agree that William Shakespeare existed and wrote what he was said to have written. Ten years separate Shakespeare’s final play and the publication of the first folio (and mind you that was reproduced from actual scripts, which actors could and probably did change.)
At any rate, that’s my own opinion. Many of the gospels are constructed as thorough and legal testimonies. Mark uses the testimony of eyewitnesses many times.
As a side note, the so often quoted verse above makes no mention of the sinfulness of a woman divorcing her husband… Perhaps it’s allowed! XD (It would be a nice way of allowing women to leave abusive relationships.)
Hence the problem with following the teachings of the Bible as the inherent word of God, which it is not.
The Bible was handed down verbally for a long time until all the books had been written, and accumulated, and took some 1400 years to do…
Now tell me this, have you ever played “telephone” with a few people, and see how the story changes from person A to person K… You see, there are bound to be errors.
The books in the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not written by God, or Jesus for that matter. Keep in mind as someone said, the books were written in a completely different time period, and different culture than what we do, or can live in, in today’s world.
Be that as it may, the Bible to me is a collection of parables to help guide you when needed. But the message in the Bible is clear. If you gouge out your eye because it sins??? Really? Or is that hyperbole? Who knows. Some say it is…herein lies the second problem with the Bible, interpretation.
But the Bible, and more specifically Jesus, makes one thing very clear in the Bible…. BE NICE, SHARE YOUR STUFF, LOVE, and above all else, BELIEVE….
Marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms do that to me too. Does that mean i should force everyone to take them? Although, i tihnk that WOULD change the world for the better.
@ VorJack
You don’t think the resurrection is a legal matter?
You do remember that the members of the early church weren’t living in a society with our standards of religious freedom, right?
What happened to the apostles? As far as we know, they were killed by the government for stirring up trouble. I think it is unreasonable to assume that they didn’t need to be thinking in legal terms.
on December 2, 2008 at 1:39 pm Rik
Either the Bible is the unadulterated word of God and all his sick thinking (in which case I don’t care about any of it) or it’s written, in some part at least, by men in which case it’s just the opinions of some racist, homophobic, misogynist, pig-ignorant dead guys. In which case I don’t care about any of it.
You, sir, just became my new hero :)
on December 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm jonboy
there is a gap of roughly 70 years between Jesus’ death and the gospels. 70 years, on a timescale of 2000+, is a quibble.
Excuse me? Given that life expectancy at the time was about 40 years, that’s long enough for EVERY “eyewitness” to have died, AND their children, AND most of their grandchildren too! That’s not a “quibble”, that’s a total absence of any reliable source for the writings in the Bible!
“What happened to the apostles? As far as we know, they were killed by the government for stirring up trouble. I think it is unreasonable to assume that they didn’t need to be thinking in legal terms.”
As far as we know they didn’t even exist, since not even one contemporary record mentions them. I do think they existed, for the record, but that “as far as we know” crap won’t buy you much.
I think it is unreasonable to assume that any of them were thinking in legal terms about any of this. How on earth are you making that leap? Just because someone was (supposedly) executed by the state for stirring up trouble, that means they used legal terms when testifying to their faith?
“You do remember that the members of the early church weren’t living in a society with our standards of religious freedom, right?”
That depends. The Romans actually were a society with laws codified to protect the religious freedoms of the people they ruled. They did require some rituals regarding Caesar that the early Christians objected to, but all in all they were much more religiously tolerant than quite a number of modern countries.
Or did you just mean America?
“Yes, Paul is generally thought to have written half the NT, but it is not Paul around whom Christianity is centered. I am prepared to say that the most important issues for salvation are the ones which Jesus concerned himself with most often in his ministry. Jesus says nothing unfavorable about women or homosexuals, and Paul does. There are several possibilities for why this might be, but the activities of Jesus seem to reflect what he thought was important.”
If this were true, there would be no Christian churches. (In the bible) Jesus never established a church hierarchy, or set up a structured system of assembly. He grabbed a few people and sent them out to preach, and that’s it. Like it or not, nearly everything about modern Christianity began with people who followed after Jesus death, and was largely dominated by ex-pharisee Paul. Who, once he grabbed the reins of power in that fledgling group, immediately began setting up rules. Many of which are still followed today.
You may be a person who focuses only on the teachings of Jesus, and ignores the many many new rules and changes Paul brought, but that would make you a tiny minority among Christians.
@Daniel Florien
>>>We’re still happily married. Actually, more happily since we’re both not Christians anymore. Things are great!
Did you both leave Christianity at the same time or your first. What did your wife thing when you first left?
Rachel:
Confirmation bias.
jonboy -
Mostly, what Ty said. But some emphasis:
No, the Gospels were not making a legal argument. They are ancient biographies attempting to make theological points and provide liturgical guides.
But further, how would it help the early Christians to make a legal argument? Even if they could prove that Christ had risen – a dicey argument to make in a time when historical investigation was in its infancy – what good would it do them? The Romans had dozens of tales where heroes underwent apotheosis during or just after their death, from Hercules to Romulus. Showing that their particular prophet was also raised from death and became a demigod/god would not lessen the central problem: Christian refusal to take part in the official cultic rituals of the Roman Empire.
Like Ty said, we don’t know how the Apostles met their end. All of the stories of their demise come from later sources. We learn of Peter and Paul from 1 Clement, written in ~96AD. It does not say that they were martyred. It says that they suffered in their labors, but does not describe their deaths. We don’t get descriptions until Tertullian in 140AD, who says in the same sentence that John was plunged into boiling oil and was unhurt.
@Ty
That cracked me up!
@llewelly
Excellent link!! I’ve never seen that.
@Daniel: You mention the “Weaker Vessel” phrase. One interpretation I’ve heard of that is weaker = delicate; that women should be treated delicately, gently, and with care, like a precious vase. Not “B**CH GET IN THE KITCHEN! weaker.
Just wondering what your thought on that might be.
Not that I don’t agree with everything you wrote. I myself was “raised in the church”, spending 2-3 days per week going to church. I couldn’t play basketball on a team as a kid because practices were on Wednesday nights and that’s when Prayer Meeting was held. Pretty much every aspect of my life outside of school revolved around the church, even though I really had nothing in common with anyone there. I didn’t hold an active dislike for anyone in the church, and am still quite fond of many of those that I’ve known for most of my life. However, I just never felt like I fit in. Even when I was parroting the buzz words “I’ll keep you in my prayers”, “The lord has a plan”, etc, I just never felt like I believed it, even when I was very young.
I appreciate your site immensely, as you put into words MUCH of what I’ve felt for a number of years, and have helped my transition to a more logical perspective on the world. I consider myself more of an agnostic than an atheist because I haven’t been able to make the plunge to atheism (and I’m not sure that I’ll be able to), but I do hold a strong distaste for all organized religion at this point.
Thanks again for the site, and please keep it up.
Its really hard to describe how meaningless this entry is. What does it mean for Dan to say, “The Bible is the wrong guide”? Does Dan have some authoritative guide? No, just his opinion. If men following their opinions works so well I have to wonder why so many relationships fail so badly.
Of course, trotting out anecdotes is hardly a basis for argumentation—which is why Dan’s article amounts to little. He can bring up an example of a “Christian” being sad in their marriage, I can bring up a counter-example, and so on.
I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so (and He cannot lie). Simple as that. Dan has to rely on his finite, fallible experience. He has no justification for anything he writes, but he writes it anyway and then pats himself on the pat for coming up with such great arguments.
Keith -
“I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so ”
Remember, God (through Paul) tells you not to get married in the first place. Bear in mind 1st Corinthians, Chapter 4 “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” and so on. So a truly bible based relationship is a chaste, unmarried one.
@Keith:
PROVE that god cannot lie.
Regards…
Keith-
“I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so”
Translation-Biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable TO ME (as a privileged, and I would bet white, male), so I choose to promote this idea as an absolute truth.
I note that God never married according to the Biblical guidelines, or indeed at all… maybe He knows something?
Keith, you only have your opinion that the Bible is worth anything at all. How is that worth more than Dan’s?
“I note that God never married according to the Biblical guidelines, or indeed at all… maybe He knows something?”
Remember the divine consort, Asherah. Of course, we don’t know that they were married. They could have been living in sin, which is a mind-twisting theological concept.
Nor do we hear about the break-up. Was there a divine divorce? So many questions …
Danae, you say “it seems that so many ex-Christians/new athiests are doing good by debunking all the twisted/distorted teachings and crap. But they often ’seem/appear’ to throw out christianity and God or Jesus completely”
Yes, you are absolutely right. I would like to see religion thrown out completely, why would I support an organisation that activly promotes belief in fairy tales and holds up as admirable belief based on absolute faith with no evidence? I don’t hate God or Jesus, I simply don’t believe in their existence at all and one cannot hate something that does not exist. I can however detest the various churches for their promotion of religion and for the human m isery they cause along the way.
Sally Marshall just said everything I wanted to say. In the words of Freddy Mercurie:
“You say God – I say jeeeeeeez!
I don’t believe in Peter Pan
Frankenstein or Superman.”
I don’t want to destroy the church per se…
all I wanna do is bicycle.
@More Christ Like: I left Christianity first and didn’t tell her for a while, until I was very sure. I didn’t want to lead her in the wrong direction. Then we started talking about it, reading books, listening to lectures, etc. and she also came to see we had been fooled.
“…and she also came to see we had been fooled.”
I’ve said this before.. I would love to see some statistics on:
1. What % of religious people were born into it (i.e. their parents taught it to them).
2. What % of people born into it remained believers their entire lives.
3. What % of non-believers did or did not have religious parents that taught it to them.
etc…
I think it would be very interesting.
Dawkins had it right when he described faith as a virus caught in infancy.
We’ve evolved to believe without question those lessons we learn as young children. It’s a survival mechanism. You’re too young to understand why you have to know what you’re being told, but you’re biologically programmed to accept it absolutely.
That’s why we have things like Sunday school – to get the programming into your head while you’re still young enough not to find the whole thing laughable. Of course, once it’s in there, removing it requires the mental equivalent of a jack-hammer.
@custador
Yeah, it’s funny.. almost all kids believe in Santa Clause (or the equivalent) until their parents stop perpetuating the fairy tale, and they start to suspect that their parents are the ones buying the presents and wrapping them.
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to think that it would be possible for people to continue to believe in Santa Clause as long as most people around them never stop believing, and they continue to get deceived by gifts magically appearing on x-mas morning.
…I mean, why not believe in him, right? There’s evidence all around us!
McBloggenstein – just anecdotally, my brother and I were raised religiously from birth. I’ve completely left religion. He still believes in god, and is technically a church member, but only attends occasionally (mostly to socialize).
My mom was raised very loosely religious (Methodist, I believe) until she was 10 or so, at which time her father returned to his more conservative church and she was then immersed in that church. She became an atheist probably within a year or so of when I did. Or more accurately, that was when she *realized* she was an atheist – she never really did buy a lot of what the church (or any church, for that matter) taught, and she always had a gut-level doubt that she’d done her best to bury for decades.
My dad, on the other hand, was raised loosely religious until about the same age, at which time his dad returned to his more conservative church (same one, in all cases). Dad no longer belongs to a church, but still declares a fervent belief in Christianity. It doesn’t seem to make the slightest difference in how he lives, but if someone *questions* or criticizes Christianity, he gets very defensive. (You can criticize any church/denomination you choose, just not Christianity or the Judeo/Christian notion of god.)
Keith: “I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so (and He cannot lie).”
Well, except in 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11, right?
@Daniel
have you ever read Why not Women?
I didn’t read every other comment on here, so I don’t know if someone has suggested it yet, but I found a lot of freedom in that book in regards to women..
It talks about women as teachers and pastors.. it goes in depth into the greek and hebrew.. its quite refreshing.
Also i’d just like to say that God created woman and men equal.. the submission the bible talks about is one based out of love and respect.. not obligation or duty.
The women came from the man, and after that.. every man has come from the women.. this created a circle of equality so that neither man nor woman could claim to be superior over the other.
Also, many of the references to how a woman should dress or behave are culturally appropriate. God comes to people wherever they are in their culture. If the bible were written today, it would look different.. because it would be written in how the people today would understand it.
Be careful about jumping to conclusions about these things before really digging into the meanings behind the words.
I have heard about translators being biased and it coming through in how they’ve chosen to translate the words..trust no translation! go to the original.
Laura
:)
@jonboy:
It’s sufficient time for most of the witnesses to have died, leaving perhaps one or two to pass on their vague and age-dimmed recollections of what happened.
In my family, we occasionally have huge arguments over what events took place at what time and how they fell out in the end. Last year my mother and I argued over an event my father was certain hadn’t even taken place. And that’s over a time period just barely a hundredth of that 2000 years.
So you’re right–the potential for Biblical error is massive. Odd that you should be the one pointing it out …
@Keith:
Of course he can’t–he’s given you his word on that, right?
So let me tell you: Solid, open, irreligious marriages are the most pleasurable relationships.
I’m telling you that, and I ain’t lyin’–I give you my word on it. Your god doesn’t exist, and I’m telling the truth there too.
Seriously, try it sometime.
@Laura:
So you read ancient Aramaic?
Really? And it says that where? In the Creation myth, in which woman is merely, expressly, a part of a man?
Or in Paul in which he enjoins: “Women to thy husbands be subservient, slaves obey your masters”? Lots of love between slaves and their masters, right?
What if I love and respect my wife, should I be subservient to her? We can’t both be subservient to each other–I mean, that’s beyond kinky. Though it might be fun to take turns …
Daniel,
Heartiest congratulations for waking up and shaking off the delusion. I hope your marriage survived — if it did, I imagine it’s fuller and more satisfying for both of you.
@Metro:
“So you read ancient Aramaic?”
Well, you can look up the Greek and Hebrew to find the original meanings of those words that often provide insight into the culture at that time.. or show bias of the translator.
I think they are called inter-linears? i can’t remember for sure, but they have the Greek or Hebrew alongside whatever translation you are reading.. its pretty cool.
Its also necessary when reading the bible. People often single out one line of scripture that supports their belief or supplies them with ammunition, and forget to look at it in context.
“Really? And it says that where? In the Creation myth, in which woman is merely, expressly, a part of a man?”
Take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 11-16
There, Paul talks about marriage without this gender divide. He speaks to men and women equally here in these passages. For example: “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.the Wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.
So, i agree that husbands and wives should be subservient to one another. it could be good fun i’m sure :)
Also, Galations 3:28 says:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Jesus, the son of God came from a woman.. why is that? he could have just.. come out of thin air.. after all, he was God, right? Why would he come by way of a woman. Jesus also revealed himself first to Mary Magdalene and they went to tell the other disciples.
Just some things to think about.
Laura
“The women came from the man, and after that.. every man has come from the women.. this created a circle of equality so that neither man nor woman could claim to be superior over the other.”
Interesting. The ancient Rabbis looked at it completely differently. The told the story of God creating both man and woman simultaneously (based off of Gen 1:27). That was Adam and Lilith, and that relationship didn’t turn out so well. They had been created at the same time, so there was no seniority between them. They were constantly squabbling, and Lilith always wanted to be on top. (Seriously, one version of the story says that.)
So after Lilith runs off, God created a second woman from Adam’s rib (Gen 2:22-24). This new woman, Eve, was properly submissive, and so everything worked out.
So the Rabbis had solved the problem of the two creation stories (sort of) and explained where the character of Lilith, the night hag, had come from. Neat job all around.
Laura – “Take a look at 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 11-16″
I don’t think this has anything to do with dominance within the relationship. It seems to deal with a problem that existed at the time; namely, what to do when one spouse converts to Christianity while the other remains pagan. Apparently, there were cases where the wife would convert to Christianity and refuse to have relations with her husband. Probably cases of the reverse as well, but they don’t get reported.
Anyway, Paul says that celibacy is best – “It is well for a man not to touch a woman. ” – but if you’re married, you should perform your conjugal duties – “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.” [RSV] So Paul is taking on the role of the Victorian mother, telling her daughter to “lie back and think of England.” Otherwise, someone might start seeking affections from other sources – “lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.”
1Cor. 7:11-15 deals with the related problems of divorce caused by one member converting to Christianity. Paul says stick it out. There’s an undercurrent here of Paul’s apocalyptic theology. The world’s going to end soon anyway, so don’t sweat it. Stick with whatever you’ve got for the moment, it’s all going to be over soon.
Remember, taking bible sections in context means more than just looking at the text around them. You also have to position them in time. Paul was writing a letter, not a textbook, and he was addressing the people of his time, not us. Women’s equality wasn’t a blip on his radar yet. Domestic strife brought about by emotional conversions to this new movement was definitely a problem.
Masonjars: “Well, you can look up the Greek and Hebrew to find the original meanings of those words that often provide insight into the culture at that time.. or show bias of the translator.”
Not the same. You’ll miss subtlety and nuance, metaphor and idiom that don’t come through in a word-for-word interpretation. And what if the people whose dictionary you’re relying on got something wrong? Unless you actually understand the language, all you’re doing is creating your own translation. And, as you’ve handily pointed out, you can’t trust translations.
Wintermute,
I’d forgotten how absolutely brilliant you are. Just because I’m a believer don’t think for even a moment that I’m being false in my assessment, or have some sinister ulterior motive. I am just seriously impressed with your mind. I used to jump on and tangle with you once in a while several months back, but I’ve just started frequenting more regularly.
Thanks, wintermute. Succinct as always, and precisely the problem with translations of anything at all.
I am not succinct.
As someone who works with language and speaks more than one, I find it difficult to explain, at times, why translation is suspect.
Lately I’ve taken to referring people to the French “sacre” swearwords. These are distorted words drawn mostly from the traditions of the Catholic Eucharist, with no literal English equivalents.
The phrase “Oesti, chui calicé,” could mean “Hell, I’m exhausted/at my wits’ end/furious …” But literally speaking it could be taken as “Sacred Host, I am struck by/turned into a chalice!”
Yet one of the nearest expressions in English: “Man, I’m pissed,” fails to capture the emotional intensity. And also cannot be literally translated.
So imagine the losses in a 2,000-year-old book that’s gone from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek to Latin to, in many cases German, to English.
Not that the translators didn’t do their utmost (although I bet some of them were pretty demotivated), but no matter how close they got they were always eroding a fine edge of meaning.
And it might not matter–if people weren’t living and dying by it. No-one complains about the translation of “As You Like It” from Elizabethan English–a language so different from our English as to be unrecognizable.
So taking the Bible literally is a bad idea in the first place. And as to the subtleties of relationships, I’d rather trust that TV hack, Dr. Phraud, than the translated spiritual writings of someone living in an era where it was nearly universally accepted that women were property.
However, if anyone feels like telling Mme Metro that it’s her duty to obey me, I’ll be right behind you … Well, actually I’ll be right behind the sofa, but with you in spirit.
“I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so (and He cannot lie).”
But I thought God could do anything. Are you saying there are limits to his power?
And if God can do anything, why won’t he get off his ass and write for himself? Why “inspire” a bunch of iron age goat herders to write a bunch of contradictory goddledygook?
In regards to attempting to write off the Bible’s demeaning view of women by claiming that certain statements were due to “culture”…well that’s exactly right. Not only are the do’s and don’t’s of the Bible due to subjective human culture, but its theological beliefs (such has dying and rising gods, blood atonement, etc.) as well. Due to this, when you play the “culture” card in order to side-step some things in the Bible that offend your modern sensibilities (now that post Enlightenment humanist values have triumphed over religion), you’re really opening a Pandora’s Box that allows you the throw just about anything..indeed anything…in the Bible that you don’t like. If the Bible was really inspired by an All-Knowing Deity, then it wouldn’t be plagued by all of these issues. During various periods of my life, I’ve tried looking to both the Bible and the Qur’an for guidance, but in both cases I ended up having to choose between: 1) being intellectually dishonest; 2) being a picker and chooser; 3) claiming I believe in abhorrent laws in order to remain consistent and doctrinally correct; or 4) pulling my head out of my six and admitting that it’s all a bunch of Near Eastern fairy tales that are nearly worthless when it comes to moral guidance. I never felt so much at peace until I finally had the courage to adopt option #4.
There is a possibility someone already said this- I hope.
I didn’t take time to read all the comments.
However, Put aside cultural differences, (For thats actually not as relevant as one would think.)
Put aside the fact that paul was writing about idolatrous women in the church who were spreading gossip. (You have to realize it was to a specific church that he visited.)
Put all that aside for a moment, and I ask this:
If this husband of your friend was ” unkind and unjust.” and “They are both Christians and are very involved in a small church.” Then why did you do nothing to help, Daniel?
As a Brother to this man, you do have the right to talk to the man, and try to help. I won’t quote any scripture for you. (you went to bible college and read the bible right?)
But I will quote Einstein. (Since you read and study science.)
“The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”
Therefore, watching this happen, and then blogging about it to prove your own beliefs, (Which you even say COULD be wrong. for- (as you say) “You’ve been wrong before”) You have then also just helped injustice to continue did you not? Who are you trying to teach, and what?
Now, the bible also says to not create quarrels. Therefore I hope you do not find this to be a stab, like I’m just another Christian trying to attack you. I would actually Love to just have coffee and talk sometime, (Don’t worry, I won’t try to re-convert you.) I don’t think we live near each other however.
I just wanted to know- If it’s truth you seek so desperately, then why did you not help your friend?
Are friends not true to each other?
I don’t care about you believing in God, more than I care about you doing something to better other’s lives. Why?
Because even the Demons believe in God.
And they Blog too.
Hope we can chat sometime,
-Freedom (Yes, that is my real name.)
freedom.jnoble@gmail.com
http://freedomnoble.wordpress.com/
@Freedom Noble:
How do you know I didn’t try and help? Why would you assume I did nothing? I certainly didn’t say that. I didn’t give the whole story of my involvement — I only mentioned the situation.
@ Daniel:
(Actually, can we say “To Daniel”, it sounds like an argument when we say @.)
I was just assuming (I know, A$$ out of “U” and “Me”) out of what information was given, making a point, and trying to gage your level of involvement.
Honestly, did you try?
Or are you just using their story to prove a point you either know is not true, or went to a really bad bible college.
(If your college supported the facts you presented in the manner you present them, thats wrong. However, I have heard that there are some christians who actually do, so I’m not surprised.)
Life is way more than being intellectual. It’s Love. Therefore, I presented it as a means to say that. You can prove they have a bad marriage, and blame it on christianity, or you can love your friends, and blame that on christianity too.
So did you help them?
@Freedom Noble:
Yes, I did and still try. But unfortunately there is only so much one can do with a very angry man who you don’t have authority over and doesn’t want help. Eventually the only answer for the woman is divorce or putting up with it.
I’m using the point simply to illustrate that some Christian woman are in bad marriages with men who grasp power from their interpretation of Scripture. Surely we can agree upon that?
No sure why you had to use the dig “or went to a really bad bible college.” That seems uncalled for. And if you think I only learned theology from bible college, you’re mistaken. I’ve read theological books from many persuasions on my own, and am familiar with most major sects of Christian theological thought.
“The Apostle Paul, when discussing women, said they “should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission” (1 Cor. 14). He also commanded women to be submissive to their husbands — in the same section he commands slaves to be submissive to their masters (Titus 2), making what most enlightened people would consider an uncomfortable parallel.”
You ignore (coincidentally or convenienently, truth be told I am not sure ) the historical and cultural background behind thses verses.
@ Daniel:
Well, I wasn’t trying to insult you with the college statement.
It’s good to hear you tried. and yes we agree.
It is true that some people use scripture to manipulate power for themselves. BUT even-though it seems we can’t stop them, doesn’t mean we should stop.
It’s true. There is imperfection. But you and I both know, that is why Christ is not back yet. Why is it that God lets these things happen? Because he gave us responsibility. Because Iron sharpens Iron.
If you had a son, and you were working on a big project, wouldn’t you want to have him join you? give him the hammer and be there to help him out? That’s how we love.
He asks us to be like him, then gives us the grace to try, to grow, to build.
You know this.
I’m glad you have read so much, I myself get lost in my studies at times. I have not dared to touch systematic theology yet, but I know it’s on the way!
If we agree this shouldn’t be happening, I wish we could help each other.
The only responses you get from these blogs are christians trying to defend God, and attack you. Or atheists that say amen.
I just want to know what the point of it is.
Throw out all organized religion and their leaders etc. Learn to think for yourself, try to do what is rite in each situation.
If you must believe in a god let that entity judge you at the end for what you did, not how hard you prayed or if you followed a 2 thousand year old book.
Just my take on life.
Gary
I hope that a lot of christians will read your article. I am a pastor of a little country church and what you say about a lot of women being mistreated is very true and all in the name of biblical teaching. This type of religious teaching is false and is absolutely not in line with the word of God. God COMMANDS men to LOVE their wives. He COMMANDS us to be SUBMISSIVE to one another. Men are not to Lord it over their wives as if they are a lower life form than themselves, but to love them more than life itself. I for one am a christian and a pastor who absolutely does not preach or teach that kind of submission. I do make the final decision in difficult situations but only because I am the one who will be held responsible, but I never have failed to provide for and love my wife. And I have never expected her to keep silent about anything that concerned me. There are clear biblical teachings on marital conduct in the public arena and for good reason. Matthew Henry said that woman was taken from the side of man; not from his head to rule over him, not from his feet to be trampled upon, but from his side: from close to his heart to be loved, under his arm to be protected, and from his side to be his equal. I know that you may not be christian, but rest assured, there are some of those of us who are that truly love our wives and try to teach what the bible truly says about our marriage relationship. Wish you all the best.
Pastor James H. Knight
“So while divorce may not have been in God’s original plan, He permits it. Someone who gets a divorce is not going to go to hell. In fact, no one is going to go to hell for their actions (something they do or do not do). The only reason a person goes to hell is because they choose it.” – rachel
Rachel, your explanation on how god feels about divorce is very soothing and oh so sunny. However, you’re choosing to re-invent your blood thirsty god so he sounds more appetizing and less scary. Ignoring the viciousness of your god (he slaughtered millions for small or no slights, played russian roulette with a guy’s only son, and he’s totally obsessed with genitalia) and making up statements as confusing as “no one is going to hell for their actions but only if they choose to”, only serves to add to the whole confusing how-to-get-to-heaven thing, and it seriously reinforces why believers are just hopeless, scared sheeple.
I’m an ex-believer, now recovered. What you said is found no where in the bible. On what grounds can you make that statement??? Do you have a direct line to the old man yourself? Aren’t you afraid you’re condemning poor believers to hell by wrongly interpreting the good book?
Your comment allows Hitler the chance to spend years sending innocents to the gas chamber, then happily joining his saviour in heaven. He was a believer like you. What kind of sense does that make?! I can only surmise that you check your brains at the door every Sunday.
Caroline,
I’m not saying that we won’t be held accountable for our actions. There’s a line in a Relient K song that says, “The beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair.” If Hitler repented before he died, then he went to heaven. It’s not fair from our perspective. One man can spend his entire life living “according to the rules” and following God’s direction for his life and another man can be a mass murderer, a rapist, a pedophile, etc. But if the second man repents, then he will receive eternal life. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t seem fair or just. But then, none of us deserve eternal life either. To quote Paul, “No one is good, not even one.” None of us is good enough to be righteous in God’s sight. But there is grace for you, grace for me, grace for the murderer and the pedophile and the rapist. There is grace for all. Think of a parent. No parent will love their child less because that child misbehaves. A parent will get angry or embarrassed or frustrated, but nothing a child can do affects their parents’ love for them. (I do realize this is not the case in every situation, because none of our parents are perfect and there are probably a good number of us with parents who DIDN’T love us very well.) It is the same with us and God. God calls himself our father (and yes, our mother as well), and he loves each of us as a parent loves a child. I don’t know if you have kids (I don’t), but it would be like asking you to choose half of your children to go to heaven and the other half to go to hell. Half get to spend eternal life with their Creator, half will be forced to spend eternity away from him. Could you do it? I would imagine most parents wouldn’t be able to choose. Sure maybe some of them make you angry or hurt you more than the others, but does that mean you want to sentence them to an eternity of hell? No. I would imagine most parents would do anything to save their children from that, even if it means that they have to sacrifice their own life, and spend their eternity in hell instead, so that their children can spend eternity in heaven. That is what God did in Jesus. Jesus took the punishment for our sin so we didn’t have to. He went to hell and was victorious over it (when he rose from the dead). So now none of us have to spend eternity in hell. We’re all given the choice. Do we believe it or don’t we? It’s free. It’s free for anyone who chooses to accept it, be it at their first breath or their last; it doesn’t matter. There are tears of joy and celebration happening when ANYONE (be they like Hitler or Mother Teresa) believes.
So yes, my comment does allow Hitler to spend all those years sending innocent people into the gas chamber and then spend eternity in heaven. IF (and only if) he truly believed. But I would argue that if he really believed and he really understood God’s love, then those things wouldn’t have happened. But that is why God is the judge and I am not (although I suppose I just judged Hitler in that last sentence). I hope that Hitler IS in heaven. Because that means that one more person will be there to celebrate with for all of eternity. That’s controversial, I’m well aware of that. But grace has never been a subject that wasn’t followed by controversy wherever it went. If God’s grace is enough for me, if it is enough for you, then it is more than enough for Hitler (or anyone else, for that matter. I was only using Hitler as an example because you mentioned him. But it goes for anyone and everyone else too. Castro, Stalin, Mother Teresa, Joe down the street, Robert Mugabe, St. Augustine, etc. Anyone.)
Yes, our actions matter. Yes, they make a difference. Every thing that we do, every word we speak, action we partake in…with every word or deed, we either bring heaven to earth or we bring hell to earth. Divorce brings hell to earth. Learning to love your husband well or love your wife well brings heaven to earth. Our responsibility is to bring as much heaven to earth as we can in this life time. Every little thing counts. So no, no one will go to hell because of a divorce. No one will go to hell because they murdered someone or got a speeding ticket or anything like that. Our actions are not without consequence. Everything that is going on in the world today is a consequence of something earlier. Each of those things was a consequence of something even earlier. It all cycles back to Adam and Eve eating the apple in the garden. One man sinned and condemned all men to death. Another man fulfilled the law (didn’t sin, even once) and gave all men life. Are we choosing to take the gift or leave it? If we take it, that means we are accepting that anyone else can have it as well. I can’t very well accept the gift for myself but refuse it to the guy next to me, or refuse it to that person who hurt me or that woman whose family fell apart because of her or to that man who is so broken he lashes out at everyone. If I take it, I am choosing to offer it to anyone and everyone.
Grace is controversial.
Any ‘evidence’ presented in this post is purely anecdotal – and not the least bit rigorous. At least present some statistics, for cryin’ out loud. But I don’t think that statistics would support your view past proving the obvious point that, on average, most Christian marriages are just as good, bad, ugly as non-Christian marriages.
If this post were titled “The Myth of Solid Christian Marriage” I would have tended to agreed more.
Now for my clearly airtight anecdotal evidence refuting the point of this post…
1. As a 15 year Christian and a life-long church goer in no fewer than 8 churches, I have no idea what this post is talking about.
2. I currently attend a conservative Quaker church where they encourage women to preach on Sundays to the entire congregation (not just Sunday school classes) on a regular basis.
3. My mother, a very conservative Baptist, has always worked outside the home in a number of professions with the full consent of my father.
4. My wife works when she wants to and doesn’t only when we both agree that it’s in the best interest of the kids for her to remain at home.
5. My first Christian wife and I divorced 10 years ago.
6. I have 3 close Christian friends whose wives left them.
7. I also know this guy who has a neighbor who knows a guy that’s not a Christian but he gets drunk every other night and beats his wife and kids but she can’t leave because he threatens to kill her. Oh Big News Flash…I guess extreme misery exists in non-religious households too!
8. Lastly, I do know a lot of Christian families who just rear their kids well and have fabulous marriages filled with mutual respect and honor – you know, kinda like Jesus taught.
@Caroline
“Your comment allows Hitler the chance to spend years sending innocents to the gas chamber, then happily joining his saviour in heaven. He was a believer like you. What kind of sense does that make?! I can only surmise that you check your brains at the door every Sunday.”
I can only surmise that you check your compassion and knowledge at the door when you post blog comments. Your comparison of Rachel to Hitler, no matter how slight, is completely disgusting. For one thing, get your history straight. Hitler was no Christian – he was a big fan of Nietzsche and a proponent of eugenics.
From the Wikipedia citation for Hitler: “The leader of the Hitler Youth stated “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement” from the start, but “considerations of expedience made it impossible” publicly to express this extreme position.”
Second, Your point is meaningless because, on the one hand, you’re upset that Hitler could receive grace in the afterlife (according to a Christian) yet he never received justice here in this life. To an agnostic, what possible difference does it make?
Actually, a Christian (or Buddhist,Hindu,Muslim for that matter) would disagree and say that yes, Hitler will likely receive justice in the next life, whatever form that may take.
@Laura:
“Also, many of the references to how a woman should dress or behave are culturally appropriate. God comes to people wherever they are in their culture. If the bible were written today, it would look different.. because it would be written in how the people today would understand it.”
So this god, in all ‘his’ supposed omnipotence, created the world and all the people in it just to say: “you should do whatever your culture says you should do”? Doesn’t sound too all-powerful to me – sounds pretty much like some very convenient buck-passing. And what happens if cultural practices are cruel, for example the genital mutilation which is inflicted upon young girls in African countries (and approved of by many religious leaders)? Suppose this god actually existed, how would ‘he’ answer such a young girl’s prayer for this practice to end? “Sorry love, you have to do what your culture tells you”?
Misogynist/racist/homophobic etc rules and practices being ‘cultural’ is no defence for their existence in the Bible, as surely a kind, powerful god would see the injustice of these practices and instruct ‘his’ disciples to overturn them. If this god is so powerful and sees all humans as equal, why did ‘he’ not change the laws himself to give women equal standing in the world? Or give men a more enlightened attitude? Why create beings who have it in their nature to be hateful and prejudiced? Far better to remove the tendency to misogyny etc in the creation stage, no?
It comes down to the same argument again and again – if a god exists, ‘he’ is omnipotent and cruel (or at the very least, bafflingly inconsistent), or kind and powerless. A god which is omnipotent and kind (as Christians and others assert) cannot exist.
And whoever is now going to tell me that this god has created us all with ‘free will’ (and then sat back to watch the ensuing chaos with a beer and some chips perhaps?), you might want to ask yourself how much free will a wife is allowed, who is continually being told that she is inferior to her husband and she must serve him, who is told that her sexual desires are dirty and that her sexuality is only for the purpose of procreation, who is told that her body must be covered up lest she drive men into spasms of uncontrollable desire, who is encouraged to put up with ill treatment at the hands of her spouse lest she anger a god and be sent to hell? Seems like it’s free will for some, tough luck for others.
I have to say finally that EVEN IF Christianity and the other major religions were exemplary institutions regarding gender equality, and their religious books had no sexist nonsense in them at all, there is STILL no evidence that any of these gods exist.
Jesus loves boys, girls, woman, men, you and me.
If you are a person created by the ALL Mighty, then Jesus loves you…..
Jesus left us a command and that was to love the Lord with all you got, and then love your neighbour like you love yourself. (my version)
Love: (according to Apostle Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit)
If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don’t love, I’ve gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I’m bankrupt without love.
Love never gives up.
Love cares more for others than for self.
Love doesn’t want what it doesn’t have.
Love doesn’t strut,
Doesn’t have a swelled head,
Doesn’t force itself on others,
Isn’t always “me first,”
Doesn’t fly off the handle,
Doesn’t keep score of the sins of others,
Doesn’t revel when others grovel,
Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth,
Puts up with anything,
Trusts God always,
Always looks for the best,
Never looks back,
But keeps going to the end.
1 Cor.13:3-7 (the Message)
I believe if a Marriage is based on that kind of love neither partner will ever be abused or dissapointed.
I’m currently waiting on a wife promissed to me by the Lord, and let me tell you, I will do my very best to love, protect, cherish and provide in her every need……
Enough said.
@Rachel
I know grace and I’m saved by grace, but the way you explained it made me appreciate it all over again.
Rachel be blessed Divan
Hello, Daniel Florien,
You are absolutely right. There are way too many women suffering in Christian marriage.
You know? I’ve battled with the thought that God must be a misogynist and the first male chauvinist ever, that he prefers men, that he puts women “under men” and doesn’t care, and so on. I’m a woman and a wife, and I’ve had a share of “women should just submit, support, obey, trust, back up, their husband and God will bless them” sort of admonitions, but I understand it a bit differently.
First, the problem with your marriage wasn’t due to God’s instructions, but a general Evangelical misunderstanding of God’s instructions.
1. Eve was created as “help meet” to Adam. The words used are “Ezer Kenegdo”, which mean “helper suitable” or “helper opposite/alongside”. They have been interpreted to mean something like “unpaid maid”, “subordinate” or downright “doormat”. But the word Ezer is only used referring to helps we receive when we are desperately in need, like God and an army. Adam needed a counterpart, equal in value, intelligence, equal as made in the image of God, with whom to “have dominion” over the earth. If you read Genesis 1 and then 2, you won’t find any reference to her being less than Adam.
2. God was speaking to Eve when he said her husband would rule over her. It was a consequence of her sin, not God’s new order for marriage. Notice the absence of a command to Adam that he “rule over his wife”. That’s the first generally misunderstood Scripture that supports male dominance in marriage.
3. Jesus went very counter-cultural and talked to women, treating them with dignity and respect. He chose a woman to be the first one to appear to after his resurrection.
4. When Paul talks about husbands being the head in 1 Corinthians 11, one wonders whether he is even talking about authority at all. Read the whole passage carefully and notice he never says a husband has authority over his wife. The symbol of authority could be referring to the woman’s authority. Why is it always assumed it must be the man’s? I do find the passage difficult to understand, so I think both men and women have to use caution when assuming what it means.
5. Ephesians 5. If we read the passage starting at the begining of the chapter, the few verses addressing wives and husbands shine in a different light. All are called to live sacrificial lives. All are called to purity. All are called to submit to one another. Why is it that many Evangelical men believe that mutual submission stops at their front door?
That includes husbands to wives, parents to children…
If this passage is viewed in the light of the whole counsel of Paul’s letters and command to be Christlike, then nobody will understand it entitles them to some sort of authority.
Paul is addressing wives when he says the husband is the head. So you can assume a wife has the duty to respect her husband because he is the head. Ok.
But where does he tell the husband that, as the head, he is to lead and have authority over his wife? NOWHERE!
The only authority a husband has over his wife that he doesn’t have over anyone else to the same degree is to love her as Christ loved the church, sacrificially, and as he loves his own body he should provide for her and nurture her. This is far from what traditional Evangelicalism teaches, that husbands always know best, that they are the spiritual leaders, etc….
Paul says pretty much the same thing to the colossians.
6. 1 Peter 3: Men are told that if they don’t treat their wives properly, ie. living with them with understanding, not being harsh, and treating them like the spiritual equal, that their communication with God will be hindered! That means they will pray but God won’t hear. How good does that sound?
Wives are told to win their husbands not by nagging, but by quietly submitting to her husband, who is not being a spiritual leader. I believe this passage is important to understand also in the light of the culture it was written to. These wives were incurring severe disobedience just by not worshipping the house gods. Their conversion to Christianity could cost them their lives. Maybe Peter was telling them to just go on doing the right thing, not fear, and by doing that they could win over their husband. This attitude would have been one of confidence and respect to the all powerful paterfamilias.
I think we need to view these instructions also in the light of the culture they were written to. Paul and Peter were writing to patriarchal societies where women were viewed as property that had to be in obedience to their husbands. The fact that Paul tells slaves to obey their masters graciously, even the harsh ones, doesn’t mean he endorsed slavery, he was only telling Christians how to live in the society they lived in, in their circumstances, in such a way that they would best display the Gospel and not bring any shame on it. Sublevating, putting the household codes upside down (overtly, notice Paul does it covertly), would not advance the case of the Gospel.
I have my struggles with the Bible. I doubt you’ll find a Christian who is serious about the faith who never had any struggle with the Bible, never questioned God and his wisdom, and never had a doubt. I still believe God is true, that we need Jesus, and that the Bible is relevant today. It has to be read correctly, but we all tend to read things into it that are not there, and that’s where the problems begin.
Rachel, thanks for that perspective of grace… hard, but true!
Divan, thanks for posting 1 Corinthians 13. IF everyone would heed that advice, all our relational problems would be gone!
My problem with the Grace argument is that there are those in this world who do good works, but because they were raised Buddhist, Islam, Jewish, Shinto, etc. and do not believe in God that means that they will receive eternal punishment.
To me this is wrong. Period.
What if someone truly believes that God has told them to kill all of the Abortion Doctors that they can. In their heart and mind they think that they are doing his work, even if they have only convinced themselves of that because they have evil desires that they need to justify. In his mind he loves God completely does he get the reward of heaven?
A Buddhist monk in Japan spends his whole life working for those around him selflessly, giving all he has to the poor, and just tries to make those around him live better lives because he feels it is the right thing to do, but he gets eternal punishment because he never converted.
To use the child analogy, if you were to put a child up for adoption, and that child never seeks you out to find that you are his true parent, do you wish them to be punished?
A God that would punish the good and reward the evil is not a God that I could follow. And if I am wrong then I am willing to burn in hell next to all of the other good people that are punished just because they didn’t follow that God like mindless proles.
I’m not a christian, i’m a muslim, and i’m not an atheist. I was just wondering, does the bible want women to be submissive in the sense that they have to TAKE CARE deeply of husbands or have to be OPPRESSED by them? Cause there’s a difference. I think almost every religious follower misinterprets the submissive woman bit, especially here in the east and in uneducated but religious ppl. Oh yeah, the bible’s not written by God, it’s a collection of writings by various people. Some bits of it are probably true, though they’re translations, not in original form. What i don’t get is why the bible being messed up stops you guys from believing in God..
I think that the problem is the difference in Truth and Faith. A lot of people pass faith off as truth, and this gets under the skin of those who do not have the faith.
But the question becomes, can you have faith without the writing that the religion is based on. Could a Christian be a Christian without the Bible, as well as all other religions. If no one had ever heard of these writings would they have faith in the same things?
If part of those writings are false, where do you decide what is true and false without corroborating evidence?
People, who are deep into christianity are afraid that there is less and less followers. Taking into concideration that the bible nowadays is absolete and a lot must be taken away or improved, while the religious heads do not want to change a thing, no wonder people get annoyed and search for the better.
Same with me. however, I can’t totaly shake away all my beliefs (not sure if I want to do it yet). I believe I would be called a bad christian, as I’ve never studied bible (at least not the way christians are supposed to), I hardly ever pray or go to church (can’t remember when was the last time, surely over a year now, and those times that I went, I did it just because my mom wanted me to go). It was not like this from the begining. I can remember myself purely believing in very young age, but when people get older and, hopefuly, smarter, they start to rise questions. And it’s a must in order to grow/develop/live.
However, the church and its workers (priests, etc) are not able to answer our questions in the way that it would not contradict with logic. And the problem grows (not only you have arguments against christian teaching, you also have questions that have not been sufficiently answered by the ones that should lead you in your religious path).
Once, talking to a priest, I asked: since taking a life is a sin and all creatures are God’s creations that have the same rights as humans to be living on earth, isn’t then a sin to squash a bug, a fly, a spider or any other just because you don’t like them? And do you know what he answered? “Oh, if only that was the only problem on the Earth” That is no answer! They simply don’t think about such things.
If they do not consider for the little ones, why should they consider for bigger ones, for women, children, any human at all? Who makes decisions what is important and what’s not? Not God, oh no. As you can see, same people that should lead our way, feel that they have the right to be judges of it, judges of everyting.
And if you will take their every word withough questioning, then your whole life will be not yours at all. It would resemble the life that those “leaders” have in mind for you. And they DO NOT WANT YOU TO ASK QUESTIONS! And as human is known to be imperfect, to make mistakes, etc. Will you let others to make mistakes for you, so that you wouldn’t have to bare the burden of making ones by yourself? Do you want to take all the responsability away from you and put it on religion? Well, that’s not very bright or nice either. No wonder such system brings up all those slackers and jerks that take no responsibility for their actions and take everything for granted.
You want more to think about?
Well, then just watch the movies:
“Zeitgeist the movie” [2007]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&ei=CA9tSdOGCIqGjQLHtviuBA&q=zeitgeist+the+movie
“Zeitgeist Addendum” [2008]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912
You may enjoy some of my discoveries on John Calvin’s views toward women….think the Witch Burnings were “roman catholic” and the ban on contraception, too? Think again, as I recently found out:
http://fascinatingpeople.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/a-tremendous-blasphemy-the-life-of-john-calvin-1509-1564/
i’m part of the emergent church, and i’m also a hardcore feminist. :) there are some parts in the bible that are extremely sexist, but the fact that something’s mentioned in the bible doesn’t make it right. there are also many places where women are honored and treated with equality and justice. even paul, the king of sexist treatment of women in the church, was very progressive for his day in teaching that women should be allowed to participate in church and receive an education. and there are many examples of strong and powerful women in positions of authority or influence–esther, anna, deborah, junia the apostle, etc.
I lived in Provo Utah for a year and felt like this kind of thing was getting constantly shoved down my throat. I was supposed to look for a husband while I got a degree, but I didn’t really need a degree, just a reason to look for a husband. I went to GET A DEGREE, NOT A MAN. I hated it.
I think the only figure in the Bible that comes close to treating men and women equally is Christ.
That quote you had:
Jesus, when asked about divorce, said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (Matt. 19:9).
This seems to say that THE MAN shouldn’t get a divorce because it gets rough and that he is at fault and immoral for divorcing his wife because he’s tired of her. A fair reason for divorce is adultry.
Even Jesus forgives and heals women just as he does men.
Beyond that, the whole disparity between men and women in religion aggrevates the hell out of me and that’s a big reason why I got the hell out of dodge (or Utah).
I have to say that I agree with Rachel on this. I am very sorry that this is what you take from the concept of traditional marriage. It is not applicable to today’s modern society and our religion has matured as we have advanced.
As Jeff points out, how many Christian women do you know that are not sitting back waiting for their husbands to make their every choice? Many! The same goes for marriage being for forever; I know a few Christians personally that are divorced!
The concept of men being head of household and woman being his helpmate goes to speak of gender roles that are still to a great extent existent in our society. This benefits both the man and the woman, their children, and greater society.
How in the world did you overcome this brainwashing? Fantastic blog!
the experiences you refer to are the most bizarre christian marriage relationships i’ve ever heard of. what teaching were you under??? the husband and wife in a Biblical christian marriage are to treat one another with mutual respect and submission. once again, confused and saddened by this site.
I immediately was struck by how you took 1 Corinthians out of context. This was a letter from Paul to Corinth, and that particular voice is directed to that select group of people who were dealing with chaotic times. It is unfortunate that fundamentally some famillies teach this principle to their sons and as you said, brainwash them into being terrible husbands. Any true believer will tell you that biblical teachings of love and respect transcend this one verse which has little to do with all marriages and more to do with Corinth worship style. Many Christians base their interpretion of a good marriage on another part of 1 Corinthians which at this point is actually all over secular society “love is patient, love is kind…etc.”
Not once in this passage does it say. “women be patient, women be kind, let your husbands abuse you and stay married to them despite their poor behavior.” Many Christians base their intepretation of good marriage on the passage of Genesis that insists that man leave behind the ideas, thoughts, feelings and teachings of his parents (something many high strung Christian parents have a hard time dealing with) and cleave (ie adore, attach himself, support) his wife and do all to serve her. It is this idea of serivitude that makes man the “head” of the household as Christ is the head of the church. Christ DIED for the church, as the husband give his all selflessly, and not be a selfish abusive tyrant.
The Bible in the hands of the uninformed is indeed dangerous. As it wasn’t written in English, unless you’re willing to dig deep into exegesis / hermeneutics you can make it say almost whatever you wish. Look up those two words if you aren’t familiar with what they mean.
@Donny:
Since I’ve taken classes in both Hebrew and Greek, I do know what you’re talking about. Feel free to refute my interpretations with your superior ancient language knowledge.
By the way, I’ve seen some great hermeneutical tricks before. With bringing the original language into the discussion, you can make it say whatever you want, because usually nobody else around knows what the hell you’re talking about.
I’m not gonna do like others and say you’re wrong for feeling the way you do about this. Your arguments make perfect sense. However, I don’t believe they’re a result of correct interpretation. I confess that some things in the Bible might seem unfair, but because I don’t believe God is unjust I could never believe they were meant to be unfair to people.
The Old testament, the epistles Matt-Acts, Romans-Hebrews written by Paul, and the remaining books afterwards are all written by man, inspired by God, however when reading them you have to understand context. The old Testament books are certain accounts by prophets of things that happened to certain them or others, at a time when they were able to interact on a one on one basis with God. Matthew through Acts include the red-letter words, meaning, these words actually came out of the mouth of Jesus Christ himself and his disciples who were there wrote it down.
After Acts that’s where things start to look funny and people begin to squint their eyes. The reason for this is; THE APOSTLES wrote these books; PAUL did all the way through to HEBREWS and after that various other apostles wrote.
These letters Paul wrote were to specific churches and people for a particular purpose at a particular time. The book Ephesians, which highlights the topic of this post was written to the the church in Ephesus. He was adressing particular problems he was aware of in that church. While some of these things are entirely relevant to today’s world some of aren’t so relevant. This is because he wasn’t writing to US he was writing to THEM. These letters are compiled as an account of what Paul wrote to these churches in response to certain problems.
In response to marital relationships (Ephesians 5:21-33) you will see that Paul spent more time talking about husbands loving their wives more than women submitting to their husbands. This is because though submission is important, he didn’t want it to be an excuse for husbands to treat their wives any old way they wanted.
Wives submit to your husbands doesn’t mean let him treat you like a slave. It means recognize him as the head of the household just as Christ is the head of the Church. That’s why in verse 33 he says:
“Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.”
As for this young lady you speak of who is in what sounds like an abusive relationship. I believe she should leave if that is what she desires. She obviously cannot respect a man who treats her that way, neither is he fulfilling his side of the commitment. Therefore the relationship is not representing the relationship between Christ and the church as it should.
Yes Paul says, you should only consider divorce if your husband cheats on you. However you have to realize he was writing to a select group of people at the time and he was giving them his best counsel according to their situation. I rest assured that had their been a case similar to the one you related he would have recommended they split. Do you honestly think God would want someone to remain in a relationship that threatens their very life, or well-being? Especially if there is a way out.
As I said God is not unjust. He is not going to come on judgment day and say “My child I do not know you because you divorced your husband when my apostle Paul told you not to.”
Daniel you are actually reaffirming quite a few things that the bible speaks about. You have a platform to speak to people and you are using it to lead people away from christ. I don’t know what caused you to lose your faith but it looks like you weren’t as passionate as you thought. I don’t know your heart only he does and you know this. Women were given a role in God’s plan just as were men. There are so many things I would like to say but I just don’t have the energy because I’m dealing with my wife’s illness right now. I would like say the one common thing I have seen from all these responses is arrogance. You people actually think that you can place yourselves above God and that you somehow figured out what men have been trying to do for thousands of years and that is to disprove God’s word. I think alot of you people need a good dose of humility because I see nothing but people stroking each other’s ego’s. Guess what people God gave us all a wonderful gift and a great curse all at the same time. It’s called free will. I am as far from perfect as you can get. I don’t claim to be like some of you. All I know is this. If you want answers to your questions don’t be upset when you don’t get the ones you don’t like. Daniel nobody ever said being a christian was going to be easy. Trust me it’s harder than ever just look at all the people who are against God.
You know, I’ve always been really uneasy about how divorce is written in the Bible. My father was divorced from his first wife because she left him out of an issue of money and her not getting enough of it. Totally stupid, however he did meet my mum and had me, so it’s not all bad.
I’d like to think that they timeframe, place and cutural subversion of the time meant that this was all fairly okay. But I question how many of these laws were actually the rules put down by God, and what was just convenient to pass off as something God would say – like being totally submissive. It reminds me of a news story lately about a muslim cleric who’s been taped talking about forcing your wife to have sex with you isn’t considered rape, or that beating her (well his supporters say it was ‘a tap on the shoulder’ but let’s face it…) is totally okay to “keep her in line”. Okay, the bible may not be saying that, but you can see where it can be taken.
I’d be intrigued to see if there are any Christians who have questioned the same about what are genuine rules and rules they threw in at the last minute and added “…because…God said so.”
I just read your About Me section and you and I seem to have a similar learning curve except I’ve decided that despite my wide range of other opinions, what’s been put in front of me and what i’ve personally experienced, I still reside that God exists and the Bible is a key learning platform and faith builder given the context and time frame I’d say a lot are still relevant and totally logical. I’d also say that the true test of faith is putting down your Bible, going outside and experiencing life itself without any initial judgement for people (something my church so…very frequently seems to deem appropriate) and just get to know the world you exist in.
I meant inappropriate, sorry.
Damn.
You know religion really sucks. I can’t believe the amount of totally lame responses to this post by christians attempting to apologise for the dross about women and marriage in their so-called faith. You see women attempting to side step the issue, gloss over it or outright lie about it in hinduism and islam too but every reader should know right now that deep down and sometimes not very deep down all oppressed women in religion know it’s wrong and struggle to reconcile their so called faith with it. They can’t understand why their god thinks they’re second class. Not one of the posts by a woman on this page is an exception to this.
I’m over it. I endured years of the kind of sexism you’d normally associate with the Taliban under a hindu cult and then I read this posting and I want to puke.
Of course I eventually grew tired of trying to reconcile the myths of the Vedas with what I thought was an explanation for what I believed to be “spirit”. So I clenched my fist and raised a middle finger in the collective faces of that mob of deadbeats but not before damage was done to me for some time afterward.
It’s unintelligent to follow religion. Because you have to adopt illogical and unreasonable premises to enter into it. So as soon as someone tells me they’re religious, I mark them down.
If I were conversing to a brand new English speaker (who, let’s say, doesn’t know anything about baseball or American culture) about a person we both knew and I said, “That dude’s way out in left field!”, the new person with whom I’m conversing may very well think I’m saying that the object of our conversation is standing in a field to the left. He wouldn’t realize that I was saying the guy had a few screws loose (which opens a whole other discussion if taken at literal face value).
For some reason, however, there are many people who think the Bible can be translated literally. Not only was the Bible written in an entirely different language where one word can sometimes have dozens of different meanings, it was written a very long time ago when even native speakers from our time might have trouble identifying with the culture of that time. Exegesis is absolutely essential. Exegesis basically breaks down to this: figuring out what the text meant to the people who were alive in that time and in that place when said text was written.
When considering the discussion about women being silent in church, have you considered that the letter was written to a particular group of people? Have you considered that most women didn’t even have a basic education? Can you fathom an uneducated women sitting beside her man, constantly asking him, “What did that mean? Hey, what about that? Hey, did he just say…. ?” In such a situation, can you possibly consider that it just might be a good idea to pass a “law” that women should be silent in church?
I can.
@Donny
Why would anybody of sound mind accept a doctrine as the cornerstone of their entire world view which was presented by people who systematically enforced the ignorance of women? These people were pig ignorant cretans and, as Sam Harris so eloquently puts it “to whom a wheelbarrow was new technology”, and yet millions of deluded people buy into their odious mythology. Many of them do so precisely because they’re egged on by people who make statements like you have above: by neatly glossing over the facts in manner which permit people to keep justifying their belief in what is clearly a patent lie to any rational person.
You cannot justify or excuse away the countless tragedies caused in this world by religion with a little word juggling.
on January 15, 2009 at 4:11 pm Andy wrote:
“My problem with the Grace argument is that there are those in this world who do good works, but because they were raised Buddhist, Islam, Jewish, Shinto, etc. and do not believe in God that means that they will receive eternal punishment.
To me this is wrong. Period. ”
Um, source? Do you mean John 14:6 :
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Read that again. Especially the first four words.
“A Buddhist monk in Japan spends his whole life working for those around him selflessly, giving all he has to the poor, and just tries to make those around him live better lives because he feels it is the right thing to do”
Would that not be Jesus’s way?
Rickibirder,
So, because you were looked down upon because you were a member of a group instead of your individual character, you look down on others that are members of a group instead of judging them on their individual character?
@Kevin
That is my point exactly. The Buddist would be going to hell just because he isn’t a Christian according to 90% of the Christians out there (or at least the ones that I deal with).
It doesn’t matter that his actions are more “Christ like” then most of them. They say that his actions are not truly selfless because he doesn’t do them “In God’s Name”.
@ Rickibirder
You seem to have allowed your bias to cause you to miss the entire point. The “ignorance of women” was cultural, not religiously motivated. A person who studies what the text meant in that time to those people (exegesis) would therefore understand that scripture would NOT apply in our times, as our women are now equally educated.
So… in today’s world, if someone still uses that scripture to claim women need to “be silent in church”, the person making that false application of the text would be ignorant. The problem in such a situation isn’t with the Bible but with the person incorrectly using it.
In comparison to the rest of creation, God has given us pretty advanced brains. We are not doing ourselves any favors if we choose not to use them. Unfortunately, many Christians (and non-Christians who wish to make fun of Christians) are guilty of reading the Bible literally rather than exegetically. The Bible is full of great life lessons should one decide to seek them out.
@kevin
“So, because you were looked down upon because you were a member of a group instead of your individual character, you look down on others that are members of a group instead of judging them on their individual character?”
Character is revealed by words and deeds.
@Donny
Ever notice that the faults you ascribe to others loom large among your personal foibles? Please take care before projecting and, as in this case, labeling what I wrote as merely “bias”. This is an attempt on your part to trivialize the points that I raised and somehow, in the process elevate the substance and tone of your position.
I agree with the main thrust of what you are saying and I think I understand where it is coming from. I tried the same thing on when I was following a religion and that is to attempt to somehow justify your faith when many of its flawed positions are all too evident. I’m pleased to say that by the looks of things, you’re on the slippery slope to atheism!
To maintain that the entire text of the bible is the faultless word of god is to court a level of disconnection with reality which borders on the breathtaking. If one were to apply this approach to most other facets of human discourse one would be considered insane.
Growing out of such an approach are all kinds of horrors, including the foul treatment of women as prescribed in this post. So of course you’re going to have to find some way to justify the nonsense in the bible and, I’m glad to see recognise that this part of biblical/church doctrine should be discarded.
This may be fine in the context of your own personal deliberations, but when you attempt to give your position a scholarly air in a public forum, without any references, etc., it looks very much like an attempt at sanitizing a flawed doctrine and that’s the point that I was making.
I’m not a fool, so I can find many good snippets of guidance in the bible and it is untrue to say that this is so because I grew up in a society influenced by judeo-christian dogma. Every major religious doctrine preaches the same or very similar moral precepts which proves that morals such as those expounded in bible are common across humanity. Of course many of those “morals” such as the treatment of slaves, women, people who break any of the 10 commandments are instantly recognized to thinking members of 21st century society as abhorrent.
BTW: creation never happened. Our brains were produced by a lengthy process known as “evolution”.
@ Rickibirder
You are still missing the point. No “justification” is needed, my friend. If modern day followers fail to study the test exegetically, the fault lies with the follower, not the text.
And once again, the “foul treatment of women” was cultural, not religious. The text reflects the history of the time. Blame all of ancient society for that, not simply those following this particular religion.
BTW: look up theistic evolution (here’s a good read on the topic: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html ). “Creation” and “evolution” are not mutually exclusive, my friend.
Oops… I wrote: “fail to study the test exegetically”… the word “test” should have been “text”.
@donny
I get your point: Basically, that one must read a book like the bible in the context of the time.
That’s fine but why is it that religions all drag those ancient practices into their modern day activities and expect the rest of us to honor their position? Why should such institutions claim tax exemption and exert powerful political influence?
My point is: The people who wrote the bible were products of their time (as you too suggest) and the way I see it, just as their beliefs on the way that women were to be treated have failed the test of time and rational discourse, so have their spiritual views.
Your point also well illustrates that the bible is a flawed document and could not possibly have anything to do with the will of an omnipotent, omniscient super being.
Re: “Creation”. Well, I sometimes use the word “creation” in place of evolution as you could easily and dare I say simplistically, describe evolution as a “creative process”.
The Bible isn’t a flawed document if it is studied exegetically. When a person does so, the stories take on a whole new meaning. When I read it, I am asking “why?” as in “why were these people asked to do this?” Plenty of lessons can be learned, and that’s the point. When a person looks at the Bible that way it becomes clear why certain things are asked.
Take Levitical Law, for example: Christian exegetical scholars believe those laws were intended for Jews. They separated Jews from the rest of civilization. The reason for this is because God wanted Jews to keep themselves clean because He had “chosen” them as the people through which he’d bring the savior of the world. Jesus makes the statement that he didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In other words, the whole point of Levitical Law was to bring Jesus into the world, and His arrival fulfilled it.
Some choose to continue beating people up with Levitical law. They are quick to use the Levitical statement dealing with Homosexuality to apply to all of humanity, yet totally dismiss the Levitical laws that mention not eating shellfish or unclean animals. Again, the fault lies with THEM, not the text. The text is beautiful; however, people who claim to know what it means and use it to brow beat others is not.
@donny
“The Bible isn’t a flawed document if it is studied exegetically.”
Here’s where we differ greatly. Is the bible not meant to be absolute truth? That means true in all places, times and circumstances. If it is not, then it fails from the outset and is definitely not the word of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient being.
If it is meant to be absolute then it fails because even as you yourself admit: it must be read in the context of the times.
For my money, you’re making what is a very interesting attempt to cover up for the flaws in the bible. I hope that you’re not doing so to maintain your belief in it. If this is the case, the sooner you own up to yourself and move on, the happier you’ll be.
All your life you’ve believed that to be separated from god is the worst thing possible and that people who don’t believe are doomed. But if you listen to that little voice in your head – the one based on reason and evidence – and know that it will only grow louder every day, you will admit that there is no god and the life you have right now is precious and that truth – founded in reality – is precious and so is the life of every other living entity. It’s all we’ve got and our moment to shine is right now. Life without a fairy tale god is beautiful. Of course it has its ups and downs like everything, but the vision that this is it now brings a sense of reality and importance to the here and now which is riveting and strongly perceptible. It screams at us to give and help and explore and experience, to take responsibility for our actions and know in every moment that this life is not a dress rehearsal for some fantasy future one.
Now, if you’re attempting to gloss over the flaws in the bible in order to encourage others to take to its teachings, then that’s simply sad.
@ Rickibirder
It is not meant to be taken entirely literally, if that’s what you mean. Jesus, whom Christians believe to be God in the flesh, constantly spoke in parables that had a “moral to the story” to make a point. So (to believers) God Himself demonstrates the point of scripture, don’t you think? We need to “bind and loose” (a biblical term that basically means “interpret”) scripture to apply to this day and this time. That is a concept that seems foreign to believers in this country, but it wasn’t a foreign concept during Jesus’ time on earth. Rabbis were constantly “binding and loosing” and Jesus gave his disciples permission to do the same thing. Where do you get the idea that such isn’t allowed?
The “flaws in the Bible” that you mention really boil down to human error. For example, if you’ve listened to a native English speaker reading an English translation of the Bible, telling you what it means and how it should be applied to your life, you are doing yourself no favors by believing they know what they’re talking about. If you really wanted to know how to apply scripture to your life you should begin studying it exegetically.
To add an educated albeit female Christian perspective:
After re-reading my post, I am failing to find the place where I side-stepped, or apologized for my faith. I…don’t see that anywhere…(hmm)
What I find interesting about this argument is that no one is really addressing the problem that this person has faced, which I have as edured as well and that is the folly of human beings. Unfortunate experiences that cause us all to re-evalute what and who we believe in. I can tell you from personal experience that I have dealt with my share of “non-religious” people who have failed me, dissapointed me, and tried to make me submit to them (men and women). They had their own set of justifications for this which boiled down to the fact that they “benefitted from it” as the writer suggested. They had the power. No man should have the power that God has, because no man is God. We all fall short. We are all imperfect beings that make mistakes, but a true Christian works towards fixing the problem. Anyone who does not is not a true-believer.
If this woman’s husband is really as terrible as you suggest, she should NOT submit to him and seek counseling for being extremely deluded.
There are actually so many things that are wrong with your argument, if nothing more than contradict the points you are trying to make. As far as the cultural issue already addressed, it is the individuals perogative to ignorantly misinterpret the bible if they are unenlightened. That doesn’t make it right and that doesn’t make the bible wrong. And just because you were blindly led and didn’t think for yourself doesn’t mean that is how other people understand and follow it. You also only gave one example of a “failed marriage” outside of your own. You suggest the husband is benefitting, but you also noted that he is thoroughly happy. This point is NOT irrelevant. Her husband will face the consequences of not having a truly Christian marriage. Your article sounds like a lot of whining and a way you are trying to justify your admitted immature mistakes in your marriage. All Christians make mistakes, that is what being redeemed means. Try again.
haha, I meant to say “UNhappy” woops. Bet you’ll go ahead and dig me on my mistake, being a woman and all. :p
Daniel, you keep saying that the basis for why you are no longer a Christian is because there is no direct evidence for the Biblical teaching. Do you mean scientific, show me the actual body of Christ kind of evidence? Would you use this same logic to discount Abraham Lincoln, Napolean, and Cleopatra as never having walked the earth then? Because, after all, there is no evidence…except for the countless writings verifying their existence, eyewitness accounts that were then transcribed and passed down both orally and in writing, and actual events that they were involved in that were recorded in history.
You seem very well read, so you may already be aware of Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian who did not follow Christ. Why did he feel compelled to write about Christ’s life if he neither believed in him or felt he was a myth/legend? It seems a far stretch that this non-believing Jewish historian would bother writing about a non-existent Christ. He simply recorded the facts as an accurate, unbiased historian would.
You will also have to call all of the eyewitnesses of Christ’s resurrection liars in order to justify that Christ was not raised. He appeared to his disciples multiple times (who would have to be either liars or insane—and every one of them died martyrs—those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking) and to over 500 people at once. When Paul later writes about this incident, many of the same eyewitnesses were still alive, and could be questioned as to the authenticity of their story.
As far as actual written text stating the story of Christ as truth, do you know that we have over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts? Not one or two corrupted copies written on some crumbling, hard to read papyrus. Not three of four or even a hundred, but 24,000!
The logic that you just can’t believe in Him because you don’t have Christ’s DNA or a photograph of him ascending to heaven is too narrow a parameter for thought. First off, it is flawed in that neither of those things existed to record him with, but in every other medium that was on hand in that time period for recording historical events, Christ’s story is recorded. Here’s one last ‘food for thought’ which you might want to chew on. You believe that Christ could easily have fulfilled all of the prophecies made about him simply by doing the things first and then having them written. Well, that would be impossible because the Old Testament was written long before the NT (as you know), and NOT by the disciples. So he (or his disciples) would only have been able to write the ones in the NT in order to fulfill just those. You have to throw out the OT prophecies and the NT ones too.
I would recommend you visit http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/proph.htm to see the list of Scripture prophecies (both OT and NT) to see how many Christ would have to get exactly in order to be the Messiah predicted. *Also if he was simply a man, he could not have chosen to whom he was born or where he was born (he needed to be born of the line of David, in Bethlehem). You have to admit it would be pretty incredible if any person could do that before they were born. :)
@ Daniel
So after awhile I noticed you had not kept our conversation going.
I hope I didn’t offend you much. That was not my intention.
However, I am still wondering what the point of all this really is.
You say you’re seeking truth, but in reality it seems you’re just denying everything about Christianity you can, and taking as many as you can with you.
Now I agree that people need to find truth on their own, and support people who question their faith, because I think we all need to put our beliefs under the microscope; I feel like you are putting this under a microscope you know is out of focus and are leading many to believe that it’s merely what you say it is.
So, What is the point of it all Daniel?
May I also just say this-
If it’s truth you are looking for, put your energy to that, and off Christianity since you don’t believe it’s truth.
Then tell us when you find it.
Just a thought. Every man is entitled to their own ways, and I understand if you feel like you don’t want to respond.
Now, this seems like I’m attacking, but I’m just discussing.
Please don’t just nit pick my words and show me where in this comment you have a problem. Just answer: What is the point of it all?
Thanks.
@Goldenrod22
The problems with your analogy between historical figures like Lincoln and Cleopatra and Christ is that we have several different figures writing about them WHILE THEY ARE STILL ALIVE. True eyewitness accounts from the people who were there written by the people who saw it. But the only written accounts of Christ are from oral histories written at the least 50 years after his death, most over 100 years. Even the Romans, who have to be the most anal bureaucratic society that has ever been, has no direct writings of the man himself, only his followers. And you state that Josephus writing about him means that the reports have to be from true eye witness, well he wasn’t even born until 35 AD so there is no way that he him self was an eyewitness, and very likely that he never met any directly.
@Freedom Noble
The way that you are wording your post it seams as though you feel that them moment someone leaves Christianity they are no longer truly seeking the truth. The problem is that no one will ever know the “Whole” truth, at some point you have to start taking things on faith, even science, although science does base its faith on more tangible evidence then religions do.
You will never know if Christianity is truth until you die and meet the man Jesus himself. Until then all you can do is have Faith that it is the truth. Does that make your faith wrong? No it doesn’t, but it doesn’t make it truth either. And you have to accept that some people will never be able to accept that faith into their heart as well, and God knows that there are enough “Christians” out there driving the possibility of faith out of peoples hearts.
In response to Goldenrod:
Your claim that Jesus appeared to his disciples and 500 followers is a problem. There is no evidence for this. The Bible is the only source for this information and obviously, it is unreliable as it is written by followers of Chrisitianity, and quite a few years after the events.
Apply this same reasoning to Mormonism and Joseph Smith’s claims about Golden tablets and so forth. Do you you believe that? Why not? It has the same authenticity as the events of the Bible like the resurrection. Joseph Smith and his followers say it is true. The book of Mormon says it is true.
Whether Jesus existed is not really the key here, the important thing is whether he really perfomed miracles, was raised from the dead, etc. You can make a good case that Jesus existed, but not much beyond that. There were plenty of religious leaders, prophets, gurus and such over the ages and still plenty of them around today.
I think a strong argument against the resurrection is the lack of historical record of it. If someone the Romans put to death came back to life, it would probably make history…
(and I don’t buy the argument that Jesus didn’t want a lot of people to know about it, just his followers- that’s weak).
Quote: Danae “Metro: Don’t eat the whole sausage..but why not just cut off the bad part?”
This, from someone who believes *all* of the book that says never to change one jot or tittle of it. (That isn’t me any more; changing jots, tittles, or whole kaboodles of something Caucasian or Middle Eastern males wrote for primitive sheepherders, and revised at the Council of Nicea, should never be a problem.)
Thank you, abqsmartypants
(’When she did not do something I requested, I would lecture her on God’s commandments on submission. “I didn’t choose to be a man,” I’d say, “but God put me in charge and you must obey me.”’)
Nice to hear a man admit what I suspected of Christian men in my church when I was a believing teenager. I knew even then that if *I* were fortunate enough to come down on the side of power and privilege (men), I could afford to be condescendingly gracious to those beneath me (women), but I would be loath to give it up as they are.
Even then I knew it was much easier and more privileged to thank someone for cooking all my meals than to cook them all myself. I know a good thing when someone has it!
I left as a teenager over Ephesians 5:22, but I would have left over any great number of things anyway. I argued with my believing friend (from generations of fundamental Christians) who had brought me into her church about that. She told me, “My grandmother lives by that rule, but in actuality, she rules the roost.”
At the tender age of 18 I knew that a good Christian family could live by Ephesians 5:22, which encouraged the women living by it to be sneaky and passive aggressive.By age 20 I was out of there.
“exegetically” is a good word.
Apropos of that, the long-gone Omni had a new definition for “exegesis”: a defunct savior.
Hey,
In response to Metro’s comment on December first, about the Bible not being able to be proven scientifically or intellectually:
I think you’d better check your facts, and please not just make some blanket statement of the Bible and therefore the teachings that Christians (true Christians) live their lives by.
The Bible in fact is a proven, canonical, extremely well-preserved book. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Well, the entire Old Testament of the Bible minus I believe one book, was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and proven as Scripture. It is considered historically ‘inerrant’ meaning that it is ‘declared that the autographa of the scripture (the Bible) is perfect in all that they affirm. This perfection extends to all matters and includes geographical, historical, scientific and theological issues.’
I think before you make a statement like that, you should do some research on the historical soundness of the Bible, and then maybe start looking at the teachings in there (teachings of Jesus) through that kind of lens.
Even from Non-Christian Roman Historian writings include the mention of Jesus the Christ and describe what took place with His death and resurrection, seen by many people as eye-witness accounts for the things found in the New Testament.
Also, the Bible is split up into two parts: a) the Old Testament which was originally translated from Hebrew, and b) the New Testament originally in Greek. When knowing how to interpret something you’ve read you need to consider the culture and the obvious cultural differences.
There are two ways of interpreting something in the Bible from the Original Greek words: a) “Logos” meaning a universal truth or word for everyone from God, and b) “Rhema” meaning a specific word of act done for someone personally, to be read in context.
Just to note, I’ve seen this soo many times where someone will write off God or ‘Christianity’ as it is viewed in our society and be turned off by one or a few people who call themselves Christians. It just doesn’t make sense.
Tell me this: If you went to one restaurant and had a terrible experience, are you going to write off eating out altogether?
Logically, it doesn’t make much sense. In the same sense, are you going to write off Christianity because there was one bad experience, one time or another?
The God that came down in human form to our own level, who holds such great compassion and love towards every single human being, is behind all this and when you begin to get a glimpse of Him, things you believe will start to change.
I believe it.
I am, funny enough, a Christian…simply put a follower of the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and I have much proof and reason along with faith and divine encounter to know without any doubt that this God is Real and He is Love.
I love to talk about this, because I am definitely someone who cannot blindly follow, and being a Christian I know that true faith is not blindly following. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, as in that I’m following a God that is alive today, and is moving in and is actively involved in our world. Religion is Adherence to acts and rules. Being a Christian is about freedom, grace, life to the fullest, and about knowing personally the God who loves me and everyone else, and letting my response to that be out of compassion and love for others, offering the same grace, not judgement to those around me. Please understand that this is truly what the Bible is all about and sooo much more! :)
One more thing…
In response to the 3rd to last post by RANDY, I’d like to tell you that there has been much research by historians, theologians, archaeologists, etc. who have taken the Bible and taken the Book of Mormon and tried to prove them both. I have a really great youtube hour video on it. If you check into the facts, you’ll find a lot more clarity and the whole Joseph Smith and his Book of Mormon have been proven completely false, in that he himself wrote it. No geography, time periods, flora & fauna, coinage, people groups, or anything else matches up to real world locations or anything.
The Bible has been picked apart by historians, theologians, scientists, archaeologists specifically and all the time periods, people groups and empires, coinage, locations, EVERYTHING has a match and are considered historical. Please do me a favor and check the facts next time you decide to compare the Bible to a book of religious fiction. here’s the link…it’s great:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1mFdO1wB08
Please respond…I’d love to hear your thoughts
~Jo
To use your restaurant analogy:
Christianity would be a lot like fast food – not very filling, bad for you, poorly made, and everywhere. Not only that, but every building is stocked with employees with awful customer service skills. And the employees are required to go throw hamburgers at people, whether they’re hungry for one or not.
The thing that’s wrong with this analogy is that non-Christians don’t have just one or two bad experiences with Christians, and certainly not on purpose. Non-Christians don’t tend to just waltz into the restaurant. Christians seem to make it their job to seek out those who don’t care for their low-quality food and tell them how badly they’re eating.
To Jo,
What are those Roman Historical writings? I have never in my time read any that were not talking of Jesus in a historical context, so if you have found some that I haven’t please let me know. Most that I have read are talking bout Christ’s followers not Christ himself, at least nothing that was written while Christ was alive.
But I do have to say, just because the major occurrences are true, it doesn’t make the details true. I can write a story about a man living during WWII that someone finds 200 years later, and just because they know that WWII happened, it doesn’t mean that my story is historical.
And as for the being turned off from religion by an encounter with one “Christian”, well I guess it would depend on what the Christian did. To use your restaurant analogy, if I go to McDonalds and they get my order wrong, then yes I would probably still eat there, but if my family were to get food poisoning, by mother die, and the rest of us were in the hospital for a week, then I don’t think I would eat there again.
Anyway, if you can turn me on to those Roman writings I would be most appreciative. I’m an amateur historian that loves to read even the blandest stuff from the past, especially that of the Roman Empire, Greek Histories, and Japanese histories up to the Edo period.
Thank you.
Quote: “The Bible in fact is a proven, canonical, extremely well-preserved book. Ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Well, the entire Old Testament of the Bible minus I believe one book, was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and proven as Scripture.”
Santa Claus is a proven, extremely well-preserved old gentleman. Ever heard of the letter, “Yes, Virginia, There Is a Santa Claus”? Well, the entire letter was discovered and printed in I believe one piece with nothing missing, and proven as a genuine printed letter.
This article really hit home for me as a female-former-christian-turned-atheist. On top of these very blatant forms of discrimination, there are more subtle ones also. The fact that there are virtually no female leaders in the bible is a huge discrepancy. The old testament was written at a time when patriarchy was still trying to stamp out paganism, which often involved worshipping female gods. The patriarchs had to make sure that there was no hint of this remaining. For men’s power to be legitimized, all the gods had to be men. All the priests had to be men. Etc. And I have another question – there is a trinity – god, jesus, holy spirit. Couldn’t ONE of them have been female? The way the bible deliberately cuts out and oppresses half of the population, even without all the other evidence of the bible being a mess, should be enough to convince anyone that it is not god-inspired.
I would also like to address those people who say we should toss out the bad of the bible but keep the good. My question is why? The god of the old testament is murderous, jealous, angry, unpredictable, and racist. Seemed to delight in killing babies and tribes taking virgins by force. This is a perfect god? You say I’m taking it out of context; I could quote HUNDREDS of verses attributing horrific things to god himself. Then Jesus came to ‘fulfill the law’; and jesus was one and the same with god; that makes him no better. Why can we not get our morals somewhere else? There are many books that are far more inspirational and transcendant than the bible.
Janet Greene,
For many years I had a problem with the Bible. I was raised in a legalistic environment and witnessed a lot of hypocrisy, hated the church, and got a kick out of asking all the same issues you’ve raised in your second paragraph. I became a porn producer for 9 years, mostly fueled by hate for the church and loving the fact that the profession I entered was so anti-everything the church stood for (oh, and let’s be honest here… the money wasn’t bad either).
My life changed in September of 2006. I’ve since enrolled in a Seminary program, even. And I’m finding answers to those questions I used to ask. What I’m finding is that most of the violence in the Old Testament is motivated by protection of the Jews. They are God’s “chosen” in the fact that the savior of all mankind was chosen to be brought forth through them. They’re asked to do things others aren’t asked to do (Levitical laws for instance) because God wanted them to be different than all others. Because of the nature of humanity, sometimes violence had to be resorted to… We may not pallet such a notion, but it was necessary. And, yes, we must also consider context.
(not necessarily on topic, you might want to read “The Shack”… in it, aspects of the trinity are presented as female – in fact, 2 of the 3 are depicted as such)
Because of free will, God interacts with men on the level at which they live, just as we do with our children. You don’t speak to a 2 year old the same way you do to your peers, right? As the human race matures, it makes sense that things will change. Free will explains a lot.
Janet,
What might not be obvious from what I just posted is this: in a free will environment, much of the blame for the violence in the Old Testament can be laid directly on the shoulders of a violent human race. A God that respected free will would interact with humanity on a level they comprehended, don’t you think?
What might not be obvious from what I just posted is this: in a free will environment, much of the blame for the violence in the Old Testament can be laid directly on the shoulders of a violent human race.
Wow, it’s really hard to tell if that’s more stupid or more insane, but it’s definitely a lot of both.
The second that you invent a magical invisible friend and claim he’s omnipotent and onmniscient, then everything is entirely his fault. All evil was his decision to create.
That’s what it means to be all powerful and all knowing. It’s amazing how delusional you religious nutters are. You claim that your god this this amazing magical thing, yet you refuse to let him take any responsibility at all for the direct, intended results of his own decisions. Trying to shift the blame like that is nothing but cowardice and demonstrates a disgusting hatred of people given the incredible amount of disgustingly evil deeds the imaginary monster you worship has gloated over commiting.
It would be truly laughable if so many of you weren’t so hell bent on destroying freedom by shoving your idiotic delusions on others. Grow up, an adult with invisible friends is an embarrassment.
Janet Greene:
I agree. I left my three years of believing Christianity over many reasons, but the subjection of women was the deal-breaker.
My best friend who got me into her church at high school age told me, “My [Christian] grandmother lives by the book,but in actuality, she rules the roost.” At 18 I knew I did not want any part of something that stripped women of personal power, and made it OK to secretly be passive-aggressive and sneaky and “the power behind the throne” because they were not allowed to be straightforward.
My reply to your: “I would also like to address those people who say we should toss out the bad of the bible but keep the good.”
Me too. Are they the same people who believe the verse about anyone who changes a “jot or tittle” (*snort*) of it is damned?
That would be a tad hypocritical. What do they think of the council of Nicea?
(Never mind the sexist old Caucasian/Middle Eastern bastards who wrote out their own prejudices in the book in the first place!)
@ Donny,
Like you said the bible needs to be looked at in context. The problem is that everyone only looks at the surface of the context instead of delving deeper in to the history of the region. When you look at the other religions prevalent at the same time that the Hebrews were taking shape, the bible becomes one big advertisement for “We are different than those guys over there”. Just like when you design a product for mass consumption in the modern day, the founding fathers of Judaism were looking to design a product to fill a niche that they thought could be filled.
As for the argument that God used violence because that is what was needed at the time, I think that God went a little overboard. He actually tells the Hebrews to attack a rival nation and kill every last man down to the toddlers, and kill all of the women that are not virgins, and take the virgins as their own. Even in the context of the period that is excessive. At the time it was common for a tribe to go to war with another tribe, and yes most of the men would be killed in the fighting, but when the fighting was done the losing tribe would be absorbed into the winners. There would be no wholesale slaughter of the survivors because when you take over their land you need someone to farm it, take care of the animals, and breed future generations.
An and for your analogy of speaking to a 2 year old. Yes I may no use as complex words, but I still will give them the same morals that I would want them to follow when they are older. If the Old Testament is God speaking to the baby culture of the Hebrews, don’t you think that he would be doing the same thing? Don’t you think he would have said something more along the lines of “Fight when you must, but be merciful in victory”? Just because another child steals my child’s toys in daycare I don’t tell him its okay to go stab them, their brother, and not only take his toys back but take theirs as well.
As a parent you need to be consistent in your praise and punishment when raising a child. If the human race is the Child of God, shouldn’t we ask the same from him when raising us?
So does {b}formatting{/b} work on this site?
Guess I”l know in a minute.
And what’s with all the people saying “You’re comparing the OLD testament God with the NEW testament God”? Yeah well, it’s not comparing apples and sea urchins. It’s… comparing… GOd and God.
So he changed his mind? He went overboard and now he repents? AND you’re not supposed to change a “jot or tittle” (*snerk*) of what people wrote down and ascribed to him thousands of years ago?
OR, if he went overboard and now he changed his mind, well, that’s more than many Christians are capable of doing; it’s his right to do so.
So many Christians, so many self-contradictions.
So — maybe he’s changed his mind AGAIN! Maybe SEVERAL times!
Maybe he thinks Christianity is a lousy institution. Maybe he thinks the bible some sexist old dudes wrote spewing out their prejudices, is bunk.
Maybe it’s time for reincarnation, or the abolition of hell and heaven, or human extinction. (Not because they weren’t good Christians, but because of their inhumanity in the name of institutions, or their overpopulation – God, enough of the being fruitful and over-multiplying already!)
Who knows?
Not the Christians. Or anyone.
It’s fine not to know. It’s claiming you know that’s sick.
Aww, be fair, Mr. Florien. Clearly all the instances of sexism and patriarchy you describe are nothing but the sad results of an unfortunate misunderstanding. You see, when God said “[Women] are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission”, he was not advocating anything. Rather, he was describing something: a perfectly healthy, mutually-pleasurable BDSM dynamic!
Hello Daniel. I wish you many deconversions!
Hi, Daniel.
Here’s my question. Do you think there’s a possiblity that at least sometimes the difficulty might lie not so much in the teaching of Scripture, but in the interpretion, and application of it all, or in folks not understanding the culture of the time?
To give one example, I’ve often heard the verse quoted in Ephesians where, “Woman should submit to their husbands.”
But, somehow the Scripture right before this that addresses everyone, and says:
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21) is overlooked, or minimized.
It seems to me that in fact the Scripture is actually talking about a mutual kind of submission, and caring among everyone, looking out for one another’s interest. And, also that “husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church.”
I think something is really haywire if Christian man have gotten the idea that their wives should be treated like doormats, abused, or locked up in the house.
I think it’s totally wrong for women to enable this kind of sinful, abusive behavior. It certainly is not showing the love of Christ to their husband, IMO.
Anyway, Daniel, I’m certainly hoping that you don’t think that all orthodox Christian people have the type of views that you’ve described.
Thanks for listening.
Daniel: Do they? Or do they simply have to dispel old misinterpretations and misconceptions? I think if there was no need to fully understand God’s word, there would be no need for theological seminaries or denominations. If you believe there is only one interpretation of what you read because of what you were told, why are you not a Catholic blindly following the pope? Why were you an evangelical Christian of a different denomination that exists because it broke away from a church spouting misconceptions and debunked ideas because of a select few’s intepretation of a text hardly anyone was reading? It is absolutely normal to have the disagreements with other Christians about interpretions of the Bible. It has been going on for thousands of years. It’s about doing what you know to be the right thing to do. The thing that promotes love and fellowship and understanding. I may have very little in common with a woman from Corinth, I may have much in common with her. That is between me and what God asks me to do-not my husband or some church elder.
Daniel,
I’ll try my best to explain where I”m at here. I’m a committed Christian, and I definitely feel that Scripture is given as an authority for the faith, and practice of the church. But, it doesn’t stand alone, IMO. My denomination, the Episcopal church teaches a kind of triad approach. We need to consider Scripture, but also the tradition of the church, as well as human reason.
I feel the Scripture is not given to be read, say, like a scout handbook. We really need to consider the context, and culture of the time as well.
I think when Paul spoke of how Christians should submit to one another in an overall sense in v. 22. He then focused, and became more specific, sharing in his cultural context what mutual submission might look like. When he commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church, and gave Himself for her, I think he’s telling men what it looks like for them to walk out this kind of giving, mutually submissive relationship.
When Christian men feel that the Scripture commands them to Lord it over their wives, and call all the shots, I really believe they’re reading something into the text that can’t actually be sustained by the overall witness of the Scripture.
I’ll give another example here. It’s true that in 1Cor. Paul talks about women remaining silent in the churches. But, in the very same book, he actually speaks of woman prohesying in the church which means to speak forth the word of God. Is it likely that Paul would contradict himself, in the same letter to boot?
On top of that, the Scripture talks about women who were evangelists, co-laborers with Paul in the gospel, teachers of Scripture along with their husband, etc.
Some scholars think it likely that there were circumstances in some of the local congregations where uneducated women, sitting seperately from the men as may have been the cultural practice, were loudly talking out of turn to each other, disrupting the meetings, and so Paul is addressing this situation. He’s saying wait until you get home, and address this then..
Maybe I”m making too much of this. But, I would be sad to see someone reject the Christian faith, not understanding that many committed Christians who take Scripture seriously have a very different take on alot of these issues people are sharing here.
The teaching of Jesus relating to divorce is something else that could also be addressed. I’ve actually heard people use the teaching of the Lord relating to marriage to justify people, usually women, staying in abusive, even dangerous relationships, no matter what.
It’s a scandal, and heartbreaking!!
The teaching of Jesus in it’s cultural context was actually given as a protection for women who were being cruelly thrown away, and kicked to the curb by their husbands on a whim, left without any real support, and to stress the importance, and sacredness of the marriage bond. Jesus elevated the status of women in His time.
Well, I could go on, and on about this. Hope you can see what I”m saying, here, Daniel, and understand that my intent is not to twist the word of God. But, there is definitely another way of looking at all this. :)
Grace: I love how you put your response to Daniel. It was well thought out and succinct. I agree with everything you said, especially how Jesus was attempting to help women rather than be akin to a society that threw them away.
Anyone who reads scripture can see this point. I attempted to remind Daniel, who is seemingly educated in scripture and church history, that there is a reason why churches are still re-evaluating their interpretations of scriptures. I am afraid that in the Middle Ages, the feudal system made it easier for certain people to have authority over each other and for that authority to be wrongly abused within the church system. Take an extensive theological study of scripture or watch an episode of the Tudors. Either way the facts (somewhat) are there. The argument could be made that without the Bible there would not be abuses of it. But then that argument could be made for any legal document, the constitution, etc.
Honestly I know many Christians who are glad that times have changed, now we as well as our sisters of color can actually read and interpret the Bible for ourselves and glean things from it our shortsighted counterparts would now willingly admit to overlooking.
Thank you bttrfly scar. :)
Daniel,
Thanks for your open-minded thoughts. The passages you cite in your post about marriage have been interpreted in many different ways among Christians. Christians have throughout history been free to interpret the Scriptures carefully, recognizing the context of when they were written, looking for the “spirit” of the text, etc.
Unfortunately, you have elevated only the literalist view as the most prominent one, then taken aim at that as if it represented all of Christianity. What you are rightly critizing here is one narrow evangelical perspective that is not necessarily “biblical.” Everyone knows that Paul had an unwritten cultural circumstance that lead him to say that women should not speak. There are many authors who have provided reasonable explanations. And, in regard to divorce, the Bible does allow for divorce when the situation is unbearable for either the woman or the man. Jesus referred to that in Matthew 19. In this section, Jesus talks about the importance of marriage in God’s design for relationships. Then he says that divorce was allowed because so many people have “hard hearts.” In other words, human nature can lead us to unbearable situations. God did allow for a way out.
Also, to see how the early church gave tremendous dignity to women during the harsh age of the Roman Empire, you might want to read Rodney Stark’s book, “The Rise of Christianity.” He has an entire chapter on the role of women.
bttrflyscar:
Daniel isn’t “seemingly” educated in scripture and church history; he <i.is educated in scripture and church history. I’m on to your name-calling.
The top of this blog stated: “Yet the Christian teachings on submission and divorce cause immense suffering for many Christian women.”
I’ve seen it; I’ve seen the damage done to women; I’ve known some of the damage done to me.
This is happening, it is factual and real, and no amount of Grace justifying, becoming an apologetic, making guesses about how women were treated or what their status was in the first century, and no amount of “:)” can gloss over the reality and the ugliness.
Again, just to clarify my point, which ironically keeps getting trampled on (should I be offended because I am a woman?) :
I never suggested that some Christian women are not suffering because their husband’s aren’t fulfilling their role but expecting their wives to selflessly make up for his shortcomings. I merely pointed out that there is suffering in any marriage that does not consist of mutual respect. This exists, as I said in an earlier post in both “Christian” and “non-Christian” marriages. Because as Donny pointed out, people are flawed. My experience, unlike yours, as someone who is actually married, is that my husband takes his role very seriously and is as a result extremely supportive, loving, and sincere. We work together as a team, communicate very well and care deeply for each other’s wellbeing.
My atheist ex-fiance and I…. not so much. So if we are basing this on personal experience rather than what exists or does not exist in the bible then that is my rebuttle.
Otherwise if this is as it once was a theological debate, I must reiterate that while Daniel may be thoroughly educated, and I apologize for coming across as snarky, but I find it so disheartening that he would throw away convictions he suggests he felt strongly about at one point because of others’ actions. I wonder why he would not himself just strive to help others, and to not be like those he disagree with, instead of feeling like he was being pressured into being something he didn’t like being.
If he does in fact understand church history he would have to acknowledge that his own personal experience is like many other human beings who were mislead by false doctraines. Some chose to leave the faith and yet still had their own convictions and beliefs. I know others like myself will be unmoved and simply get a good laugh out of this page and the rest of his site.
I’m so sorry Occam Shave.
I’ve seen what you’ve described also, but I truly do not think this is the will of God, and I certainly think we should express concern, and bring a correction to this abuse when we see it.
But, I don’t think the answer is to simply jettison the Christian faith. For me, that would be like “ditching the baby with the bathwater.”
My own priest is a woman, and my church is in general very empowering of woman.
You sound like a very young child on the playground. Your hostility is showing, but in an immature way. You don’t fool yourself that you’re a loving Christian, do you? You have a nasty, irrational way of communicating. You seem hate-filled.
The damage referred to is what Christian beliefs do to people who believe them. A lot of them are vicious and hate-filled, even more than you.
They seem to think this will convert people!
What’s your point?
They’re all the same thing. People, the god and the bible they invented, and the actions they do out of their beliefs in that. There is not a multiplicity of things about which to say “this is the problem.” It’s only people; there is nothing else. Their invented god and their bible cause the problems, through them.
What’s your point?
I see nothing in your hateful, hostile rant to disprove what Daniel said at the beginning of his blog: “there are many women trapped in terrible marriages due to these teachings.”
You’ve done nothing to disprove or discredit or rebut it.
I could speculate on how lousy it might be for a woman to be married to you with all your hostility.
Bill, I think we can in part know the will of God by seeing what He is like in the face of Christ. Who would Jesus abuse or exploit?
I want to follow up on Bttrfly Scar’s comment. It’s true there are women suffering in both Christian, and non-Christian marriage.
And, there is definitely abuse out there with folks using Scripture as a justification. But, in all fairness, there are also plenty of Christian people whose faith has enhanced, and even radically changed their marriage for the better.
I’ve known of folks whose marriage was on the brink, come to faith in Christ, and have the relationship radically change in a positive way.
So, shouldn’t this all be emphasized as well.
Ok, I’ll take another stab at this. Share with me why my answer seemed like gibberish. That will help me be more clear.
Bill, I don’t know if you come from a Christian background. I think sometimes I can use expressions that make sense to people of faith, but maybe not to folks who have never been part of the church at all.
I know that two people trusting Christ will always make some positive difference in any relationship. But, it’s not a guarantee that there still can’t be real problems, and issues. There are also going to be other factors working there, the maturity of the people involved, their background, stress, other influences, etc.
That’s funny! Because it’s both self contradictory and hostile.
Because hostility isn’t love, duh! You have plenty of hostility and hatred, and you sound either in denial, or pretending to others, or too stupid to know it.
No, it doesn’t.
You’re not converting anyone with your hate. It doesn’t send a message of jesus love, to be sure. You are, however, repulsing people from not only you, but Christianity.
Doesn’t matter to me – it’s YOUR unverifiable belief, not mine. Your ASSumption that the poster was female or ever married, instead off pointing out the damage Christianity does to peoples’ well-being. But your words say love, and your actions say hostile and repulsive. You’re not Christian, and you don’t have any reasoning capacity, only emotional reactionary capacity.
Here’s how it’s gibberish
“Bill, I think we can in part know the will of God by seeing what He is like in the face of Christ. Who would Jesus abuse or exploit?”
1. How would you look in to “the face of christ?” He doesn’t exist in any observable form, so we can’t look in to his face. In fact, he doesn’t even have a face.
2. If christ did have a face, how would looking at it let us know god’s will? Is the theory here that we can someohow decipher god’s will by the look at the expression on jesus’ face?
3. The question at the end appears to be a non-sequitur. I assume that you are going for something along the lines of: “jesus would never abuse anyone, so we can follow his example and life will be better.” While not abusing people is certainly an excellent way to live your life, I fail to see what it has to do with what jesus would or wouldn’t do. Besides, if jesus really is part of the holy trinity, he and god are one in the same, and that god guy has been pretty abusive over the years.
“I know that two people trusting Christ will always make some positive difference in any relationship.”
What eveidence do you have to support this claim?
James, the realities of the situation are this: the valueless posts are coming from you. I don’t expect a teenager to “get” why a person wouldn’t want to repeat things they’ve already written weeks ago, but since that is the case, don’t you think it would be more productive to just go play your XBox and ignore this comment thread?
Never heard of this James.
Wrong again!
I feel it too… the hate… the stupid name-calling… the pretense that everyone who disagrees is “whining” (actually I’m laughing)… the nasty pointless venting…. the insanity and inability to even hear others’ points… its… I’m… I’m becoming converted…. turning to Christ… it’s just too powerful… I’m shaking all over (or is that the repressed laughter? *snort* mmmphhh)… I see the light… I see the One True Way… all that hate washing my sins away… I feel renewed… the pointlessness wore me down… I can’t resist that hostility… the call is too strong…. Christ’s hate must be even more glorious!… I’m turning Christian!
I think I exorcised him.
Woo hoo!
Bill, bless your heart, of course I’m not speaking in a literal way.
I’ll try to drop the Christianese. (laughing)
Have to go out, and run some errands right now, but I’ll be back later tonight to talk some more, and will try to explain.
Galatians 3:28. “their is neither male or female for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Again you have the perrogative to interpret that as you wish. I find it best to interpret that as ultimately in spiritual matters one sex or gender, or however you prefer to see it, has any rights over another. It is, as I have said, unfortunate that some have WRONGLY abused and misused their roles within marriage.
My point, as well as Grace’s, was only that an imperfect individual makes mistakes of course, whether he/she is christian or not. It is a true believer that holds him/herself accountable.
I am not the kind of person who wishes to force you to believe what I believe. You of course have every right to disagree with me. But you will not change MY mind. So excuse me if I fervently protest things I believe to be “gibberish”, and hostile. Thank you.
*there
yes mind the typos. I have overlooked yours.
Pardon me, a what…? What ASSumption are you making about where I belong exactly? I have very little in common with most fundamentalists or the religious right. Again, a point I’ve been trying to make.
I’m sorry you are having difficulty understanding what has been so clearly stated to you. I am not apologizing for myself, but for you, and your lack of empathy. The point I have been trying to make was that I had the exact opposite experience as Daniel with “non-Christians.” Kind of like a bizarro-world, other side of the looking glass experience. I don’t feel the need to divulge EVERY aspect of my experience publically, but I will say that the abuse I suffered was far worse than someone suggesting I was silly for wanting to be a youth pastor.
On another note: if I and others like me leave the site, what exactly would you do with yourself? Who would you spend your time arguing with and belittling? You would only be in the company of others with whom you had nothing to discuss with. I don’t see you talking to other “non-believers” and building friendships…
Finally: If there were no arguments to Daniel’s perspective then this thread would only have one post. “Yes I agree with you Daniel you are correct in every point you made and have no descrepencies in this post at all”. But instead over half are responses by others like me. Yes some are the responses Daniel was looking for. The ones he could mock and exploit. But I never responded to Daniel by saying “<3JESUSLOVESYOU!!!!!1/1/1<3 BELIEVE OR GO TO HELL!” I simply said “hey, you took those verses out of context, just like all those people you don’t agree with” Many others responded the exact same way.
Hey, I’m back, Bill. Things look like they’re gettin pretty heated around here. Yikes!
When I say we know what God is like in the “face of Christ,” I”m speaking in a metaphorical sort of way.
Jesus made the statement that to know Him is to realize what God is like, “to see the Father,” not in a physical way of course.
Jesus Christ reveals the nature, and purpose of God for Christians.
I think if two people are radically changed by a relationship with Christ, and are looking to live by the selfless, and caring values He taught, their marriage can’t help but be strengthened, and impacted for the better. I certainly have heard a multitude of testimonies to this effect, and would see no reason for people to be deceiving about it all.
I personally would not consider any marriage to be truly, “Christian,” if it were based in exploitation or abuse.
Does this help? Bill, if not, maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree for now. Definitely not looking for a fight, or debate with anyone here.
Pax. :)
Well, Bill, not just their testimony, but also my own experience, and observation.
To respond to your first comment, I guess it all depends on how “debate,” is defined. I’m into open discussion, and listening, but I do tend to want to pull back if things seem like they’re getting nasty or heated.
It doesn’t seem to me to be too profitable for people just to tear into each other, and endlessly argue back, and forth.
Part of it could be temperment, I guess. I have this golden retriever, social worker/counselor type personality.
But, I’ve enjoyed talking with you Bill.
And? You are ASSuming who is male?
If you’re referring to Donny – yeah. But he was exorcized quite some time back. I’m suspicious of your generalized “men” and “women”, and wonder about whom you’re doing your assumptions.
It is interesting, Bttrflyscar. :)
A man holds a young child to a chair while another man inserts a sharp piece of metal into his mouth. While the child screams, the child’s father stands by watching.
Without context, you wouldn’t know that I was describing a routine pediatric dental visit.
This article is missing critical pieces of information and important context; including (but not limited to):
1.) The wife who has an abusive or unproviding husband is given permission to divorce in the Bible. I can’t recall where.
2.) The wife who “digs in” has the full assurance that her grievous situation is watched for by her God, and she can know that if the husband never repents, God will take care of the situation for her. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:19 ESV)
3.) The husband has the *far* *heavier* command against him: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…” (Ephesians 5:25 ESV)
Though I am not perfect, by living sacrificially for my wife, she joyfully submits to my lead. I listen to her input but ultimately I must make the decisions. And if we fail it falls on me, not her. If I am serving her and not myself (e.g. washing HER feet, not ‘git me a beer now, woman’), I am not only obeying Ephesians 5:25 but making my lead easier to follow.
God is not ashamed of hiss command for wives to submit, and I am going to try my best to sacrifice everything for her in accordance with BOTH sides of the command.
Oh, I just thought of another item:
4.) “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives…” (1 Peter 3:1 ESV) The wife who decides to “dig in” with men who otherwise are not abusive but not as sacrificial as they are commanded to be (Ephesians 5:25) may have such a love for King Jesus that they would count their own lives as nothing in the hope that they could win more glory for the King through the conversion of a husband.
Wives, do you count your lives as nothing for the glory of the King? And husbands, do you give away your lives for your wives to the point of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross? To that extent?? Is Christ that glorious or is He just a figure in a book?
I have to suggest also that your use of the word King may add to the discrepency. King is a human construct of what a leader is, but to be the head of something does not mean to be a monarch. It simply means to be its foundation. While Christ was the son of God he was also a MAN who died a gruesome death for the sake of those who believed but also for those who did not. This suggests that a truly loving husband would give of his entirety to his wife, submitting to her just as she submits to him or does not. The fact may be that because women are also human they may choose NOT to submit to such a degree or even at all, just as human-beings choose to believe or not. Any man who forces his wife to submit isn’t being a true Christian, because Christ does not force people to believe in him.
Thank you, this correlates with my original point. Some choose to even ignore the concept of hell or “psychological torment” as it is their perrogative to do so as a human being.
You find me a priest willing to walk into a car dealership and put down his own money for a car he has never test-driven, never sat in, and promises to love and drive that car for the rest of his life, no questions asked, and I’ll show you a liar.
Maybe we’re being hard on Melissa – the truth is that it’s tough to argue for christianity. There aren’t very many arguments. Period. So we should not blame christians if they get defensive. I was there myself – back in my christian days – and I got really p*ssed off when somebody called me on my bullsh*t. But you gotta give christians credit for having the courage to enter into these discussions. Melissa, I could not disagree with you more, but I applaud you coming onto this website and arguing about what you believe. (I’m a “free speech” atheist I guess!)
…and speaking of Saint (?) Paul – if you read between the lines of his letters, it would appear that he was gay. It’s not being gay that worries me – it’s the hypocrisy of the orthodox churches.
I think that the thing that bothers people who do not follow the mainstream “Christian” faith is that if the bible is the direct word of God handed down through man, then a being on the enlightenment of the creator would be able to inspire a document that no one could misinterpret. A being that can see the beginning and end of all time could write something so easily understood that it wouldn’t matter what the translation, it would mean the same to everyone.
That would mean that you wouldn’t have to know the context of Paul’s words to understand its meaning, it would be written in such a way that anyone who reads it would understand it in the same way. A truly all powerful being should be able to inspire writing of that level. And if we are going to accept that the transcription of Gods words are of a nature flawed because they have to use a “Human” go between, how do we decide where the flaws end? According to the bible itself it is a document that is perfect in every way, so it doesn’t act as a guide itself, but if it was truly perfect then it wouldn’t have acted as a bases for so many similar, but different, religions. A perfect document should be able to take even as complex an idea of an immortal, all powerful, being and brake it down into something so simple that everyone can understand it.
If God is all powerful, then this should not be beyond him.
This view of marriage is not biblical. The Ephesians 5 passage actually calls for mutual submission, then for women to submit as to the Lord (and a word study shows that this does not mean “doormat”) – respect is a proper rendering. Also, the greatest challenge and command is aimed towarrd the men: love your wife as Christ loved the church…let’s see how Christ loved the church….ah, yes, he DIED and gave himself up for her. I am humbled to be in that position. So, if followed biblically, this makes for a spectacular, life-giving, and blessed marriage.
Problem is men need to, in the words of that great Gibroni (The Rock) wrestler, “know your role.” Jesus and the NT altogether actually gives great freedom to women and women are given a good bit of respect.
—-
~It took almost 2,000 years after the New Testament was written for women to have the same basic rights as men.~
That wasn’t the BIble’s fault – men were just too sinful and neglectful to implement. Kind of like the emancipation proclamation – it was donned, but not fully expressed until recent history. If people would just lighten up and see the writing on the papyrus. I’m just saying…. : )
The problem is that the writer has had warped teaching – must have been like a Bob Jones Univ. type setting. It’s not the Bible or God that’s the issue, it’s the false teaching about marriage and roles – simply not biblical! Sorry for your past dealings with false believers and teachings. There are 1000s of people who strive to live a biblical marriage and are very fulfilled and happy and have freedom and peace through the teachings therein.
Share some of the passages of Scripture from the Bible that shun or belittle women. I would say that Paul’s writing for the husband to love his wife sacrificially and willingness to die for her is in her favor. Now, it may not work like that because not all men CHOOSE to do that. Sin, mistake, immorality, whatever we choose to call it – that’s why so many marriages are on the brink of divorce or collapse. It’s only theory for those who do not listen and do (Matthew 7:24-29).
I empathize for women (and men) who have “suffered” under false Chrstians who teach the scriptures in error. There are as many or more though who will say they are free because of the words of Scripture. Funny how it works like that. Great thinkers and intellectuals have come to trust in Jesus and the Bible. I am trying to weigh everything to make a wise decision regarding Christianity. I hope others will join me.
*cough* Fact *cough*
Christians don’t get along with facts.
Tom -
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Tom – check out this site.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
The site has plenty of passages, but most of them are not “taught” or approved by God. I concede that some the passages can rattle our intellects and beliefs, but while you’re checking out certain biased sites, check out these other authors and atheist-turned-Theists/Christian who share insight/interpretation/context: CS Lewis, Timothy Keller, Ravi Zacharias, Frank Turek, Francis Schaeffer, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell. I don’t agree on every point they make, but they are not idiots or bufoons. We can agree to disagree. I am surrounded by Christians who strive to live the Gospel and teaching of Jesus and it’s liberating to see the love, passion, and vigor that oozes from marriages and families.
People use the Bible to put into it what they want – isogesis takes the text and puts into it what a person aleady thinks/feels. Exegesis does the opposite – it excavates what’s there and brings out the various truths. Thankfully, Jesus came to set the record straight – especially on treating each other with repect and honor and dignity. He came to fix what the religionists of the day and messed up. So, you see him clearly establishing one man, one woman – sanctity of marriage. Forgiveness, compassion, love, and respect were his “law.” Good stuff!
**claidheamh mor:
Women are mistreated on every side – how many abusive reports and negligence come from the “secular” side of things – not just Christian? Those who do these things and call themselves Christian are hypocrites and Jesus addresses them in matthew 7:15ff.
It’s a rough world out there if you are not in fellowship with authentic Christians. It’s a very sweet fellowship where I am. Come join us!
Would it be safe to say that if you are atheist, there really isn’t an absolute right or wrong, so if a man wants to make a women his b****, so be it? So what if you don’t like it, what if I do? Who establishes the “this is right, this is not?” Every man (or woman) for himself.
There is no such thing as rape, or murder, or stealing. They are no different than winning a Nobel prize. It all falls under “life” – it’s kill or be killed. in fact, how dare the US make laws against murder, etc- if I like it and I want to do what I want to do, that is infringing on me. The audacity! Maybe the Netherlands or Holland is the place to go!
I disagree about the tenets, there are plenty of passages in the OT (see Psalms, Prophets) where God is love and is everlasting in mercy, grace, and compassion. Jesus in the NT comes to set the record straight, and while you see some different perspectives, there is a running theme in both testaments of God’s Grace. In the OT, God holds back his justice many times and even “relents” from judgment.
Now, if your worldview is there is no such thing as sin or wrongdoing or evil, etc. then you would take issue with I’ve just said. Because no sin means no need for judgment or punishment.
If you believe God as Creator, he is loving but also just, and sin cannot inherit God’s presence. If you believe murder and rape (like Makeup says) is just another aspect of life, then there should be no punishment because there is no crime.
While the Bible may have stories of polygamy or men mistreating wives, that doesn’t say that God “approves this message.” What I like about the Bible is it doesn’t hide or cover up the blemishes – David’s adultery Moses’ murdering, and a host of others. I would have edited it so much that you would have a reader’s digest version : ) So, it only adds to the genuine nature that it reveals its warts and all.
“abusive christian men” is an oxymoron…
If God is “allowed” to be God, then it means that God has the right to do whatever God wants. Now, careful before you take off and run with that. If that’s the case, then MY thoughts about the nature and character of God can’t be made up in my “genius” mind. In other words, when I say that the directions he gives in some passages (ie go to war, kill, etc) are not right, am I then GOD? Creator? You may say, well I can’t believe in that kind of God, but you have made a God in your own image, rather than what the scriptures say – humans made in God’s image.
Plainly, if you were to draw a circle about 5 inches in diameter. And if I were to ask you to color/fill in the knowledge you have of everything (God, life, the world, etc), how much would you color in? If you are like, you would place a “dot” somewhere in the circle, leaving plenty of room.
Main point: If God is supposed to be all-loving (meaning allowing no bad thing to happen – still have to define that, cause I have a toothache) and would not allow any harm to me, then I have made God in my image and I presume to know what is “right” and “wrong” – good and bad. By the way, God doesn’t make “laws” to hinder us or be a old fuddyduddy, the laws are for our protection and help. Because if there is a God who created our world, then God’s got a pretty sharp mind, and I don’t want to presume what God knows. So, Jesus does clarify God’s purpose and mission and His great love for us.
People!
There is no rule that says atheists can’t live by rules.
Christians keep on insisting atheism = chaos but that is not true. There are lots of reasons and ways to have laws that are not motivated by a theoretical judgement day. And further, we can go one better than the Bible because if we find a particular rule is not working, we can improve it.
Treating others with respect and honor and dignity goes before Jesus in humanity.
Monogamy marriage is not absolute in the bible if you search the scripture. Though the bible says Jesus teachings are perfect for God is perfect, christianity of perfection is not absolute in the Church though are encourage to strive for it and monogamy is for a certain office in the church as written.
If you know that the bible talks about the good, acceptable and perfect will of God you can understand the writers of the NT reasonings and their understanding of the so called grace of God because of His love.
Forgiveness, compassion, love, and respect? This is universal in many non christian families.
If the Bible tells about polgamy, it doesn’t necessarily mean it endorses it.
You are correct, but it also doesn’t mean you will not go to heaven as a christian, according to the Book, according to the so called spirit of Christ.
But if you are a christian and the law of your country prohibits you from polygamy, you sin against your God otherwise.
Paul’s words are often misinterpreted.
Christian marriage is not male-dominance. It’s not about submission, and it’s not about the wife serving the husband.
There are many teachings in scripture that have to be interpreted culturally. Paul’s teaching on women in the church was intended for them, at the time, to be a place of freedom, not bondage.
Yes, scripture says “Wives, submit to your husbands…” but it also says “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Christ was an authority, yes. He was a leader, yes. But foremost, He was a servant. His leadership was never dominating or manipulative. His leadership was a covering, a place of safety, and a place of freedom. Love, as scripture teaches, is completely other-centered. It’s doing everything within our power to serve the other person, to put their needs first, etc. Love is the opposite of selfishness.
So a wholistic Biblical view of Christian marriage is not a place of male superiority – it’s actually a place of male submission & servanthood.
Earthly marriage is supposed to be a picture of Christ’s love for the church, aka “The Bride of Christ.”
Jesus may be “Lord,” but He doesn’t lord his authority over anyone. We have the freedom to do whatever we want. He just wants to be known. To be loved. To enter relationship and give “life more abundantly.” Christ’s love is humble, patient, etc, etc, etc. And that is the picture of marriage that Christians are called to.
“So a wholistic Biblical view of Christian marriage is not a place of male superiority – it’s actually a place of male submission & servanthood.”
Even if I can go back in time, I still think you got it wrong with your explanation.
Well, my mother in-law is getting divorced and she’s a Christian, the church does allow people to get out when they’re in abusive situations. This is an imperfect world.
My wife and I have been in our Christian marriage for 14 years and it is a blessing.
You are somewhat right on your observation of this, however if you go back to Genesis, you’ll see that after the fall of man in the garden, that’s where all of this madness started. We are under a curse – Men are cursed to work on a cursed ground or in a cursed economy and women are curse with labor pains and a desire for her husband and the husband will rule over here. This was not God’s initial plan. Everyone who was involved in the original sin was cursed. Satan, the Man & the Woman.
Here is my reference:
13 And the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:
“ Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:
“ Cursed is the ground for your sake;
In toil you shall eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you,
And you shall eat the herb of the field.
19 In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
Till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken;
For dust you are,
And to dust you shall return.”
20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.
Submission however does not mean that the husband should abuse his wife into rulership over her. A lot of us do not understand that, and take it as an abusive rulership when God should be the head of the family. And a submissive wife should not be a weak person, just taking orders. It’s a union that takes both persons to work at it. Not Boss and Slave, as some Christian and Non-Christians are taught inside the church and outside the church. My mom was abused physically by her husband – they both were not christians. However, my father got that aggressive teaching towards women from the same bible I believe in today, but it was through the Rastafarian Religion. I got some very good example of Christian marriages, but I know it’s an exception to the rule and there needs to be more discourse on this subject. We’ll all have to answer to what we do with our marriages at judgement time. Christians and Non-Christians, The Good and The Bad.
On the slave bit, I know the word is in our english translation but there was no word for slavery in the Hebrew/Greek text so english translators use slave which is not equal to the type of chatteled slavery we know today.
“The translations boil down to the sensitivities of the translators. The force of the text does not differ radically as long as we don’t read back overtones of chattel slavery from our experience into the word slave/servant back in the Bible. Slavery then was at times quite mild, house slaves were at times more educated than masters and had jurisdiction over children’s education up to age 16.” Rev. Chisholm http://thechisholmsource.com
This is the biggest reason I left the religion I grew up with. After growing up in a household where the women were taught to be submissive, I know I couldn’t live the rest of my life like that. I know not every Christian marriage makes a woman feel trapped, but I am sure there are plenty that silently suffer. Anyways I really enjoyed reading this post and look forward to exploring other posts on this blog.
I think this blog topic is waaay off point when it comes the teachings of the Bible and how we should treat women!!
I think you are talking only from your personal opinion and the wrong teachings you learned. if I learned what you learned, maybe I would be a skeptic too?.. Now if you looked at marriage from the Bible, it is not structured so that the woman is treated like a servant to the man or a slave in the relationship.
We need to stop picking only certain verses that fits our opinion and learning and read everything in its context and the whole chapters in the Bible, not just picking out verses.
Now you quoted all your verses about the woman being submissive to the man, but not once did you quote about the love the husband “must” have for the wife. here is one for you…
Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.
Does the act of love abuse a woman? Does it push her around? Does it order her around like a slave?…I think not!!
God is not about confusion, but order, that is why he placed men as the head, but the head must not abuse the body, being the head is a very serious responsibility and as men we should not abuse that responsibility!! We must be the provider and spiritual head of the family and protect our wives and children from harm both external and internal!!
Now about having women at home cooking cleaning and doing all the work…does that sound like love to you?..not to me! and certainly not to God!
I am married and a Christian and the relationship between my wife and I sounds nothing like what you described, what you described sounds awful!! and certainly did not sound like a Christian Marriage!!
Can a woman work outside the home?…I suggest you read about all the women in Judges, ..they were actual Judges! Believe it or not!
The Bible was written by fishermen lawyers and doctors etc. but all inspired by God, so let us not write it off our list, after all it is still at the top of the best sellers list.
Now, we must also remember that even though the Bible is the Word of God….we have many false prophets and false teachings around us, so a good practice is to study the Bible for ourselves and ask God to interpret it for you. ..Yes, your pastor can be wrong!!…believe it or not! We live in a fallen world my friend and even though we are smarter and have more technology, our hearts are still full of evil..atheists beliefs have not solved anything, we have more wars in the world now more than ever, more babies being killed than the last two world wars, more shootings in schools and the list goes on and on, we cannot save ourselves!..we must look to Christ!…Christians are not perfect, they are just forgiven…yes even your pastor is not perfect..believe it or not!
Only Christ is perfect and he finished the way of salvation on the cross, seek Him and you will find salvation :o)
As a Christian, a feminist, and a married woman, this post makes me incredibly uncomfortable. The generalizations made here regarding what it means to be a Christian and a man are disgusting and very inconsistent with Christ’s message. Clearly, the author has been strongly influenced by male-dominated Western culture – which has used the bible (and any other means available, really) to oppress women for over 2,000 years.
I assume that the author has chosen to respect women as equals since he dropped his faith in God, but I do hope readers (ESPECIALLY women who allow their “Christian” husbands to boss them around “based on scripture”) understand that faith in God and women’s rights are not mutually exclusive.
Yikes, people! It is 2009!
Yikes, people! It is 2009!
Indeed. It is high time you nutters grew up and ditched the antique fairy tales, and started dealing with reality on a rational level.
You don’t get to make statements like that without being mocked when you’re the one pretending that an inconsistent, immoral book of fairy tales written by ancient barbarians is somehow the peak, not just of human achievement, but the peak of an all powerful god’s achievement.
It’s laughable, yet deeply disgusting.
My morals and ethics are far *superior* to those of your petty, whiny, childish little imaginary friend, and you will never be able to dispute that except through the standard Christian approach of lies and logical fallacies.
Just grow up and quit pretending that you can pick and choose a few words here and there while ignoring the entire rest of the disgustingly evil nonsense.
I’m not a Christian, but still. Whoa, dude. Calm down. This is basically nothing more than an angry “NO U” reply, and I doubt it’s really necessary. When you tell someone you’re better than they are amidst a very ugly comeback with no provocation to warrant it, you automatically invalidate yourself.
I would otherwise agree with you, if it weren’t for the whole superiority complex thing.
Good point. Faith, hope, love, and the golden rule are pretty outdated. Let’s get rid of all that, as well as all text-in-context approaches to literature :).
Faith, hope and love are deitified by the bible and church. These words predate christinity and are part and parcel of humanity.
For example:
Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
If we hear something that cause us to believe, we begin to have faith in that report, not neccessary about deities. But when faith is deitified, then there is only one true faith, the rest are false.
The arguments made here regarding my opinions assume too much. I’m not talking about geology books or objective ideas of perfection. (wtf?) I posted here not to convert others to Christianity, but to be a voice for women who think there is a God but are not pathetic, weak, dumb*sses who you should feel sorry for because big scary Christian men convinced them into oppressive matrimony.
If you still assume that women like me do not exist, I hope you never meet one!
I highly recommend that christians and atheists alike check out Thought of the Day #250 on this site for an incredible dialogue:
http://goaloftruth.blogspot.com/
blast. wrong account. that’s me, jasonsubers ^^^
hey andy, i found your comment on morality and ethics very interesting and I wrote a response. I would post it here, but its a bit long. Here’s the link: “http://givemesometruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/debunking-another-christian-cliche-do-unto-others-as-youd-have-them-to-do-you/” i’d be honoured if you’d read it and show me what you think.
in general, i’m trying to say that the Golden Rule isn’t really part of Christianity, and thus doesn’t fall into the general definition of morality you gave. we have a very different doctrine.
As usual, you outlasted me again LRA you night owl you! Dont you ever sleep! lol
I’m crashin, cant keep my eyes open any longer…good night, take care girl.
I understand the dilemma! and I have seriously questioned my faith over the years. With that said, I believe that we have to take all things in context.
The Bible was written 2000+ yrs. ago, of course there will be things that are NOT relevant in todays’ super trafficked, super internet technological environment.
I believe the GUIDELINES set forth through the 10 commandments in the Old Testament and 2 commandments of the New Testament. Again, these are guidelines and there isn’t one of the 12 that can be dismissed as something we should disregard.
When you speak about the virgin birth, or lack of belief in it…I can totally see how many get confused and feel betrayed by that. I too, felt that that same disconcertion until I read the scripture that says “…and there was silence in Heaven for about a half an hour.”
Obviously we know of the 30, 60 and 100 fold return within the context of the Parable of the Sower and the seed. 30% representing the flesh, 60% representing the double-portion and 100% respresenting: reaching the fullness of time, maturity and realization that we are not children as we were, when we were taught these stories. As a child we see through a child’s eyes and perspectives and if the appropriate examples of life, family, church, Bible examples that we were taught in regard to what was lived out before us conflicted…
Well, the proof so they say is in the pudding….sadly, many have walked away from the FAITH simply due to uncscrupulous and greedy individuals that pervert truth for their own gain, just as in the examples Christ put forth in the CLEANSING of the temple because of the Pharisees, Saducees, Jews and the merchandising of the WORD of God, which is still on-going.
That doesn’t make this statement untrue:
“God uses people, who make Mistakes!”
Only one who is well read, mature and a practicer of the Word of God can see this because:
One must HEAR the Word and Be a DOER of the Word, not only in much speaking.
In fact the Word of God resonates, let your yes be yes, your no be no..let your words be few…let your adornment be the hidden man of the heart…let your light so shine…if your eye is single, then your whole body will be full of light…
And countless other scripture that confirm repeatedly, who we are to be and how we are supposed to live. There is many instances where we are to die to self-our own fleshly wants and desires but who actually does this? few, very few.
The traditions of men have made the word of God to none effect. God’s word is still coming to pass even as this is being written…but the question is who will hear and do the Word? In it’s simplicity, who will love another more than his self?
ClassyClaws
I left the church after much soul searching and have never been happier despite having to leave all my friends and getting hate mail -if your site had existed i wouldn’t have been so miserable for a year. so well done.
“But I do know this: God is absolutely just, and absolutely good, and I can trust that He ..blah blahh”
er no it’s a Belief – some christans just don’t get it do they? It’s not knowlege it’s largely guilt based bullying and anyone who disagrees is treated appallingly. The church bullies anyone witth the slightest interest in evolution or even buddhism.
God is male – er how did we decide this?
god is good by definition, a stupid childish circular argument. The greeks were far more sophisticated
Women are unequal and this wrecks our educational and life chances, sex is wrong so i have seen many christians get trapped into hasty marriages just because of their natural urges. 2 friends had kids then got divorced
If you want an imaginary friend in your own image do that but dont make others follow you or discourage them from alternative viewpionts.
Dont teach religion to kids. It really is bad for them. teach them kindness and sstop pretending you KNOW its arrogant. Accept that humans dont know much about what happens after we die and enjoy living now
thanks again
and it’s pointless quoting scripture, its just a mistranslated bunch of desert stories written by peasant males , update your thinking open your eyes and break the spell. You’ll be a nicer person for it. Or if you dont want to then live your faith quietly and dont hassle people who disagree with you
David Koresh is more likely candidate for son of god btw – more original followers who were willing to die for him – just a thought.
I see it as a unresonable perception of women, like, the bible says it was Eve who cause Adam to sin, blaming women.
Our pastors quoted me this everytime i argued that women should get better rights, The church was anti- pain relief in childbirth it was the non-christians who fought for that
church = disaster for women
ps read Kluge if you want to know why nobody’s perfect.. its nothing to do with sin so just do your best and dont worry! I am a nicer person without my old imaginary friend, far more ethical, 15 years and never looked back. Just sorry to see other children brainwashed as i was
we dont even have proof jesus was male.Prob was but we weren’t there -many women dressed and lived as men because it was so appalling being a woman at the time. we have so little evidence other than the writings of people who sought to manipulate the populace and picked out one charismatic person then weaved a myth round him or her – it’s called a composite figure.
but all this becomes dull after a while.. just get out and live your earthly life helping people as best you can and take no nonsense from people who quote chaper and verse to back up their prejudice
@ Everyone who quotes the bible out of context
First of all you guys need to understand that just because a person has the label of Christian, does not mean he is. For example the crazy guy in Waco, TX. No Jesus loving God fearing man who truly is a Christian is not going to treat a woman the way Daniel suggests. Janet all the quotes you looked up in the bible make no sense whatsoever unless you include several verses before and after your selected verse. I love my wife whole heartedly. I would give my last breath to save her. She respects me and I her. I would never expect that woman to be submissive to me. That is not the way Jesus intended a marriage to be. All that you Godless people are quoting is completely senseless. You all are lying to everyone here. I don’t see the point. Daniel you are trying to make a mockery out of something good. Shame on you.
Always amazes me how Bible believing Christianists get their panties in such a twist because many people out there who don’t subscribe to their version of “God”. Never have understood why it seems so terribly important to tell others that they are going to hell if they don’t accept Jeezus into their lives. Utter nonsense! If god really exists then god will continue to exist rather we humans ‘believe’ or not. Where was god when we were still in the process of evolution?
It was Paul who told women to shut up and be submissive not Jesus. Many women of the early church were deacons and preachers. When it became an established religion it absorbed the Roman culture’s attitude toward women. Odd that Paul taught early Christians to accept all people into the faith yet continued to treat women, slaves, and children as lesser beings in god’s eyes. Hence Mary of Magdalene was changed from one of the disciples of Christ to a mere former prostitute. One of the many reasons why I loath organised religion. Written by men, about men, and for men in order rule over others.
As I see it, all religious teachings have one thing in common: “be nice”.
Anything other than that is just make-up put on by each sect. You may call yourself christian, muslim, jew, whatever – the only thing you preach that is worth listening to is “be nice”.
All those other rules about not eating pork, not cooking meat and milk in the same pot, men deciding over women, etc, are not divine commandments but sad remains of local and cultural rules.
You don’t have to be religious to be nice to others, you just have to have a common sense. In fact, religion might be a dangerous choice, considering that it’s polluted by so many irrelevant rules about submissiveness and virginity.
The best bet, as I see it, is to stay away from religion and just do your best to be nice to everyone.
Including monkeys.
These arrows are well aimed at traditional theology, but not at the Bible. Indeed, traditional theology assumes adultery and abandonment are the only grounds of divorce, that women owe slavish submission to their husbands, and that women have no recourse when their husbands are abusive, tyrannical, or just plain jerks.
That’s not what I find in the Bible.
I find 6 grounds of divorce in the Bible. I had occasion to apply Biblical principles to divorce law in 1995 when a Christian friend headed the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and wanted to return Iowa divorce law to a fault-based system. I reasoned that only by applying all 6 Biblical grounds of divorce could the system succeed where the pre-1970 “fault” divorce law scandalously failed.
Biblical grounds of divorce are (1) adultery, Mat 19:9; (2) crippling spousal abuse, Ex 21:26-27; (3) crippling child abuse, Gal 4:1, which gives children the same rights as servants in Ex 21, implying the right to separation from the abusive parent, which would require leaving with the nonabusive parent; (4) nonsupport, Ex 21:10-11, 1 Cor 7:3, 1 Tim 5:8; (5) abandonment, 1 Cor 7:10-15; (6) refusal to mediate marital disagreements in good faith, Mat 18:15-17.
Notice that the last point is the relief wives are given by God, from tyrannical husbands. I have never heard anyone else notice that Mat 18:15-17 offers effective relief for aggrieved wives, but certainly the passage does not exclude wives from its umbrella, and such relief would certainly be effective and welcome.
Not that these 6 grounds were generally acknowledged, but God has provided them for any society which would like to heal its marriage bonds. (For further discussion: http://www.Saltshaker.US/AmericanIssues/Divorce/ 6GroundsOfDivorce.htm )
By contrast, “Fault Divorce”, before 1970, generally recognized only 3 grounds for divorce: adultery, abandonment, and “cruel and unusual punishment”. The third ground was so subjective that one court accepted a wife’s “mixing peas with potatoes” as the “cruel and unusual punishment” justifying granting the divorce to the husband.
Another scandal of the previous system is that a court’s finding that a spouse was “cruel” or unfaithful did not disqualify that spouse from having custody of the children and 90% of the family fortune! Of course, that scandal remains in our current system, in which irresponsible destruction of the family bonds is not considered relevant to determining which parent will be most committed to “the best interests of the children”.
The new system is called “no fault divorce”. It allows divorce without having to prove the other spouse is guilty of “fault”. However, the law, as written then and as it remains to this day, does not allow the automatic divorce which we experience today. The law says the court still has to be persuaded by “competent evidence” that there has been a “breakdown of the legitimate objects of matrimony” with no reasonable hope of reconciliation. As late as 1975 the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that this requirement can’t be satisfied even by a “stipulation” (agreement of both parties) that this breakdown has occurred. There has to be evidence; and where evidence is required, a spouse who still wants to save the marriage is allowed to prevent rebuttal evidence that the marriage can still be saved.
Former Governor Robert Ray, and state senator Bill Winkleman, are two lawmakers who gave Iowans No Fault Divorce in 1970. I have talked to them about whether they imagined, as they enacted it, that it would become as automatic as it has. No, that is not what they intended or anticipated. What they intended, is what they wrote.
What happened, then? No one bothered to define the “legitimate objects of matrimony”. I would have thought that “the best interests of the children” would constitute a “legitimate object of matrimony”, so that proving divorce would harm the children would block the granting of the divorce. The family finances would surely count as another “legitimate object of matrimony”; it isn’t hard to prove that divorce wrecks family finances!
I don’t think it is too late to block decrees with these points. See http://www.Saltshaker.US/AmericanIssues/Divorce/ DivorceKit.htm. But because “legitimate objects of matrimony” were never defined, judges got in the habit of viewing that phrase as a huge escape clause for anything and everything, like “cruel and unusual punishment” had become before it.
Regarding wifely “submission”: Bible commentators are all over the map on what the passage in 1 Cor 14 even means. My review of them, and my conclusion that the passage is only saying husbands and wives shouldn’t argue in public because it makes others embarrassed for them, is at http://www.Saltshaker.US, click on Bible Studies, select “Did God Write ‘For Men Only’ on the Pulpit?” which is chapter 2 of my book “Who Owns the Pulpit?”
Notice also that all of us are supposed to be subject to each other. 1 Peter 5:5, Eph 5:21, Php 2:3. And the new kind of “leader” Jesus pioneered, was to be the one who serves (same Greek word as slave) others best. Luke 22:25-27. This is a principle in American economy we call “service”.
As for slaves submitted to masters, a more appropriate translation would be that employees should do what their employers tell them, instead of trying to sneak out of work.
. I had occasion to apply Biblical principles to divorce law in 1995 when a Christian friend headed the Iowa House Judiciary Committee and wanted to return Iowa divorce law to a fault-based system. I reasoned that only by applying all 6 Biblical grounds of divorce could the system succeed where the pre-1970 “fault” divorce law scandalously failed.
You are a disgusting, cowardly, treasonous monster.
Your responsibility was to do everything in your power to stop that sicko from trying to shove ignorant religious hatred into American laws. The one thing that set this country apart more than anything at its founding was its utter rejection of delusional lunacy as having any place in the government of a free society. So, you, being a vile scumbag who despises every decent thing this country ever stood for decided to take it upon yourself to aid and abet a traitor in the commission of his disgusting act of treason.
If you hate freedom as much as you’ve demonstrated here, then please move somewhere like Saudi Arabia where they already live under your ideal system. We can not afford to have your idiotic delusions and your contempt for decency, and your cowardice that forces you to look to ancient idiotic fairy tales to tell you how to live your life instead of pulling your head out of your ass and thinking. Humanity has come too far since the Enlightenment overthrew the chains you want to put us back in to allow you disgusting monsters to drag us back to the dark ages.
This is the land of the free and the home of the brave.
It’s not your land, slave. It’s not your home, coward.
Go live with the rest of the monsters and quit trying to destroy this country.
I think that I’m going to leave one last thing in this thread because I think that it has come close to running its course, and that is a quote attributed to Siddhartha Gautama,
“Believe nothing, not matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
“A friend I know, for example, is married to a man who is very harsh with her and their children. He is unkind and unjust. They are both Christians and are very involved in a small church. She is kind and submissive to him and does all she can to make him happy. Not only does she do all the housework and meals, but she also makes all the money — he doesn’t have a job. Yet he is one of the unhappiest people I know.”
Well, on the bright side, they sound like ideal candidates for CDD… ;-) j/k
Although I do agree that the Christian Bible is faulted and the like, and a lot of it’s teachings are old-fashioned (and I find fault within the religion itself), you do have to remember that the Bible was written in a time when a woman’s place was to be submissive and the like. I’m not saying that what you’re saying is wrong – quite the contrary, I think you’re right – I’m just saying that the Bible’s creation and the messages therein were probably affected by it’s time and period.
If a god truly existed, perhaps said god would reconsidered bowing to the whims of the current society when creating the religious text.
Wow, I am halfway through the resopses to this thread, and never realized how many people had such similar issues, besides me. I started having problems with God as a young child. I made two errors my mother’s pastor didn’t like. First, I read the Bible, not just what they told me to read, but the Bible. Second I asked questions about what I read. My mother had always allowed us to read whatever was in the house as long as we understood it. At 9 the pastor informed my mother “I no longer had to attend sunday school”, because my reading and questions caused more problems than they solved.
My mother got ill shortly after that, and I became a ward of the state of CT. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. My foster parents were religious, and I had the same problems with thier respective preachers. I was told “fake it till you make it”, and “dont think, believe”, and “God wants you to have faith in him and not to question his word or his messengers”
I became very angry with this God, as I had a harsh birth circumstance, and could not fathom why my start should be so hard and others so easy. Anger did not lead me to shut out God, but to look for sanity within religion. By the Time I was a teen I was reading world religions, the Quoran, the Bagavadgita, The upanishads, the Torah, the Book of Morman, the words of Confucious and The Tao te Ching. Besides confusing Dogma I discovered that all world religions have very similar moral teachings, but extremly different Dogma.
Most common among them was a belief in the “fact” that they alone had it right, and that everyone else was doomed to perdition. Many say that if you don’t believe as they do, you should be killed. By the time I was in my early twenties I had visted several monasteries, catholic (jesuit and trappist), hindu (ashram) and bhuddist. Yet in every situation I had the same problem, everyone wanted me to turn off my mind and believe.
I began to study the creation myths of tribal peoples and the so-called pagan religions, which lead me to such things as repeatable myths, like the virgin birth (egyptian, sumerian, hindu, Zorastran, as well as christian), I also lived with two seperate christian families, trying to see the world as they do. At times I too was overwhelmed by the emotialism used in cerimonies to “shore up” the faithful. Yet it was always gone in a short time.
I came to a few conclusions that I still hold today. First, all religious thought is reasoned opinion heavily influenced by the writers personal desires and beliefs. Which means no one knows, we think we know. Second many if not most religions belive in a creator God who made the universe, and for many, humanity is his own image. This pillar of faith raises a lot of questions considered heresy or blasphemy by most religions.
We cannot concieve of a being so powerful as to create universes. It would be like a protozoa trying to understand why we use jets. It follows that as children we would someday grow up into such beings. This would have to be an evolution beyond death, as no living man creates universes.
As such I am a proud Agnostic.
No athiest can dis-prove God, and no religious person can prove God. It is possible that such a being exists, however humanity wants to put God in a box. They want a good and loving being who cares about them personally. Religion is a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable, and a less than covert attempt to try and control the masses through fear of repriasals from such an implausible being. It is the antropomorphisim of an unknowable being. No religion makes sense when you get to the nuts and bolts, because the writers do not know any more than you or I.
This does not mean that wisdom cannot be found in religious writting, it can. In fact it can be found almost anywhewre. “Do or do not, there is no try”–Yoda. Staements like this are the reason there is now a Jedi church with thousands of members.
It is my opinion that religion is deceptive, corrupt, controlling and perhaps the single most dangerous institution on the Globe. It is directly responsible for more bloodshed than anything else. It has spawned almost every war. Marrige is a religious institution, and should be confined to the religions. Civil unions should be the norm societally, and marrige and its “laws” left to the religions.
In my 20’s I discovered that questions concerning anothers faith can cause severe problems for the person asked, destabelizing thier world view and causing imense pain and doubts in thier lives and faith. After inadvertantly causing such harm to another via my questioning mind, I shut up, not wanting to harm anyone else. I have turned around in my position of silence in the intervening years.
I have come around to the position that religion is evil, and should be overturned by reason and caring. I think it is time for all the others here and everywhere to “come out” and speak about it. To try and enlighten the people around us in our lives as to what we have learned.
In America I always see and have people knocking on my door evangelizing to “save” my soul. I see this as the brainwashed seeking others to brainwash. I put up a sign on my door some time ago saying “NON_RELIGIOUS so if you believe in the invisible man in the sky who cooks all his disobediant children–go away”
I need to change the end of that sign and try to educate the brainwashers. I have come to the conclusion that we should speak out and try to arrest the growth of religion here in America and abroad. In Bill Mahr’s Religilous he says that 16% of the american population defines themselves as having no religion. 16% is a signifigant percentage, greater than the african american vote, or the jewish vote. I think it is time for us to act, not in an organized fashion, but in our own lives.
Not everyone is ready for this, it took me years to get to this point as I am sure it took some time for Daniel to go from a Christian to running this web site. So I encourage anyone able to do so to speak out to family, friends, and associates. I do not think we should “evangelize” as that would make us as rude as they.
I intend to copy and paste this to a more recent thread in order to garner more responses.
All I have to say to that, Red Dave, is you have given me something to ponder and have displayed some undeniable truths. Kudos to you.
I don't agree that religion is to blame for the statements being presented here. The Bible paints a true picture of what marriage should be. The views and practices of some "independent" groups (and I won't name any denominations) should not be construed as the bible teachings on marriage.
The liberal womens groups have also blown the teaching on "submission" from the bible out of proportion. A Christian marriage is based on love and respect. The husband is to love his wife like Christ loved the church, so much as He died for her (the church body), the woman is to respect her husband. Some EXTREME cases of abuse do exist in the church, the same as in a non-christian marriage. Divorce should only be the last resort. Many couples struggling with this issue of submission should get counseling from a professional marriage counselor. If adultery is the issue, then the wife or husband has permission to divorce, if abuse is present, than they should separate and seek help for a time.
The important thing here is, both wife and husband should follow the Word and practice the teachings. In my experience, culture plays a vital role in how couples react to the teachings of religious books. For instance, the eastern culture, that predominately follows the Hindu, Muslim and Buddhist faiths seem to have a distorted view of the male and female role in the marriage (talk about submission), there are many cases that show a certain disrespect and degrading view of the wife. They are an inferior partner and not worthy of respect. For instance, women are still killed in the name of religion for even the hint of adultery or sexual immorality, where as the husband gets a" pass go". In all the Christian marriages that I have witnessed over the last 2o years, I can only think of two marriages that fit this description.
So, this post does not really speak to the majority of marriages that I have come in contact with. As a matter of fact, I know of several marriages that are currently working through adultery situations (husban and wife) were they are working together to improve and better themselves because of the unfaithfulness. These marriages are stronger and the couples are the better for it (not that I recommend going out and committing adultery), so this post is essentially an attempt to distort what the Bible paints as the perfect picture of marriage, And it's no suprise as the marriage and family is God's design.
Wow, I am halfway through the resopses to this thread, and never realized how many people had such similar issues, besides me. I started having problems with God as a young child. I made two errors my mother’s pastor didn’t like. First, I read the Bible, not just what they told me to read, but the Bible. Second I asked questions about what I read. My mother had always allowed us to read whatever was in the house as long as we understood it. At 9 the pastor informed my mother “I no longer had to attend sunday school”, because my reading and questions caused more problems than they solved.
My mother got ill shortly after that, and I became a ward of the state of CT. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. My foster parents were religious, and I had the same problems with thier respective preachers. I was told “fake it till you make it”, and “dont think, believe”, and “God wants you to have faith in him and not to question his word or his messengers”
I became very angry with this God, as I had a harsh birth circumstance, and could not fathom why my start should be so hard and others so easy. Anger did not lead me to shut out God, but to look for sanity within religion. By the Time I was a teen I was reading world religions, the Quoran, the Bagavadgita, The upanishads, the Torah, the Book of Morman, the words of Confucious and The Tao te Ching. Besides confusing Dogma I discovered that all world religions have very similar moral teachings, but extremly different Dogma.
Most common among them was a belief in the “fact” that they alone had it right, and that everyone else was doomed to perdition. Many say that if you don’t believe as they do, you should be killed. By the time I was in my early twenties I had visted several monasteries, catholic (jesuit and trappist), hindu (ashram) and bhuddist. Yet in every situation I had the same problem, everyone wanted me to turn off my mind and believe.
I began to study the creation myths of tribal peoples and the so-called pagan religions, which lead me to such things as repeatable myths, like the virgin birth (egyptian, sumerian, hindu, Zorastran, as well as christian), I also lived with two seperate christian families, trying to see the world as they do. At times I too was overwhelmed by the emotialism used in cerimonies to “shore up” the faithful. Yet it was always gone in a short time.
I came to a few conclusions that I still hold today. First, all religious thought is reasoned opinion heavily influenced by the writers personal desires and beliefs. Which means no one knows, we think we know. Second many if not most religions belive in a creator God who made the universe, and for many, humanity is his own image. This pillar of faith raises a lot of questions considered heresy or blasphemy by most religions.
We cannot concieve of a being so powerful as to create universes. It would be like a protozoa trying to understand why we use jets. It follows that as children we would someday grow up into such beings. This would have to be an evolution beyond death, as no living man creates universes.
As such I am a proud Agnostic.
No athiest can dis-prove God, and no religious person can prove God. It is possible that such a being exists, however humanity wants to put God in a box. They want a good and loving being who cares about them personally. Religion is a feeble attempt to explain the unexplainable, and a less than covert attempt to try and control the masses through fear of repriasals from such an implausible being. It is the antropomorphisim of an unknowable being. No religion makes sense when you get to the nuts and bolts, because the writers do not know any more than you or I.
This does not mean that wisdom cannot be found in religious writting, it can. In fact it can be found almost anywhewre. “Do or do not, there is no try”–Yoda. Staements like this are the reason there is now a Jedi church with thousands of members.
It is my opinion that religion is deceptive, corrupt, controlling and perhaps the single most dangerous institution on the Globe. It is directly responsible for more bloodshed than anything else. It has spawned almost every war. Marrige is a religious institution, and should be confined to the religions. Civil unions should be the norm societally, and marrige and its “laws” left to the religions.
In my 20’s I discovered that questions concerning anothers faith can cause severe problems for the person asked, destabelizing thier world view and causing imense pain and doubts in thier lives and faith. After inadvertantly causing such harm to another via my questioning mind, I shut up, not wanting to harm anyone else. I have turned around in my position of silence in the intervening years.
I have come around to the position that religion is evil, and should be overturned by reason and caring. I think it is time for all the others here and everywhere to “come out” and speak about it. To try and enlighten the people around us in our lives as to what we have learned.
In America I always see and have people knocking on my door evangelizing to “save” my soul. I see this as the brainwashed seeking others to brainwash. I put up a sign on my door some time ago saying “NON_RELIGIOUS so if you believe in the invisible man in the sky who cooks all his disobediant children–go away”
I need to change the end of that sign and try to educate the brainwashers. I have come to the conclusion that we should speak out and try to arrest the growth of religion here in America and abroad. In Bill Mahr’s Religilous he says that 16% of the american population defines themselves as having no religion. 16% is a signifigant percentage, greater than the african american vote, or the jewish vote. I think it is time for us to act, not in an organized fashion, but in our own lives.
Not everyone is ready for this, it took me years to get to this point as I am sure it took some time for Daniel to go from a Christian to running this web site. So I encourage anyone able to do so to speak out to family, friends, and associates. I do not think we should “evangelize” as that would make us as rude as they.
I am surprised at the way christians change into atheists…. but i think your view is warped… the Bible warns against this…
you are wondering why the Bible lasted for that long, because it is the truth.
you all have gone astray.. you repeatedly quote the Bible out of contest, you refuse God because of your lack of knowledge… and because you have not experienced Him well enough. If you were really a Christian, you would know what I am talking about. I am one, I enjoy being one and I can only testify that God answers prayers and life is better with Him… I pray you all find rest in Christ.
…you think we quote the bible out of contest…because you don’t…like what the bible says…so how dare you say…it’s the Truth?
i find it sol funy that the christiansd in this place are still trying to stay so humble and atempti to justefy there silly believes, people there is NO SUCH THING AS GOD only ignoremasus continue to believe in such fables there have been a multitude of gods in the past that ignorents have folowed and there will be more ignorents that will folow more idiotic make believe gods in the future , even when the proof is in your face major contradictions erafutable proof that all the storiesd fromn the bible are just trhaqt stories with no bassis you still believe , all i can say isw ther5e
i find it so funny that the Christians in this place are still trying to stay so humble and attempt to justify there silly believes, people there is NO SUCH THING AS GOD only ignoramus continue to believe in such fables, there have been a multitude of gods in history that ignorant people have followed and there will be more ignorant people that will follow more idiotic make believe gods in the future , even when the proof is in your face major contradictions irrefutable proof that all the stories from the bible are just that stories with no basis, and yet you still believe , all i can say is there IS A SUCKER BORN EVERY DAY and religions have cornered the market on them .
This story is so sad. If this marriage was a real Christian marriage then the husband should be doing his part & the woman doing hers. By what I read, the man isn’t acting the part of a Christian. Why should he hold his wife to do the same? If she doesn’t see this than maybe she deserves what she gets.
Regardless of your other statements, you cannot deny that religious marriages usually last a lot longer than secular marriages. And this is coming from someone who isn’t even a Christian.
I think you’re just a pissed off little atheist who has a grind to pick with theists. What’s the matter? Did mommy and daddy not give you enough attention as a child?
I think about all the would be female scientists, chemists, engineers etc etc that were denied all because of religion in general. We’ll never know, we could’ve cured cancer long ago, developed some new life saving technologies, discovered some new engineering marvels. All prevented by keeping women in the kitchen for years.
Daniel,
You seem determined to believe many of these things, and so it would be pointless to try and change your mind. Yet your last paragraph shows a lack of insight into history and Western culture. Perhaps this is not your forte; doubtless you have your areas of expertise. Yet, I suggest you do some more research here into the progression of womens’ rights (especially within context of the Roman empire). I suggest Rodney Stark (not a Christian author, in case you’re wondering). He has some excellent research into these types of things.
As someone who grew up in a Jehovah Witness family. Then became a Christian when I was married and had kids, and having seen so many marriages in both religions force women to be submissive, my personal experience is that so many use the bible to hold down the woman.
In my own, my husband decided taking Oxycontin and drinking beer were more important than our marriage. After I had the Christian church involved, and he still didn’t seem to care anymore, I left. This was after years of being subserviant to him, cooking, cleaning, doing EVERYTHING for the kids, and bowing down to his horrible money management skills. I should have known better.
Anyways, after I left he told me that “You can never marry again! It says so in the bible!” I answered back to him that if “God forgave HIM for all he put me thru in our marriage, God would forgive ME for divorcing him.”
It’s funny now because he’s met some woman on a “Christian Dating Website” and is hoping to get married. I emailed him recently and said that “I’m very glad the bible has changed, and you can get remarried! That is so cool!”
I’m a very smart woman, but gave in to the teachings I should listen and follow my husband for way too long, and let him make me feel guilty about leaving. I think my Jehovah Witness upbringing has a lot to do with it (but that is a huge, whole ‘nother story).
After being raised to never question what I was taught, I now question EVERYTHING. I won’t say I don’t believe in God anymore… I say I have that tiny mustard seed of faith. But I ask daily to God, if he’s here to please show me something other than a bible written by men and translated over the years as proof.
Anyways, just thought I’d share. I’m so very sick of the hypocracy of most “Christians” I know, especially when it comes to marriage and women and morals. Really, it’s sickening.
From Genesis to Revelations, the “word of god” is nothing but a hate rag which relegated women to childbirth chattel slavery and possessions of men. It is because of the shell game in the very first book (Genesis) that men are not held accountable for their actions, but women get nothing but the sh*tty end of the stick…while men feel unjustly entitled to deny women some basic fundamental human (and Constitutional) rights because the Judeo-Christian god “says so.” Namely the right to have self-determination which means fundamentally, the right to have control over our own bodies, health, and lives…you know, the same rights men in the US get to enjoy known as “liberty”,”freedom”, “equal protection under the law”, and “the right to be secure in their person.”
But Christians and social conservatives whose votes reflect their misogynist attitudes towards women, especially with their preoccupation for wanting to punish women for having sex and for fighting for our rights as citizens (the women’s liberation movement). Of course, the theologically justified human rights violation of forced pregnancy/forced birth in recent attempts to take away women’s right to determine when or if she will carry a pregnancy to term.
The real motive of the “pro-life” movement and the true face of Christianity is explained here:
http://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/the-true-face-of-the-prolife
Sorry, but to all the Christians who posted here, if you and your imaginary friend and the lying plagiarist MEN who wrote “god’s word” feel that women need extra punishment and suffering just for being women, then you and your god need an attitude adjustment.
I claim moral superiority to your god, which has the manners of a spoiled child, the temper of a petulent tyrant, imbued with a sense of entitlement and the psychological profile of a sociopathic narcissist with the “angry white male syndrome.”
No ‘perfect, loving, and omniscent’ “god” would tell half of his creation (women) that our bodies were something to be ashamed of and that having sex for natural human pleasure — not just procreation — was “sinful.” And no moral person would presume that they had the right to subordinate the rights of already-living women to that of a POTENTIAL human life which is a contingent life form and parasitic against the woman’s will.
No man would tolerate it if politicians and judges tried to force him to have his body permanently changed and encumbered so that his organs can be used as a life support system against his will. But Christians want to force ALL women into this fertility servitude in the US, whether we’re Christians or not. Talk about forcing religious doctrine on someone…
Christianity = forced childbirth = oppression and enslavement of women
I refuse to feel ashamed of my body. I refuse to apologize for embracing my sexuality. And I refuse to repent just for being a woman.
Jacqueline,
I’m responding to you because your comment got sent to my email.
First of all, I don’t want to deny the pain that women go through in childbirth. For this reason alone, I have deep respect for the entire female sex. Yes do not think that conservative Christians wish to let men get off scot free. Caring for a wife and child, supporting them and being a leader of the household is no easy task. My mother would likely say that my father has taken the hardest part of being a parent through the years.
Whereas you claim I am a man with “misogynist” attitudes, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think you have such evil intent in your support for abortion. I am against abortion because I have never seen a good argument for why the unborn is not a person. I doubt you are a Peter Singer, and I think if you really felt the unborn were human persons and ontologically identical to you, you would be against abortion as well. So you would have to say I am mistaken, not evil for trying to stand up against infanticide. I doubt you would be in favor of a mother killing a two month old because she didn’t want the emotional stress of raising the child.
You also said, “No ‘perfect, loving, and omniscent’ “god” would tell half of his creation (women) that our bodies were something to be ashamed of and that having sex for natural human pleasure — not just procreation — was ’sinful’.”
First of all, spell-check is your friend when spelling omniscient. Second, God never told women that their bodies were something to be ashamed of. I firmly believe that when the Psalmist said “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” it applied to women as well. Also, God called his creation very good after he had made woman. Second, you seem to imply that God tells only women that sex for natural human pleasure is sinful. Allow me to clear it up for you. God forbids any sexual relationship for man or woman outside of marriage. I encourage you to live in a culture more progressed than ours in the paths of our sexual liberation. Try Russia where live abortions have outnumbered live births for a decade now because of that attitude that sex is neither about marriage nor about family. Goodness. Try England! You’d love it there. Already I can see the effects that this ideology has had on this beautiful country, and the consequences may be soon upon us.
Well if any man tried that on me (and this includes my husband) HE would be turning the other cheek so I could hit that one as well. Your supposed to learn from each other in a marriage not imprison.
I think you’ve missed some crucial points. But these points are typically only revealed when the Christian is living with a repentant, humble heart and is more interested in growing closer to the Lord than they are about “experiencing” their personal happiness. Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand where you’re coming from, because I have been there! Where is there? Focused on the self. Watching Tv, working with non-believers, having BFF’s that aren’t Christians – a follower of Jesus Christ quickly learns their life isn’t exactly a “party”. I had to learn the hard way – I missed out on the chance to really get to know the Lord by freaking out when my former husband stopped following Jesus Christ. He had an addiction I couldn’t live with. On and on and on. By nature I am independent, stubborn, inherently sensual, prideful and thus interested in having the last word, you name it, I am it. Thus, I couldn’t handle submitting to my Christian turned agnostic spouse. We divorced. 10 years later I see that I missed the point – submitting to him and loving him with a quiet, Christ-like attitude, was my chance to get to know the Lord in a very emotionally deep, intimate way, because only by relying on him could I have endured the heartbreaking, confusing, abusive situation. But instead I listened to people who saw it how I felt. Which is exactly why the Lord wants us to live per Scripture, regardless of how it feels and how bleak the situation looks. Yes, the Christian God is about multiple chances to get things right, but a lot of years have been lost. And I’m well aware that one day I will face my Lord and he’ll say “as were a lot of souls that I had planned for you to share me with…”
My mother is caught in one of these unhealthy relationships based on a literal translation of the bible. She is married to an increasingly abusive man whom she will not even consider divorcing or separating from because of the very reasons you wrote.
Thank you, for spelling it out so clearly. The ridiculousness of it all is a bit overwhelming so I find it sad that so many families are living through the depression and sadness caused by these beliefs.
^^ Oops, that was meant for Melissa of the Caps Lock.
Grace: So which one is it — do we have submit to one another, or do wives have to submit to husbands? It seems pretty clear to me what Paul was teaching, and lots of other Christians think so. I mean how more clear can he get than when he says women should submit & obey their husbands, should not speak in church, should have have authority over men, etc.
I think an egalitarian approach is admirable from a morality perspective, but they have to really twist or ignore the texts.
“Jesus elevated the status of women in His time. ”
Just to be pedantic, this is overstated. Women in 1st century Palestine actually had a fair bit of autonomy. According to Kathleen E. Corley, a doctor of biblical studies,
[from her RBL review of Swidler's Jesus was a Feminist]
Anyway, Jesus isn’t really seen treating women in an atypical way. Women sit at the feet of Jesus, they mourn for him at his tomb, they sweep and bake and fetch water. They don’t preach beside him or challenge him in any way.
But what about the women he took as apostles?
Oh, wait… right.
Never mind.
I had a looooong spitting match with my bible teacher in high school over that one. I wanted to know why Mary Magdalene wasn’t considered an apostle. It basically came down to, “because she wasn’t, so there.”
I wasn’t very nice to my bible teacher sometimes. A prelude of things to come, I suppose.
Jesus was all “bros before hos,” man.
Ty-
hahahahahaha!!!haha!!
Occam,
Boo hoo. Seriously… boo freakin ‘hoo.
Lots of bad things have happened to people throughout history, for lots of different reasons. People are flawed, period. They’ll use any excuse to exact suffering on others.
The problem? PEOPLE. Not God. Not Jesus. Not even the Bible. It’s not the fault of religion (which is inanimate).
The context of the passage MUST be considered to see what the original author meant. People throughout history have used literal translation to make it mean something never intended. Period.
No problem. I wonder what your immediate reaction to this website… I immediately remembered myself as a rebellious teenager who considered many of these things and as a young woman was able to explore the big bad world without the milstone of the Catholic faith around my neck. What I later found was there were others like me who didn’t necessarily have a beef with God, but just a problem with those who who falsely preach and authoritatively “throw their weight around in his name”. These were both men and women who had these feelings. They were also disheartened by those who completely “throw in the towel” because they were faced with obstacles in life. I am all for free speech and expression, but I have a hard time when others suggest that I am stupid because I desire to find a middle ground between extremeist thought.
“but I truly do not think this is the will of God”
How do you know what is and isn’t the will of god?
Grace – On what biblical basis is your church empowering of women? That’s wonderful, but it certainly is not biblical. The bible clearly disapproves of women in power. This includes the OT and the NT. How can she be a proper “help-meet” to her husband if she is busy interpreting scripture for sunday service? I think that churches today are bending over backwards to prove that they are modern; that they are not mysogenist. But it is based on a lie because they claim to follow the bible. This is the bottom line. I personally believe that religion cannot be salvaged. Like my (pastor) father always told me, if something is built on sand, it will crumble because there is no foundation. This is the christian religion. It has become so fragile that christians are ignoring huge sections of the bible; just to find SOMETHING meaningful for people today. Now that we know that god didn’t send storms or illness as punishment (like we used to believe); and now that we know that epilepsy & mental illness does NOT mean demon possession; now that we know about bacteria, viruses, germs etc and their relationship to illness…God is practically unemployed. The more we learn, the more we realize that we were just using God whenver there was something we did not understand.
The damage done to me was the mal-effect of Christian beliefs on thinking clearly, being fully human, and the damage to the psyche.
Nothing to do with marriage at all for me. (I take a dim view of breeders. Especially hostile ones.)
And in your post and others’, I still see a positive correlation between Christian belief and muddled thinking, and poor reasoning, and name-calling and hostility.
Scroll down for my reply.
What I said about hostility and hatred was with you in mind specifically.
It ended up lower on the page than I expected.
And that negates what Daniel says in this blog, how?
You’re good at childish retorts, lousy at reading with any comprehension.
Donny, donny, donny…
You said “The problem? PEOPLE. Not God. Not Jesus. Not even the Bible. It’s not the fault of religion (which is inanimate).”
LANGUAGE is inanimate, but do you think that words can’t harm (or heal)?
THE BIBLE uses WORDS (in fact JESUS was the WORD) to subjugate women. Check out Paul. He’s quite the misogynist. Oh, wait… you already have and choose to make excuses for his bad doctrine.
Now, if you want to cherry pick the parts of the bible that YOU think are correct within the context of MODERN SECULAR SOCIETY, well then go ahead I guess. But your argument that Paul is only culturally relevant 2000 years ago proves a larger point.
The bible as a WHOLE is only culturally, morally, and even metaphysically relevant to cultures in existence in the middle east 2000-4000 years ago, not today. There is absolutely no reason to follow it. In fact, the only reason I see to read it at all is to understand our modern roots.
Beliefs affect actions. Anyone who doesn’t understand this has no understanding of the world and how it works.
PEOPLE believe in God and the Bible. They then use those beliefs to effect actions that affect others. If they use those beliefs to commit evil actions, then those beliefs ought to be examined.
Honestly, I don’t even know why I have to explain this, as its obvious.
claidheamh mor,
There’s no hostility at all. I think people are just babies sometimes and get their “poor wittle feewings” hurt far too easily. I know I did, for many years. I hated Christianity with a passion… because I made the stupid mistake of confusing God with those who claimed to represent Him.
I’ve already addressed many of your questions in previous comments, so I’ll not repeat myself. If you’re interested, I’m sure you’re browser will easily allow you to find what I’ve written by using the “ctrl+f” feature (or “apple+f” if you’re fortunate enough to own a Mac).
As for this comment:
“You don’t fool yourself that you’re a loving Christian, do you?”
What makes you think that it’s not “loving” to tell someone they’re being a dumb ass? Jesus did it all the time with his disciples (read the New Testament). He also called religious leaders a “brood of vipers” (quite the insult at the time), created a whip that he used to drive tax collectors out of church, and several other non-passive things. He was a man’s man, not some wimp who was overly concerned about offending people (heck, he was a carpenter long before power tools were available – back breaking, manly work).
“Tough Love” is far better than enabling people to feel sorry for themselves.
But to be bluntly honest… I won’t even claim an attempt at being personally loving towards the original poster. My “love” is of no importance whatsoever to that person. It really doesn’t matter what Donny Pauling thinks, now does it? All that matters is Jesus’ love (which was the original point of my comment to begin with ;) ).
And scroll down for mine, as well (both Claid and Occam).
Daniel’s comments were addressed a long time ago.
@Donny
I find it strange that people can post here with a claim of love for those that they do not know, especially when they then go on to say nasty things. At least you’re more honest than those.
However, I also believe that responding to someone’s personal story of abuse with “boo freakin’ hoo” is incredibly rude and insensitive. There’s a difference between “tough love” (or tough commenting, possibly) and complete lack of regard for others. I would contend that your comment is the latter. You may not have intended to to be overtly hostile, but it is certainly more than reasonable to interpret it that way.
So, you contend that human love and actions don’t matter, and only God’s does? How do you identify God’s love? How do you identify God’s actions? How do you tell them apart from natural actions and human actions?
Bullshit.
I recant what I said about you not being christian; that was a point of how you are totally off the mark about what it claims to be about.
However, after reading the posts by christians here, and elsewhere, I’ve seen enough vitriol, ranting, poor reasoning capacity, lying (beyond your example of being hostile and saying you’re not), hatred, desire to control others by forcing their beliefs, to conclude that you are christian.
Your entire rants, which apparently have no point, have done nothing to negate what Daniel’s original post was about.
“Bill, I think we can in part know the will of God by seeing what He is like in the face of Christ. Who would Jesus abuse or exploit?”
This is completely non-responsive to my question, and borders on John C. like gibberish.
“And, there is definitely abuse out there with folks using Scripture as a justification. But, in all fairness, there are also plenty of Christian people whose faith has enhanced, and even radically changed their marriage for the better.
I’ve known of folks whose marriage was on the brink, come to faith in Christ, and have the relationship radically change in a positive way.”
You admission that abuse happens in both chirstian and non-christian marriages is a concession that “faith in christ” does not cause good marriages. There is no cause and effect relationship between faith and a good marriage if bad marriages also happen to people of faith.
Yeah, that was the first blather that hit me in the face, too.
Bunch of meaningless words. Not enough in them to challenge, because there has to be some grain of truth or reason to rebut with a challenge.
Nothing Grace has said negates Daniel’s original post, either.
So, you see ill will in my saying “boo freakin’ hoo”? Sounds like somebody’s a little sensitive.
Here, let me spell it out for you: all of us have “been abused” by someone in our lives. Most of us just don’t use that abuse as an excuse, a poor excuse, to blame someone entirely unrelated to the issue. Blaming Christianity for your having been abused by Christians is like blaming Fords for being run over by a guy driving one.
No sensitivity. You were wrong in your ASSumptions about being female and married, and therefore you ASSumed sensitivity.
You’re hostile and full of hatred. No sensitivity is needed to perceive that. It’s right there.
I was going to say you’re the only one who cant’s see it, but I can’t comprehend that level of ignorance. You *must* know it, and of course are pretending that you don’t feel hate.
What’s your mission, if not to spew bile?
Your ranting has still been not only hostile, but pointless, and has said nothing that negates Daniel’s original post.
As far as I can tell, you’re apparently a fundamentalist who came on this blog just to rant.
You’ve made no point, and plenty of ASSumptions about people, so many I can’t begin to figure where to set you straight.
You’re incapable of looking at yourself. You have no reasoning capacity. That’s already been proved, by other bloggers, how impossible to reason with you are.
You have a set agenda – not sure what it is, probably to convert people to christianity, and to spew bile at anyone who doesn’t buy it – and no other point or reason to be here.
You’ve contributed nothing useful, and nothing of value.
And – haven’t addressed or disproved anything in Daniel’s original blog. Your agenda lies elsewhere, and I think it’s simply to hurl your vitriol at people who don’t buy your beliefs. Especially those who also see through your bullshit and don’t buy it.
It’s quite the interesting jump for you to go to “hatred” based on my comment to basically “stop whining”.
Do you feel sorry for yourself often?
I addressed Daniel’s post weeks ago. Scroll up if you wanna read it. I doubt you do, though. It appears you’d rather whine down here.
To make it easier for you, O.S.:
I commented on January 23, five times on January 30th, once on January 31st, and two more times on February 10th.
Should I repeat myself every time another person posts here… you know – to make up for THEIR lack of reading prior comments before posting their own reply?
There you go again, calling anyone who disagrees with you “whining”.
Infantile.
And so clearly untrue on the face of it.
Some folks appear to need things repeated for them… so here it is again, for C.M. this time:
I commented on January 23rd, five times on January 30th, once on January 31st, and two more times on February 10th.
Daniel’s post was already addressed.
But not negated.
I’m not going back and reading anything by you, after seeing your vitriolic, valuelss style.
You also have a device, a trick, to pretend that anything someone says is whining (re: the “boo-hoo” playground trick.).
It is not.
You have contributed nothing of value. and seem to want to vent.
The hostility… the name-calling… the pointless venting… the ASSumptions… it’s.. it’s.. making me see the light! I’m feeling moved… I’m turning to christ!… it’s too powerful… I think I’m becoming a christian!
But typical of your non-point attacks.
Why are you even here?
Why ask questions that have already been answered, James? Just scroll up and save yourself the needless typing. I made it easy by even pointing out the dates for you.
Better watch it donny ol’ boy. You’ve got two Christan conversions following your nasty-grams now.
You’re such a glowing specimen for the “Lord” (I can almost see that purple face from here), you’re gonna have Danial converted pretty soon.
Then he’ll have to turn this into a fundie site, and believers like you can cluster-fuck each other, without those nasty atheists disagreeing with you.
Is jesus as bonkers as you are? Some of us will need some meds to remove our ability to think, then we’ll be happy!
I’m not giving you my identity or data, but it’s far enough from a teenage boy that I would use that for cover.
You are not sane.
“Infantile” fits that one much better.
Clarification:
Saying “boo freakin’ hoo” is infantile.
I don’t have to ask you if you use infantile tactics often. They’re right there to see.
What’s “not sane” is the twisted labels that have been applied in response to someone writing “boo freakin’ hoo”.
G’day.
“Infantile” fits that one much better.
Clarification:
Saying “boo freakin’ hoo” is infantile.
Whatever you think about how WRONGLY and abused it is, the fact of it IS the subject of Daniel’s entire blog. DUH. You have done nothing to negate or change that.
Irrelevant. The facts stated in Daniel’s blog are still facts. They are still happening, they are still happening in Christian marriages because of Christian beliefs, and your explanations, beliefs, apologetics, calling them mistakes, and anything else you say does not change the *facts* that *are the subject* of Daniel’s original blog.
I’ll deconstruct that bit by bit.
You are here disagreeing with this blog. (Though maybe you should go elsewhere.) It’s factual. Disagree away, negate nothing, accomplish nothing.
Your mind is permanently closed, a trait of Christian belief. Go away. Though – you certainly aren’t going to change OTHERS’ mind, either. And they stand on a lot more thinking through, logic, facts, and reasoning capacity than you have shown.
This blog website is here with contributors whose mind you are not going to change either. This particular blog forum is already protesting the abusive Christian marriages that are HAPPENING. Because of people adhering to Christian beliefs. Your protesting the blog protesting abusive Christian marriages is starting to sound like a joke.
I’m not excusing you for a protest lacking in reason that ignores the facts and does nothing to negate them.
If you think this well-reasoned blog, including my reasoning, are gibberish, you are too far gone to make sense anyway.
Anger at abusive Christian marriages is sane, and so is anger while debunking hostile attacks that seem to support abusive marriages – and the belief system that justifies them.
What is weird that anyone would be so sick as to do anything but agree with the facts in Daniel’s blog and be angry about abusive marriages and the beliefs behind them.
Go find a cluster-fuck fundie site.
“Bill, if not, maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree for now. Definitely not looking for a fight, or debate with anyone here.”
What on earth are you doing here then? Not wanting to fight in can understand, but the whole point of coming here is to debate.
“I think if two people are radically changed by a relationship with Christ, and are looking to live by the selfless, and caring values He taught, their marriage can’t help but be strengthened, and impacted for the better. I certainly have heard a multitude of testimonies to this effect, and would see no reason for people to be deceiving about it all.”
The testimonies are your evidence this statement is accurate?
Belief only. Nothing more.
Not only does the world have no evidence of that; you don’t either.
Because of the last line int the whole book. The one about adding or taking away from the word? No matter how far away we ever get from Christianity, if you take the book at it’s word at all, there will be a group of people who insist that you aren’t a “good Christian” unless you take the entire thing, not just the good bits.
Then why did you bring it up? To do passive-aggressive nitpicking?
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant; don’t give a damn; doesn’t matter: the lousy, abusive marriages ARE happening as Daniel stated in his post. And they ARE happening because of Christian beliefs.
None of your explanations or apologetics or interpretations – nothing you say – negates that.
Apologize away; live in a fact-free environment if you want. (One of the valid complaints against Christians.)
The statements in Daniels’ post still stand.
You’re not. That’s passive aggressive and hostile.
YOU are having difficulty seeing the facts of the original blog. Then you do this attack – a substitute for thinking – couched in sweet-sounding language that is actually an attack, similar to the ones used on the playground.
More of the same. It’s not your place, and not a meaningful statement, and only used in a simple (and simplistic) verbal attack, to “apologize” for someone else. You’re saying useless things, and they’re easy for anyone with playground experience to see through.
More of the same. (And wrong.) Sounds to me like YOU don’t have empathy for women in the abusive *Christian* marriages, though.
I certainly wasn’t one, but I’ve got not only empathy for them, but the ability to read a fact without getting lost in “explaining” irrelevant interpretations of “misguided Christians”.
Christianity, and the inhumanity to man that arises form it, offers a rich variety, so much!
Read the blogs again, starting with the FACTS in this one!
I’ve found them to have high reasoning capacity, intelligence, a sense of humor, high ethics (that’s what it takes to be morally offended at the crimes against humanity perpetrated due to Christian beliefs – the jury is still out on you), the ability to base their beliefs on fact and reason, and the ability to perceive facts. Far more than I’ve found in you.
First, you believe that the Bible does not contain facts.
You have every right, except since I, and others have actually read Daniel’s blog we noticed that he was using verses in the Bible to prove his point that abuses exist in Christian marriages. But if the Bible does not contain fact, why is it being used to further his argument? The point Daniel was trying to make was that Paul in his letter to Corinthians, which we must assume was not real, since the Bible isn’t real, was extremely masogynistic towards the women of Corinth. Because of this un-fact, the fact remains that some men with insecurity and anger issues who inherently hate women, perceive them to be inferior in reasoning capacity, intelligence, a sense of humor, high ethics, etc. use these verses as justification for being cruel to them and or subverting them.
Now like any reasonable person, Daniel also used “facts” existing in his personal experiences. Some people who read them might consider to hearsay, but I trusted Daniel and took him on his word. But some might argue that the Bible/the verses Daniel used=not scientific facts. Hearsay/Daniel’s own account of his personal experiences=not facts (at least in the scientific sense of course) Those people, (who would of course HAVE to be so completely narrowminded to only see facts as things that can be proven by the scientific method, without giving Daniel the benefit of the doubt…) would say not fact+not fact=not fact. Now again I have empathy for Daniel and the people he speaks of. And I take him on his word that what he wrote is complete truth. I have no absolute proof that Daniel isn’t lying, I don’t actually know him personally and have not met the people that he speaks of and verified his story with them but it would be wrong of me to not take him on his word. Even if he were lying though, I would still know that abuse is a fact that exists, basing that not on fact itself, but on my own personal experience.
I find it surprising that for someone with such empathy for women who have endured abuse that you would completely overlook that FACT that I endured it myself. In a non-Christian relationship, with an intelligent person who didn’t believe in the Bible, but also fit the criterion of an angry person who could not control their temper and selfish tendancies.
And I feel personally that people who claim to be Christian and still act as the men I described earlier are deplorable and deserve no respect and should be held accountable. (I re-read my post and found that I did in fact say something of the sort–almost verbatim)
Finally, I believe that you should have nothing further to say to me. I apparently am not worthy of your time on this site, since I do not fit the description of someone worthy of speaking to. I find it disheartening that you have to take what I say so personally as an attack to you, while at the same time, you turn around and “verbally attack” and insult me.
I don’t remember doing anything to you personally. If you do respond you would unfortunately be recanting your original stance that I am unworthy of speaking to.
P.S.(I can read regular font just fine, no need to bold.)
I doubt that has less to do with being a Christian and more to do with being an English major.
You’re lying about overlooking them, because clearly you didn’t. If you truly “overlooked” them, you wouldn’t have brought it up.
The motive of passive-aggressive nitpicking still stands.
I correct other people’s grammar (in this case, merely typos were enough for you) in writing too.
But you’re the only one I’ve seen who accompanies it with the phony lie “I have overlooked [it]” while in the process of not overlooking it.
Phony liar.
Even in this thread we have men arguing with women and telling them what is best for them and what they should believe. I find this dynamic rather interesting. Don’t you Grace?
How do YOU know posters’ gender from the onscreen typing?
ASSuming?
It looks like someone needs to read the rest of the thread.
If the bible is not to be trusted in some ways, how can you know which parts are true and which are not? How do you separate “cultural” from “timeless morals”? I am an atheist – former evangelical christian, and I understand the need to find some redeeming value in the bible.
However, besides of the murder, genocide, baby-killing, and rape commanded by God throughout the bible, here is a site which lists the mysogengy to women.
If the christian bible is true, he is truly a god who hates women.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
I WILL KEEP YOU ALL IN PRAYER AND HOPE SOMEDAY YOU WILL EXCEPT JESUS! I STUMBLED ON THIS SITE~ OH BY THE WAY SHOULD I BELIVE DARWIN JUST BECAUSE I READ IT??? OR ANY BOOK FOR THAT MATTER?? WHY IS IT THAT WE BELIVE HISTORY BOOKS AND TONS OF OTHERS WHERE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, BUT WE SAY “IM NOT BELIVING IN SOME STUPID BIBLE THAT WAS WRITTEN BY MAN” WELL SO WAS EVERY OTHER BOOK! BUT YET YOU BELIVE THEM! C’MON WAKE UP, YOUR BIAS IS NOT WORKING W/ME! AND BY THE WAY THERE ARE MILLIONS OF WOMEN WHO GET BEAT AND KILLED BY MEN EVERYDAY THAT NEVER EVEN STEP FOOT INSIDE A CHURCH AND NEVER CLAIM TO BE CHRISTAINS! IS THAT STILL THE BIBLES FAULT? WHAT STORIES WE MAKE UP TO MAKE OUR SELFS FEEL BETTER!! IF A MAN IS HURTING HIS FAMILY PHYSICALLY OR MENTALLY THEN THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG W/HIM..NO WOMAN HAS TO STAY, CHRISTAIN OR NO CHRISTAIN! I HAVE BEEN A CHRISTAIN SINCE I WAS 17 NOW 35, I HAVE A LOVING HUSBAND THAT TREATS ME WONDERFUL AND SUPPORTS ME IN MY DECISIONS! HE DOES NOT USE A VERSE HERE OR A VERSE THEIR TO GAIN CONTROL OVER ME NOR WOULD I ALLOW IT, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT GOD NOR HIS WORD!! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WE ALWAYS HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING TO BLAME DON’T WE.. IF YOU ARE TREATING YOUR WIFE/HUSBAND WRONG GET HELP! DON’T BLAME IT ON THE BIBLE!! IT’S YOU THAT IS MAKING THE WRONG CHOICE!! DON’T USE SOMETHING AS A CRUTCH, AS THE AUTHOR OF THIS PAGE DID~EXAMPLE~I Once Believed This
It is to my shame that I once enthusiastically agreed with these teachings. For many years I commanded my wife to not have a job and kept her home alone to “take care of the house” even though we had no children. When she did not do something I requested, I would lecture her on God’s commandments on submission. “I didn’t choose to be a man,” I’d say, “but God put me in charge and you must obey me.”
Yes, I was thoroughly brainwashed.
IF MY HUSBAND EVER SAID THIS TO ME I WOULD SAY BACK, YOU ARE TO LOVE ME AS GOD LOVED THE CHURCH, AS THE BIBLE PLAINLY STATES! MEN LOVE YOUR WIFES AS I LOVE THE CHURCH! STOP FINDING THINGS TO BLAME~FIX YOURSELF! ONE MORE THING, IF YOU DON’T WANT TO BELIVE IT’S ALL GOOD, BUT LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE, WE ARE NOT BUSY TRYING TO FILL PAINFUL GAPS W/EXCUSES OR BLAME~ WE ARE BUSY LIVING OUT THE REST OF OUR LIVES! IF YOU TREATED YOUR WIFE THIS WAY, IT WAS YOUR CHOICE NOBODY MADE YOU!
MANY BLESSINGS!
FROM A SHOCKED SCHOOLTEACHER..
She is kind and submissive to him and does all she can to make him happy. Not only does she do all the housework and meals, but she also makes all the money — he doesn’t have a job. Yet he is one of the unhappiest people I know.
She’s happy but he’s unhappy? I thought it would be the other way around. Normally in abusive relationships(christian or not) The abusive person has a permanent smile on face and frolics through life as a the happiest person alive who makes all of the right decisions. Wouldn’t he be happily abusing his wife if he felt he had all the justification in the world to do so?
Yeah, no.
Just like any other abusive man, he sounds like an unhappy, insecure, tyrant who has NO IDEA HOW TO LEAD. And I don’t think his wife is submitting to him at all… what exactly is she submitting to? She makes all of the money…she does everything? Sounds to me like she has some power there.
I made the point already that this story isn’t truly a “fact” and could be construed as hearsay, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and suggesting to you, that there is a WORLD of difference between this couple, and MANY other Christian couples who aren’t so idiotic as to not see the problem.
Danae – I am one of the ex-christians you refer to that “throws out the bible” entirely. I have found that it is not necessary to have a fulfilling, moral life. If it is the word of god, we should follow it to the letter; if it is NOT the holy word of god, then why should we give the bible any more credence than any other piece of literature? For me, there was simply far too many atrocities committed by God for the bible god to have any credibility whatsoever. For me, it became a choice; live a moral life, or believe in the bible. I could not do both. If you’re interested, check out this site (for reasons why I cannot respect the bible:)
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html
Thx for your post.
Oh, please.
I’m sorry that you were foolish enough to believe that junk in the bible, but it’s your own fault, not the bible’s.
Don’t act like you were brainwashed either. What a farce. You probably voluntarily went to church all those years.
Want someone to blame? Blame yourself.
Thank You! For your comment!
I’m not sure how you can be a “liberal” believer. You either believe that the bible is the inspired word of god, or you don’t. If you do accept this, you have to accept all the bad with the good. Sure, you can say that the terrible things god commanded in the OT were cultural. I thought that christianity stood for timeless moral truths? I am an atheist, but not necessarily a relativist. I believe there are absolute morals that transcend time. Love, compassion, cooperation, empathy, respect, honour, truth, connectedness, harmony etc -these words are my moral code. I see very little of this in the bible. I see a lot of god’s anger (even Jesus had temper tantrums – surprising for a perfect being); I see violence; I see war; I see division; I see mysogeny; I see a holy book which never tells people that beating your wife or child is wrong (to give the bible credit, I think there is a place where is says you shouldn’t beat your slave – at least not too much). I also see a holy book open to many interpretations. If it was truly holy, it would be clear. Why would god give us a book where you had to know the history and context before you ciould learn from it? A perfect God could certainly have done a better job of that. And to think that the risk of NOT understanding the bible correctly is ETERNAL DAMNATION from which there is no escape???? YOu really woulda thought that god would have made “the way” crystal clear!
Anyway, that’s my rant!
I would just like to thank Rachel for her reply. Commenting can be so tenuous on blogs, with attacks on character rather than content. I’m in agreement with the blogger here, but appreciate seeing an opposing view that is polite and refreshing. And I hope as I read further into this blog I will see more like this.
I am so sorry for you!
JESUS CHRIST! GAWDDAMN! QUIT SCREAMING AT US!!!
“I WILL KEEP YOU ALL IN PRAYER AND HOPE SOMEDAY YOU WILL EXCEPT JESUS!”
I do except him. He is clearly excepted from my life, as I am a rational thinker. Grammar is clearly excepted from your life.
“OH BY THE WAY SHOULD I BELIVE DARWIN JUST BECAUSE I READ IT???”
“WHERE THERE IS NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE”
Clearly you don’t read it. If you had ANY knowledge of either a) science in general or b) the scientific (physical) evidence (of which there is a TON) then you’d believe it. But alas….
“HE DOES NOT USE A VERSE HERE OR A VERSE THEIR TO GAIN CONTROL OVER ME NOR WOULD I ALLOW IT”
That’s because you don’t have a clear understanding of Pauline doctrine… nor of English grammar.
“WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!”
Oh, I woke up a long time ago. I suggest that you wake up. Your faith is a burden and you are blinded by it.
“DON’T BLAME IT ON THE BIBLE!”
You mean the bible that instructs people to commit genocide, rape, and child abuse? That bible?
“MEN LOVE YOUR WIFES AS I LOVE THE CHURCH!”
Is that why men in the bible take sex slaves as wives (NOTE the spelling of WIVES)… you know since god says that if they don’t please the man, he is not to sell them to foreigners?
“BUT LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE”
Are you serious? This is a BLOG not the friggin street corner. You sought out this blog and read it. If you don’t like what you’re reading, then change the friggin channel. Damn.
“WE ARE BUSY LIVING OUT THE REST OF OUR LIVES!”
No. You aren’t. You’re waiting for an afterlife. You’re waiting for rapture. That is hardly living (and I know I was a christian).
“MANY BLESSINGS”
You have GOT to be kidding.
“FROM A SHOCKED SCHOOLTEACHER”
Wow. The whipped diarrhea on the turd cake. I AM A SCHOOL TEACHER. The fact that an illogical ignoramus like you (sorry Daniel, but this one is clearly deserved) is teaching the future generation is just disturbing. Let’s just look at your grammar for instance.
If schools would actually pay teachers what they are worth, then we could get rid of stupid people who have no place teaching. Increased pay means increased competition. Think about it folks. Especially the next time you’re tempted to not pay that additional $100- $200 per YEAR for your damn property taxes.
Really.
Melissa -
1. The reason atheists believe scientific data is that they can be empirically proven and replicated. This means either through scientific experimentation or other empirical proof. There is absolutely no evidence, other than the bible itself, of it’s truth. In fact, most of the bible defies intelligence (talking snakes, parting waters, Jonah and the big fish – don’t you agree that these are about as likely as Santa delivering presents on Christmas Eve?
How do you explain all the murder, rape, genocide, and baby-killing commanded by God? Is this a perfect God, in your view?
Thanks Melissa, but I already “except” Jesus. Also, did you know that most of us have a fundie filter? That is, we know a comment is by a fundie just BY ALL THE FREAKING CAPS THEY PUT IN THEIR COMMENTS. Amusing, eh?
Thanks for turning off the all-caps. It’s just more courteous to your fellow-bloggers – most people consider it “yelling” so it’s not acceptable.
Have a great day :)
Wow, way to lean on the capslock. And its “accept”, not “except”. Way to be an example as a school teacher.
Also, as a teacher you should realize how evidence is obtained and what a scientific theory is. No, you shouldn’t believe something merely because a book says so. You should look at the EVIDENCE and decide whether the theory or thesis is credible.
Finally, you rail against the OP for not “leaving the rest of us (presumably believers) alone” but its YOU that has come on HIS site. He hasn’t followed you home, sent his essay to your house or email account or even asked you to read it. For you to come on his PERSONAL SITE and then complain about the content is the height of arrogance, IMO.
I do except him. He is clearly excepted from my life, as I am a rational thinker. Grammar is clearly excepted from your life.
GOOD FOR YOU, THAT IS YOUR CHOICE! AGAIN MY POINT IS, DO NOT BLAME OTHERS FOR YOUR OWN MISTAKES!! HOW SAD IS THE EXCUSE “THE REASON I TREAT OTHERS THIS WAY IS BECAUSE THE BIBLE TOLD ME SO”
Clearly you don’t read it. If you had ANY knowledge of either a) science in general or b) the scientific (physical) evidence (of which there is a TON) then you’d believe it. But alas….
I’M SORRY IF I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR IRRATIONAL, MISGUIDED “DARWIN” WAY OF THINKING! I ATTENDED MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY AND WAS FED THE SAME CRAP YOU ARE FEEDING ME AND I STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE MY ANCESTORS WERE APES… WANT A BANANA???
Oh, I woke up a long time ago. I suggest that you wake up. Your faith is a burden and you are blinded by it.
AS I THINK YOUR FAITH IS A BURDEN AND YOU DEFINITELY NEED TO WAKE UP!
You mean the bible that instructs people to commit genocide, rape, and child abuse? That bible?
YOU MEAN THE BIBLE THAT INSTRUCTS PPL TO LOVE, CARE, NOT TO MURDER, TO BE HONEST, TO GIVE AND HELP OTHERS ETC..? THAT BIBLE?
No. You aren’t. You’re waiting for an afterlife. You’re waiting for rapture. That is hardly living (and I know I was a christian).
IT MAY NOT BE LIVING TO YOU BUT TO MILLIONS AND MILLIONS ACROSS THIS GREAT NATION IT IS!! IN AMERICA IT’S “IN GOD WE TRUST” LIKE IT OR NOT! I’M SURE IT’S MORE THAN YOUR WAITING FOR!
Are you serious? This is a BLOG not the friggin street corner. You sought out this blog and read it. If you don’t like what you’re reading, then change the friggin channel. Damn.
WHO SAID I DID NOT LIKE WHAT I’M READING? OH I LIKE WHAT I AM READING!! IF I DID NOT, I WOULD HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO YOU! IF ALL OF YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO “BLOG”YOUR OPINION SO DO I! I SAY TO YOU If you don’t like what you’re reading, then change the friggin channel.
“MANY BLESSINGS”
You have GOT to be kidding
NO I’M NOT! TRULY!! MANY BLESSINGS!!
Wow. The whipped diarrhea on the turd cake. I AM A SCHOOL TEACHER. The fact that an illogical ignoramus like you (sorry Daniel, but this one is clearly deserved) is teaching the future generation is just disturbing. Let’s just look at your grammar for instance.
If schools would actually pay teachers what they are worth, then we could get rid of stupid people who have no place teaching. Increased pay means increased competition. Think about it folks. Especially the next time you’re tempted to not pay that additional $100- $200 per YEAR for your damn property taxes.
HAD TO FIND SOMETHING TO GO ON HUGH? AGAIN IT’S A SHAME WE FIND OTHER THINGS TO BLAME OUR OWN MISTAKES ON….EXAMPLE~
I Once Believed This
It is to my shame that I once enthusiastically agreed with these teachings. For many years I commanded my wife to not have a job and kept her home alone to “take care of the house” even though we had no children. When she did not do something I requested, I would lecture her on God’s commandments on submission. “I didn’t choose to be a man,” I’d say, “but God put me in charge and you must obey me.”
Yes, I was thoroughly brainwashed.
GOSH I AM SO GLAD I DO NOT THINK LIKE THIS OR ELSE I WOULD ASSUME WHEN THE BIBLE SAYS “SPARE THE ROD SPOIL THE CHILD” IT MEANS TO BEAT MY CHILD W/ A ROD.. AND THEN YOU WOULD HEAR MY SAD STORY ON HOW “I ONCE BELIEVED THESE TEACHINGS” AS MY STORY WOULD GO~FOR MANY YEARS I COMMANDED MY CHILDREN TO OBEY AND IF THEY DID NOT, I DID WHAT THE BIBLE TOLD ME TO DO WHICH IS SPARE THE ROD… SOUNDS NO DIFFERENT THAN THOSE WEIRDOS WHO SAY “GOD TOLD ME TO DO IT” A LITTLE ADVICE~ THAT VOICE YOU ARE HEARING IS YOUR OWN!! NOT GOD,THE BILBLE OR ANYONE ELSE! DON’T BLAME OTHERS FOR YOUR MISTAKES!!
I COULD CARE LESS IF YOU BELIEVE IN GOD OR NOT! AS I ASSUME YOU COULD CARE LESS IF I BELIEVED I CAME FROM AN APE! YOU “BLOG” YOUR WORDS I WILL DO THE SAME!
MANY BLESSINGS!
LRA:
I don’t even know you, and I love you! (sarcasm: with the love of the lord of course!)
That was the best retort I’ve seen–hilarious! Of course, she gave you a lot to work with.
Good times! Good times!
But yet, we are to believe we came from nothing? hmmm..sounds just as convincing as Jesus does to you!
“I guess the clincher is that we will never be able to fully prove the Bible”
As much as anyone can not fully prove I was made of gloop!
Oh gosh I am done commenting!
Both sides are correct, either of them can not prove w/out a doubt! So lets each have our own belief and move on…why do we spend so much time batteling who is right? Oh cause both want you to convert to thier side. lets tune in and see who wins round 2,333,333,333, etc….. It’s the oldest fight yet!
“The Bible doesn’t make much sense…I don’t understand hardly any of it!”
You base your lifestyle, ethics, and morality on a document that you barely understand? I’m convinced!
Melissa, it is clear that you have never read Darwin. We are not descended from monkeys. Natural selection is a beautiful, explainable and logical theory. And a “theory” is not a guess.
Take the theory of relativity, for example. These are FACTS. I would be interested in your comments if you showed that you had actually read about evolution. It is clear that you do not wish to expose yourself to any reading material that might shake your faith. I don’t blame you. It’s dangerous. I used to be a christian – became an atheist at age 40. It’s because I allowed myself to think logically and read outside my comfort zone (and for the record, when you use all caps in your comments, it’s like “shouting”)
“IN AMERICA IT’S “IN GOD WE TRUST””
Ummmm, you mean the America that has DEISTS as the founding fathers? That America?
“’M SORRY IF I WILL NOT BELIEVE YOUR IRRATIONAL, MISGUIDED “DARWIN” WAY OF THINKING! I ATTENDED MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY AND WAS FED THE SAME CRAP YOU ARE FEEDING ME AND I STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE MY ANCESTORS WERE APES… WANT A BANANA???”
Wow. Just wow. What can I say? Whether you like it or not you are classified as a PRIMATE, and your closest genetic relative IS a chimp. Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it untrue. In fact, we have tons and tons of evidence (for instance DNA annealing… but you don’t know what that is, do you?) which provides more than adequate evidence for evolution. BUT you claim a biblical stance with NO evidence? WITH NO EVIDENCE? Do you understand the implications of having a belief that has NO, I mean NO evidence? ZERO EVIDENCE? DO YOU GET THAT?
If you reject this then you prove your own anti-intellectual bias. You prove yourself irrational. If that is the case, then don’t bother to reply, because I demand rational conversations, not proselytizing.
Nope. I’m not blaming others:
You said “HAD TO FIND SOMETHING TO GO ON HUGH? AGAIN IT’S A SHAME WE FIND OTHER THINGS TO BLAME OUR OWN MISTAKES ON…”
That was a DIRECT response to your CLAIM that you are a teacher. Having read your comments on home schooling, I doubt this. You have made to many spelling, grammar, and logic errors to be any kind of DECENT teacher, and quite frankly, if someone as erroneous as you is teaching then there is NO WONDER as to why our schools are failing. PERIOD.
Is your second name Poe by any chance?
Melissa, you seem kind of mean in some of your posts. I don’t think you intend to come off that way but it get people kinda ticked off. I understand that you are passionately defending your belief, and that no amount of reason will convince you of that christianity is a sham because it is so deeply a part of you that you cannot afford to let it go. I get that. But try to respect that most atheists have gone through a long period of struggle with the issue; most of us know the bible far better than our christian counterparts; and have come to the belief that there is nothing holy about the bible. You will not convert an atheist who has gone through this process. We’ve heard it all – in my case, I grew up with a christian evangelical pastor for a father. Now I regret all the hours I spent in church, in bible study, praying, etc when I could have been doing something useful, productive or kind (to make the world a better place). You may or may not come to that yourself, Melissa, but at least you have to have an open mind about what you hear (at least, if you are really searching for Truth).
Cheers and have a terrific day.
Melissa, you are not a nice person at all. I’m getting tired of seeing your cruelty to other bloggers. Why don’t we keep this civilized ok? We can make our point without calling each other down. And I have to say, you don’t make christians look good (that’s ok with me, I’m an atheist – but you’re not doing yourself any favors)
Melissa’s powerful oratory, consummate delivery, and compelling message are turning the tide of human spirit. Melissa, You have accomplished what you came here to accomplish… you have won a soul for Christ…
your hatred has worked its magic… I’m converting to Christianity… this hate-filled Christian must be a shining beacon of the Lord Jesus Christ’s pure hate… the kindergarten invective has won over a soul at last… the illiterate, incoherent vitriol is so persuasive… I’m shaking all over with the power of the spirit (or is it repressed laughter?)… I’m becoming a Christian…
CAPS LOCK! CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
Anyways, after much time spent on 4chan’s /b/ board, I believe I can say
Successful troll is successful.
Unless this person is serious, in which case I’m rather afraid.
Yeah, that was my point as well! ;)
I already “except” Jesus…just like I “except” Thor, Zeus, and Krishna.
Excuse me? In Genesis 1:1, the bible says “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was A VOID (meaning nothing)”
So it is the BIBLE that says we come from nothing (from the VOID). Wow, you really don’t know your bible, do you?
AS YOU INDICATED EARLIER, YOU NO LONGER WANT TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. I FEEL THE SAME WAY, BUT FOR THE RECORD~
That was a DIRECT response to your CLAIM that you are a teacher. Having read your comments on home schooling, I doubt this. You have made to many spelling, grammar, and logic errors to be any kind of DECENT teacher, and quite frankly, if someone as erroneous as you is teaching then there is NO WONDER as to why our schools are failing. PERIOD.
IF YOUR ABOVE COMMENT IS TRUE THEN THE BOARD OF EDUCATION MADE A HUGE MISTAKE BY APPOINTING OUR SCHOOL W/THE “RED APPLE AWARD” WHICH IS A VERY PRESTIGIOUS AWARD FOR A SCHOOL! Now ask yourself this ? AM I GOING TO TAKE YOUR OPINON OF MYSELF, A
“fundie” AS YOU CALL ME, OR AM I GOING TO GO WITH MY STUDENTS OPINON? THOSE SAME STUDENTS THAT I DILIGENTLY TEACH THREE TIMES A WEEK? WELL I CAN PROMISE YOU IT IS THE LATTER, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINON ANYWAY.
Having read your comments on home schooling,
YES I DO HOMESCHOOL BOTH OF MY CHILDREN (WHICH BOTH EXCEED MOST OF THIER NON-HOMESCHOOL PEERS BECAUSE ONE ON ONE TEACHING AND MANY OTHER REASONS) TAKE A LOOK @ YALE DAILY NEWS AND ALSO HARVARD TO SEE FOR YOURSELF ALL THE HOMESCHOOLED CHILDREN THEY EXCEPT! USE GOOGLE YOU WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM FINDING EITHER.
MY POINT FOR THE LAST TIME~WE HAVE TO OVERCOME OUR OWN FAILURES (WHICH WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCED) WITHOUT POINTING BLAME ELSEWHERE! WE ALL ARE DIFFERENT, THAT MEANS YOUR SIDE OR MY SIDE WILL NEVER SEE EYE TO EYE AND THAT IS TRUTH FOR ANY TOPIC. DO NOT EXPECT EVERYONE TO READ YOUR SUBJECT AND SAY “OH HE IS SO RIGHT” AS I WILL NEVER EXPECT THAT OUTCOME BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY, ARGUMENT, DISAGREEMENTS AND SO ON.
WHEN I FIRST READ THIS BLOG, I WAS THINKING WOW! HOW CAN SOMEONE PUT BLAME ELSEWHERE WHEN IT WAS HIS OWN ACTION? I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THIS THEORY AS I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND DARWIN’S. THE DEFINITION OF THEORY= 1.A SPECULATIVE PLAN. 2. A FORMULATION OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF CERTAIN OBSERVED PHENOMENA WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO SOME DEGREE. 3. A CONJECTURE GUESS. NOTICE HOW EVEN THE DICTIONARY STATES CLEARLY IT IS JUST A GUESS? ANYWAY, AT THE END OF THE DAY I WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST AND YOU WILL CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE. I JUST HOPE FOR YOU, YOUR
“THEORY” IS THE CORRECT ONE.
MANY BLESSINGS
“THE HOMESCHOOLED CHILDREN THEY EXCEPT”
Yes the DO EXCEPT (meaning DON’T TAKE) lots of homeschooled kids. The acceptance rate for homeschooled kids at these schools is much lower than the schooled group.
BTW it is shameful that you are a teacher and don’t know proper English.
There is a place word. Their is a possessive pronoun.
Accept means to take in. Except means to disinclude.
Duh.
“THE DEFINITION OF THEORY= 1.A SPECULATIVE PLAN. 2. A FORMULATION OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF CERTAIN OBSERVED PHENOMENA WHICH HAS BEEN VERIFIED TO SOME DEGREE. 3. A CONJECTURE GUESS.”
HELLO! definition #2!
The word THEORY in SCIENCE is a technical term. It means: an explanatory paradigm that is very well supported by evidence. GRAVITY is a THEORY. (Would you insist on teaching “Intelligent Falling”?)
The use of the words “some degree” are slightly misleading as scientific theories are verified to a high degree.
Go easy on her LRA — there are no standards for homeschool teachers,. ;)
YOUR VERSION~NOTHING
MY VERSION~GOD
yes, it is. I think I would prefer to talk to atheists with a higher intelligence and reasoning capacity. Or I could just talk to Grace who has no problem “talking sense” herself, albeit we both share a belief in the ridiculous notion that abuse does not stem from a book but hostile control-freaky males.
I am not only obeying Ephesians 5:25 but making my lead easier to follow.
You put this so well. I feel that many people on this site aren’t considering how an abusive relationship isn’t always what it appears to be…(a man making his wife so inferior she cannot make decisions herself), but also a man who makes his wife bear the whole burden herself without any help, or guidance? That’s not exactly an ideal situation in itself. In fact, the man that Daniel described…the one who is out of work and does not do his fair share, he sounds like that kind of man. On unable to lead.
And wouldn’t you say that a man who is wishy-washy, insecure and has difficulty leading might say, turn around and act overtly hostile and overbearing because he does not know how to lead appropriately?
Unfortunately I have loads of evidence to support this fact, even if I use a mere psychology textbook.
“The wife who “digs in” has the full assurance that her grievous situation is watched for by her God, and she can know that if the husband never repents, God will take care of the situation for her. “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” (Romans 12:19 ESV)”
This is the kind of dishonest and DANGEROUS crap that has led to men murdering their wives. Women, you DON’T have to put up with abuse. Not verbal, psychological, emotional, financial, or physical. I made that mistake myself – I was brainwashed – raised christian. That marriage is now behind me and I have found exciting, real love with a man who respects me as an equal. But you must do it!!!! God will NOT take care of if for you!!! If he did, why are there so many dead women? This is one problem with religion – it takes the onus off of us to do something about our lives. Praying will not accomplish anything. You have to believe that you are worth it, then ACT.
Your version= speculation.
My version= well supported scientific paradigms.
I have found this a very intelligent atheist community. Clearly, along with the above phony lies, you mean that only as attempting to insult, since it has no truth.
If it did, then you wouldn’t be here saying that you would rather not be here. (phony lie, anyone?)
Clearly, your definition of “intelligent” is “someone that agrees with me”.
That leaves you options:
Make your above lie true, and leave.
Try telling the real truth, not insults that are easy to see through. Try reason rather than assumptions.
Hijack this site with a bunch of fundies agreeing with each other. (This is what people mean by the term “cluster-fuck”.)
Or, just get on a fundie site where that is already happening.
Learn something from the (very interesting and intelligent) atheists posting here…. never mind, you won’t do that one.
Again, another irrational response that completely overlooks the previous thread.
“a higher intelligence and reasoning capacity.”
Not MY words, remember?
“ASSuming”
Again, not my words originally.
I understand what you mean about hijacking the site with fundie trolls agreeing with each other.
It’s rather annoying how groups tend to gang up on one another, instead of allowing people to post what they think and believe.
And it seems the fights keep getting bloodier!
“Any man who forces his wife to submit isn’t being a true Christian, because Christ does not force people to believe in him.”
Nah, Christ just uses the psychological torment of a hell to get people to believe in him. Nothing abusive about that at ALL.
Foundation; woman’s undergarment, underlying base or support
If
Then it sounds like God has his head up his ass. (Or you do.)
You have heard the truth, this is God’s love to you Rog…what are you gonna do with all this love, all this mercy straight from the throne?
He loves you Rog, He really does man.
Keith
Don’t you get it? All non-believers on this blog have a God, his name is Dan! So see they are no different than us. lol… “Oh thank you Dan for helping me see the light”. “Keep up the good work” “Before I stumbled upon this sight I truly never understood” Oh Please! And they say as believers we are wrong. Ha! what a joke.. At least we can say we are not stupid enough to follow some guy who just made a website.
God Wins!!!
“If men following their opinions works so well I have to wonder why so many relationships fail so badly.”
“I know that biblically-based relationships are the most pleasurable relationships because God says so (and He cannot lie). ”
If this is true, how do you explain the fact that US divorce rates for christians are higher than for athiests, and the highest diorce rates are for fundamentalist christians? Surely they must have the most “biblically based relationships.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.htm
….. Don’t you get it? All non-believers on this blog have a God, his name is Dan! …..
mark …. thats where you are wrong other than our lack of a belief in any kind of god, we are all different. some folks here are conservative, some liberal and some moderate. personally i consider myself a moderate having both conservative and liberal beliefs.
also unlike your god, dan dosent say that i am going to burn in hell because i dont believe in talking snakes. dan dosent intefer with my dietary habbits unlike your invisible sky daddy.
that is just a little bit of how we and dan are different from your sky daddy.
if you have a point to make about the post make it, dont insult resonable people because your all loving god has not provided you with enough ammo to convince us non believers of his existence.
Wow, you really are crazy.
But thanks for finally turning off the caps lock key. That’s progress, IMO.
But you are illiterate. Stupid and illiterate didn’t always go together, in the last century, before state-mandated education. Now, if you are illiterate, it’s probably because you’re stupid.
The convincer here is your irrational, incoherent, unsupported rambling.
If he made you, I think he lost a round.
No, just some imaginary god for whom you can show exactly no evidence.
Oh you are very welcome! I JUST FORGOT TO TURN THEM BACK ON! DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE SOMEONE CAN “YELL” AT YOU ON A PC. THEY ARE JUST TYPED WORDS..SENSITIVE ARE WE? I’m just kidding I’ll keep them off just for you Dan..
This is a very good ? Freedom Noble:
“Therefore, watching this happen, and then blogging about it to prove your own beliefs, (Which you even say COULD be wrong. for- (as you say) “You’ve been wrong before”) You have then also just helped injustice to continue did you not? WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO TEACH, and what? ”
Yes Dan, who are you trying to teach? Like it or not though I know you hate it. I do teach and worked very hard for my credentials. What right do you have to teach?
Oh By the way, for all your and LRA’s insulting comments, I teach classes in Early Broadcasting and I excel at what I do! Why don’t you both stick to the blogs topic instead of trying to insult? Oh by the way LRA you spelled words incorectly, go look in all of your entrys, you will find it..But I tried sticking to what I felt about the topic instead of constantly replying to “words”
Have a nice day! ;)
Very well said Jeff! You got right to the point! How silly to believe “Christian Marriage” is the only sect that is failing! If this guy is this bad it has Nothing to do w/being a believer or Gods word, He is the one that is making his OWN decision to treat his wife this way…. Gosh it’s not the point if you are a believer or a athiest, you should not make excuses for your wrong behavior. Period!!! No Matter your belief! This blog topic is so far from the truth!
How Beautiful! Exactly the way my husband treats and respects me, as a believer or a non believer should treat each other…
What a bunch of bull crap. *MY* husband does not get the “final decision” on anything. Ours is, of course, a happy, equal, RELIGION FREE marriage of almost 10 years.
“If this guy is this bad it has Nothing to do w/being a believer or Gods word …”
Whereas if he was doing good then you’d be quick to claim that he was following god’s path.
They may not be your words, but you slung them with intent to insult. Since they are so far from the truth, I call out your “loving Christian” hostile intent. You are also very passive-aggressive, saying you overlook something while in the very process of not overlooking it, sling back words capriciously, etc..
I did honesty consider my words to be true about you, but your slinging them back like a parrot or first-grader doesn’t ring true.
Atheists can’t hijack the site; it IS an atheist site.
This is here for people to post what they believe, but what I say still stands, about your diversions and your ignoring the FACT that there are bad, crappy, lousy, unhappy marriages of Christians acting on Christian beliefs.
All your diversions, distractions, non sequiturs, beliefs to the contrary, and irrelevant details do nothing to disprove or negate that.
Thanks. On the internet, writing in all-caps is considered yelling. That’s the way it’s been for many, many years.
Daniel- You’re a GOD! Ha! Hahaaahaa! YOU ARE A GOD!!!
;)
Haha, seriously — where is Jesus’ blog? Oh, right, he doesn’t exist.
First off, John, you may refer to me as Roger. Not Rog, not Roger Dodger, not Roger Rabbit. Unless you’d like me to refer to you as Johnny Imbecile–in that case, we’re square.
Now that that’s handled, as we’ve bandied about with you on every other thread you post in, you need to rise above your woobabble and demonstrate the existence of the entity about which you endlessly carp. Otherwise, you can keep your pedantic psuedospiritual woobabbling to yourself.
John C & Roger – I was married for years to an abusive man. Jealous, unpredictable, violent. “Love me or else”. Fortunately, I got out of that situation before something really terrible happened. But that is NOTHING compared to how good I feel having escaped christianity (with a god who is jealous, unpredictable, violent, “love me or else”). That is not a god worth worshipping. John C, I “pray” that one day you will see the truth.
Not at all! Did you miss the part of my reply that stated-
“Gosh it’s not the point if you are a believer or a athiest, you should not make excuses for your wrong behavior. Period!!! No Matter your belief!”
@Janet
I echo your statements. And kudos to Melissa for walking into the lion’s den, so to speak.
But I’ll add this: Christians – all theists, for that matter – never have a problem stating, in grand, sprawling fashion, what they believe.
The trick is getting them to explain why they believe it.
yes me too because deep down i knew all i had was a dusty old book written by desert pesants who didnt even know Canada existed. Its hard to admit your faith is really just hearsay and wouldn’t stand up in court for a minute. Plus you’ve all that ‘personal experience’ of the lord – which is basically self hypnosis and repeated in every religion – hundreds of them all with True Believers.
Point is you won’t convince a christian with arguments because faith isn’t rational it’s emotional and fear of leaving your support group is a huge problem. But when you do, you get a mental freedom that i wouldn’t exchange for anything in the world.
peace and goodnight! love from the happy ex-believer!
remember kids, God is NOT male. That underpins everything.
That is beautiful in theory. In fact, every religion (and their holy books) appear to hate women. Far more than I even knew in my christian days. We get so used to it as christians that we don’t notice how hateful the rhetoric against women really is. Here’s an example of what I mean:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
It took me years to see that with a foundation like this, there is no such thing as a healthy marriage – with openness, equality, mutuality, humor, free sexuality, and companionship. The problem is not necessarily with the CHRISTIAN’S INTERPRETATIONS of the bible – it’s with the bible itself. I suffered many years under biblical teachings – spinning and spinning to make the bible seem like it was not saying the things it really said! Always making excuses why god commanded the murder of tribes and all kinds of other evil deeds…now I am free and do not have to do that.
APL, if you knew your history you would realize that prior to the OT, people were generally pagan and worshipped the goddess. Society was far less warrior-like; it was about partnership rather than power. About 5000 years ago, patriarchs came to destroy teh sacred feminine. They literally destroyed the statues and other objects of worship; and they also needed to destroy women themselves (couldn’t have women thinking that they had any power). So, to stamp out female power, they created a male god; wrote a mysogenist “holy” book; made Eve secondary to Adam in every way. The bible is a book about hate for women. Look at all the times God commands men to rape virgins; or the times where God says that a girl is worth half the amount as a boy; and it goes on and on. Before you say that christianity means healthy male-female relationships, you need to read your holy book. It took reading the bible for me to turn from being a christian (all my life) to agnostic, to atheist. Check out this site if you don’t believe me – here are some examples where the bible puts down women.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
Andy, I agree 100% with you. If the Bible was truly a holy and perfect book, it would inspire peace, not division; kindness, not cruelty; and it would CERTAINLY be consistent and clear with its message. Even protestant christians cannot agree on what entitles a person to salvation. Faith? Belief? Works? Repentence? Some combo of the above? Well, it depends on where you look. So nobody ends up certain of their salvation. It’s a ridiculous thing, when you think of it – the only book (according to christians) that will save us from eternal damnation and there are hundreds of interpretations of this bible! Check out this article “Christian, are you sure you’re going to heaven?”
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzyquark/sure_going_heaven
Roger, that sounds like a fairly fair trade. You can also call him “Dishonest John-john”. I challenged him to read C.S. Lewis, and he said he was “familiar with” Lewis. Notice he didn’t say he had READ Lewis. I am “familiar” with “War and Peace”, but I haven’t read it. So the lie is easy to see through.
I think that kind of dishonesty and evasion won’t win souls, – it WILL repulse them.
And butterfly scar apologizes for Christians, for the bible writing, and like Christians dealing with evolution (or other facts), finds every way to avoid, excuse, distract from, come up with some exception to, throw about her own interpratation of, “yes-but” and do EVERYTHING EXCEPT admit the FACT that there are bad CHRISTIAN marriages based on people acting out of their CHRISTIAN beliefs about marriage.
Which was the original assertion in Daniel’s original blog.
Christians and facts don’t get along together.
Janet,
I have never been in an abusive marriage, unless you count being a child around a previous generation’s. Not a Christian one, thank God! But I have empathy. (A quality I am still dismayed and depressed at finding out in these blogs some Christians are completely devoid of.)
(And the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and fourth generations.)
But prejudice (prejudging) is indeed so woven into the language you can’t even hear it any more.
Author Bella DePaulo pointed out a study by E. Mavis Hetherington on single, divorced/widowd, and never-married women. She called the remarried women “enhancers” and the single women “competent loners”. Her own bigotry shows: why didn’t she call single women “enhancers” and remarried women “competent breeders”?
More bigotry: people don’t even call sexism “bigotry”.
My own thought: Christians and their belief-writings, worse than anyone, don’t even acknowledge bigotry against women. (Not even counting from the insulting creation myth.) It’s “just the way things are made”.
But the bad Christian marriages are Christians acting out of their CHRISTIAN beliefs.
You keep dodging (excusing, finding exceptions to, reinterpreting, “yes-butting”, avoiding) that FACT.
Tom, check out this list of verses:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html
The point is, Tom, that it is not FALSE teachings that are dangerous. This is not just the teachings of fringe/crazy religious groups. This is mainstream christianity. This comes right from the HOLY BIBLE.
Grass – The point is that abusive christian men are not hypocrites. They are following the tenets of the bible. If the “church” are people, and God and Jesus are the same, look at how God treats the church in the OT! Cruelty and violence. We would never tolerate this kind of abuse from an individual or a government – we have evolved as people (at least in some parts of the world) far beyond the barbarity of the bible. I can understand that the church can be great community for christians – that is one thing that I wish I had. But I am starting to develop “fellowship” with fellow atheists that is far more intimate and satisfying than any relatinoship I had with the church (which I found to be respressive and judgmental).
Mark 10:29-30
Luke 2:23
Luke 5:11
Luke 14:26
John 20:17
Jesus’ attitude towards women does not seem to be one characterised by “respect”.
Presumably the point of the parable in Matthew 25 is that the bridegroom is acting wickedly in taking 10 wives. But doesn’t the bridegroom represent Jesus himself? Is Jesus saying that he himself is immoral? that doesn’t make sense, does it?
Also, I can’t find anywhere where Jesus says anything about marriage being between one man and one woman. Can you provide a reference, please? Thanks.
Grass – Actually, in the OT God COMMANDS murder, rape, killing of babies. This is not just commentary on man’s actions. Are you saying that this is ok? Or are you saying it was bad, but Jesus came to change all that? I thought Jesus and God were one person? And that Jesus came to fulfill the law?
**Matthew 19:1ff.
Mark 10 has nothing to do with dignity of women. Jesus is making a statement that those who have given up significant time and relationships to follow him will not lose out. The Luke 14 passage includes the whole family (yes, even daddy), but has nothing to do with dignity – he uses hyberbole (see sermon on the mount, et al) to demonstrate that there can be no rivals in following him. Of course Jesus doesn’t want you to hate your family literally. If you take a general NT survey or even the higher critical approach to the NT, you’ll find that even liberal NT scholars do not take up serious issue with these passages as being anti-women.
And your interpretation of Matt 25 is interesting, but wacky (in a nice way) – the point has nothing to do with Jesus taking 10 wives (you’re reading into it – isogesis). Even liberal John dom Crossan, NT scholar, says this passage is about Christ’s return and being ready for it. Be careful, or you’ll begin down the Jim Jones/david Koresh path of interpretation. : )
Hell, punishment (forever!), hatred, creation of people who ‘didn’t measure up’ to the creator’s standards (and whose fault is that?), cruelty, capriciousness, an authoritarian that is punitive:
a concept people created, and
a good concept to ignore!
Matthew 19 does not say that a man should only have one wife. It uses the singular form, yes. But it only talks about the circumstances in which a marriage can be ended, not the circumstances in which one should be enacted.
Mark 10 and Luke 14 both promise great rewards for people who deliberately break up their family, leaving wives and children without a source of income. You can argue that this was intended as a sort of safety net, in case anyone was stupid enough to take him at his word, but if he hadn’t said it, no such safety net would be needed.
It always surprises me when people are so sure that Jesus didn’t mean what his plain words say. Didn’t he know that making such incendiary remarks would cause problems later on? Why would he explicitly and deliberately cause such suffering if it’s not what he intended? Why not a footnote saying “don’t actually do this”? Why does Jesus repeatedly tell his followers to leave their family if they want to follow him if he doesn’t really mean it? Why does he not berate Simon, James and John when they follow his advice in Luke 5:11? In Luke 18:29-30, he praises them and promises them rewards for abandoning their families.
Yes, I know that’s not the point of the story. But the nature of a parable is analogy. The outer story is an analogy for the truth. In this case, a man taking 10 wives is an analogy for Jesus’ leadership of the church. If the analogy is to hold, there must be an equivalence between them. As this is happening on the moral level, there must be a moral equivalence. If the inner story is that the bridegroom is all good, and that he should marry as many of the virgins as meet his arbitrary deadline, then the same must be true in the outer story, too. Otherwise the analogy fails and the parable tells us nothing.
I second wintermute.
And the initial blog was facts about what christians are doing, based on their Christian beliefs, based on how they interpret the bible.
Be the self-styled expert on what you imagine you personally know jesus meant; excuse, distract, avoid, divert, explain and interpret away: christians are in unhappy marriages, based on what they believe jesus said.
This is such idiotic rambling I can’t tell the sarcasm from the sincere.
I’d ask what’s your point, but since I don’t expect any coherent, reasoned thought from you, I am not interested in reading replies in the form of further irrational rants.
It sounds like a simpleton’s moronic, baseless, fact-free assumption that being atheist means being without ethics. Read some of the recent blogs to see atheists saying that they couldn’t treat people, animals, or other life cruelly, and christians saying that if there were no god, they would steal, rape and kill.
Makeup – I disagree with you. As an atheist, I definitely have morals. I think we are evolved with morals because this brings out the best in individuals and socieities – sort of like a natural selection (ie – only the people who know how to care for others/get along will pass along their genes to the next generation). We don’t need to get a moral code from teh bible, or god, or jesus, or Apollo. It is instinctive, I think, in each person unless something blocks it. My moral code, for example, would be love, honesty, integrity, cooperation, humility, sharing, empathy, and so on (not to say I’m perfect – far from it – but I see these as the ideal way to function as individual and society). Now that I am no longer christian, my morals come from a very deep place inside of me rather than externally (guilt, the bible, other christians, etc.)
@Makeup [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]:
You are mentally unclear about your purpose here. (I mean your intended purpose, not the actuality of you accomplishing nothing but spewing your hostility and hate.)
If you think you intend to “win souls”, you are repulsing them, and setting a typical example of Christianity. (I can’t say you’re setting the worst example, because your spewed hate is similar to so many Christians posting here.)
@Makeup [a lying theist bastard impersonating an atheist]:
Your powerful oratory, consummate delivery, and compelling message are turning the tide of human spirit. You have accomplished what you came here to accomplish… you have won a soul for Christ…
your hatred has worked its magic… I’m converting to Christianity… this hate-filled Christian must be a shining beacon of the Lord Jesus Christ’s pure hate… the irrational, incoherent invective has won over a soul at last…
the spewed vitriol is so persuasive… I’m shaking all over with the power of the spirit (or is it repressed laughter?)… I’m becoming a Christian…
I think that you are confusing ethics, morals and religion. Both ethics and morals can develop without religious input, although religion does tend to play a part if the society that is developing has a strong religious beliefs.
Morals = These are the “Golden Rules” that all societies tend to form as they develop. These tend to fall under “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”. Do you want your family murdered? No, so you don’t murder others. Do you want your daughter raped? No, so you don’t do that as well. If you do not have these rules then society can not function.
Ethics = Societies rules. “Women should wear skirts”, “Children need to go to school”, “Don’t Speed in your Car”, “Monogamy”, “Gay Marriage is wrong” these are all society rules that evolve with that society, they are not set in stone and if you move from one society to another you can see major differences in these rules. So for example when someone says that “Allowing gay marriage is damaging to our society” they are correct, because it will change the ethics code that our society is based on. But those ethics codes do change over time so it is hard to say if that kind of change is good or bad.
But you see Ethics can effect Morals because Ethics gets to decide who is equal to others. When one culture sets its self up as superior to another it can decide that morals do not need to apply to those beneath them. When the Hebrew’s ethics set them up as superior to those around them, it was alright to rape and kill them because they were lesser beings after God had chosen the Hebrews as “His People”. In the Middle Ages of Europe the Catholic Church set its self up as superior to all other religions, so if you were deemed a “Heretic” you were inferior and it was okay to torture you to try and bring you back to the fold. Blacks in America were considered an “Inferior” race so it was okay to keep them as slaves and then later force segregation on them.
Most religions (and those that are non-religious) have formed a core of morals that are very similar, the difference comes in the ethics that they use to apply those morals. The devil is in the details. :-D
If Jesus is the bridegroom, then, yes, he will have millions of “wives” and I’m one of them, and I am a man : ) Study up on NT hermenutics for interpretation 101 – even Dr. Bart Ehrman and John Domiic Crossan _way left and liberal NT scholars would say that your interpretation and thoughts neglect the type of literary usage and dynamics of the NT writings (similar to other non-biblical writings of the day).
So, why bother with the outer story at all, if you don’t think it in any way reflects on the inner story? How can we possibly draw any conclusion whatsoever on what the story is suppose to mean, if we don’t treat it as an analogy (as all parables generally are, from 1st century Palestine, or 20th Century China)?
So, it’s impossible for anyone who has sinned to go to heaven? And, as I understand it, most Christians believe that everyone has sinned, right?
So, why should I bother worrying about God’s judgement when it’s impossible for me to receive salvation?
Atheism doesn’t = chaos, but an atheist can have the “option” of having morals or not. There really isn’t such. It’s whatever you make it to be…and it’s based on whether or not you want to go to prison : )
Actually, it’s absurd to have any laws.
I have not disrespected you, but I see that I am an idiot. My point is fairly clear: if I want to do something, and my conscience is cool with it, then I can do it. If it’s feed a homeless person, so be it. If it’s kill my neighbor, so be it. I am not bound to any morals. I can have a moral/ethic system if i want, and I do (when I feel like it). I’m just saying that there is not an absolute right or wrong. I thought other atheists would agree, but perhaps not.
You have shown no respect, just verbal attacks in the form of incoherent, irrational rambling.
No, you can’t see it. You were being sarcastic, when actually this part is true. You are blind to how much of an idiot you are. There is much intelligent discussion on this site, and you add nothing constructive to it.
The rest of your post is, yet again, incoherent nonsense.
This has been fairly typical of Christian posts.
I recall a story about people in Siberia thousands of years ago who would drink blood from the skulls of those they killed. That’s kind of magical.
Back atcha, Milk. Read a science book and take your own advice.
Rachel,
That’s just the problem with xian doctrine. To teach that Mother Teresa and Hitler are both equally sinners deserving of equal damnation and salvation is abhorrant and wrong because it removes personal responsibility for ones own actions and instead makes on responsible for the death of a man 2000+ years ago. Tell me, is is FAIR that I am judged a sinner because of something the very first man and woman did? Is it FAIR that I must accept the substitutionary atonement of Christ, a death that I didn’t ask for and never would?
YOUR GOD CREATED THESE RULES. If he truly loved humanity then NO ONE would go to hell, no matter what they’d done or what prayer they said before they died.
These doctrines are EVIL. They are the acts of an insane dictator, not a loving God.
Let me put it this way. I have an 11 year old daughter. And, like most tweens, eventually she’s going to get mad at me and tell me that she hates me. She might even really believe that she does. Does that give me the right to put the oven on broil and stick her inside?
Of course not! I love her. Not only would it be morally reprehensible for me to punish her in such a severe way for such a slight crime. It would mean that I didn’t truly love her because I could cause such horrible suffering.
THAT is what your God does. He waits for a human to kick off, either inadvertently making a mistake or willfully sinning, and then, if they don’t say the right prayer, into the fire they go. He is responsible for this. He created hell. He created the rules that send people there. If he really didn’t want people to go to hell, they wouldn’t.
I see that reading skills are not your strong suit. Caroline did not compare Hitler and Rachel. She made a point that, under Rachel’s understanding of xian doctrine, 1. that Hilter would go to heaven when he died if he said the right prayer before he died and 2. that Rachel and Hitler would be on equal footing as far as God was concerned–equally believers.
But nowhere did Caroline call Rachel Hitler-like or imply that Rachel was an insane German dictator. I seriously think you need to brush up your reading comp skills….
As far as what possible difference it could make–to an atheist, none. We don’t believe that an afterlife exists. But Caroline is using this analogy to POINT OUT THE ILLOGIC IN RACHEL’S ARGUMENT, a rhetorical strategy that should not escape any competent reader.
What you’re asking is rather like someone asking, “Why should you care who wins the Republican primary? You’re a Democrat.” Just because one doesn’t believe in the party doesn’t mean that one isn’t interested in the debate or its outcome. Particularly in the US, where that debate (both political and religious) affects ALL our lives.
A Kyle
Agreed, no man can be a true man and be abusive.
I may have it wrong, but looking at Scripture, I don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion.
The Bible is such that very seldom can you look at isolated verses and draw correct conclusions or lifestyles from it. You have to read passages in context, from a macro perspective of the book and the story.
Some of the greatest crimes in history have been made with Scripture to back them up. Scripture that was taken out of context and made to fit someone’s own personal agenda.
Is it a problem with the book? I don’t think so. It’s a problem with me. Or with us, more accurately.
For example.
If the only verse you look at is Eph 5:24, “wives should submit to their husbands in everything,” you’re going to come off with an incredibly warped, incorrect, and incomplete view of how a husband should treat his wife.
Now let’s take that whole passage in context:
**
Ephesians 5 (some parts excluded)
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God…
For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord…
Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
**
A couple more passages to complete this picture:
**
1 Corinthians 14:4-7
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
**
**
John 13:1-17
It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.
The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him…
When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
**
Okay. Now I’m sure you didn’t want the Bible lesson, but I included those scriptures and wrote all that out because I want you to see that Scripture must be taken as a whole in order to get a correct understanding of what it is saying. I’m not saying that I have the most correct understanding, but I will say that when I look at these passages, I can come to no other conclusion than this:
Christ is servant-minded; Love is servant-minded – if Husbands are told to love like Christ loved, then I am called to be a servant to my wife. And if my wife is called to submit to her husband as to the Lord, then that is a place of incredible freedom and blessing for her, for she is submitted to a man whose highest priority is to serve her and place her needs before his own. Therefore, it’s not domination. It’s exactly the opposite. It is freedom. It’s love like it was created to be.
@jasonsubers
The overlying and fundamental problem with the Bible is that it is dated. It is an unavoidable fact.
Just taking into account the NT: It has multiple authors, writing about events that happened decades earlier, and spent the better part of fifteen centuries being translated, edited and changed by men whose opinions and ambitions and understanding of the world were defined by their times.
If we were teaching seventh-grade geography from a textbook written under such circumstances, parents would be in an uproar.
A book written about a god or his son that is meant to guide morality and the spiritual uplifting of a population… such a book should meet with unimaginable and unyielding scrutiny.
Moreover, if the book is as divinely inspired as many Christians believe, it should transcend the literal ambiguities and moral inconsistencies that plague our human history. It doesn’t.
The washing of disciple’s feet is an example of their Lord telling them not to Lord over each after after He died. The did not wash their feet every day to serve them to serve them.
As you say, the husband is the head of his family, not a servant to his wife, but loving her and his wife submit to him under that banner of his love to her, him leading the family.
You need to study more about your Jesus servanthood in your interpretation.
I am not a christian and my reply remains purely for debate and discussion.
So ALL of these passages (hundreds of them) have “context” that renders them fair and respectful to women? I think not. Yes, there are a few verses that balance out the extreme hatred of women in the other parts of the bible. Now, if I were God, and I was writing a “perfect book” that was supposed to guide very, very IMPERFECT humans, SUBJECT to misinterpreting text according to their own biases, don’t you think God would have made the text very very clear- not vague or subject to MASSIVE interpretation (I actually don’t think it was misinterpreted – my view is that most of the bible is very disrespectful and hateful to women). It would be so easy to write such a book.
1. Husbands and wives, love and respect each other (and DON’T include ANYTHING about it being good when women are raped, or that virgins are men’s for the taking, or that men are worth more money than women, or…on and on – just don’t include this stuff knowing that “mankind” will take it literally) and maybe mention that women are equally as valuable as men and are worthy of writing contracts, voting, etc.
2. Don’t have slaves! You wouldn’t like to be owned, so have some human consideration and empathy (Instead of all the verses in the bible where God condones slavery).
3. Don’t abuse children!!!!
4. Don’t fight holy wars! Love is more important than being right! (instead, God repeatedly instructs people to commit genocide – I could give you hundreds of verses on that too)
etc. I don’t want to go on too long, but you get the idea. It’s interesting how all the atrocities in the bible are always “taken out of context”.
The washing of disciple’s feet is an example of their Lord telling them not to Lord over each after after He died. He did not wash their feet every day to serve them.
As you say, the husband is the head of his family, not a servant to his wife, but loving her and his wife submit to him under that banner of his love to her, him leading the family.
You need to study more about your Jesus servanthood in your interpretation.
I am not a christian and my reply remains purely for debate and discussion.
“Now about having women at home cooking cleaning and doing all the work…does that sound like love to you?..not to me! and certainly not to God!”
What is wrong with that? I am a better cook on some dishes than my wife, she still insist that I teach her how to cook those dishes. She loves to see me enjoying her cooking.
Many unreasonable arguments.
… and the reason you think that your ‘version’ of the Bible is correct is?
There is nothing wrong with a man cooking also and that was not his point who should or should not cook.
Please say what unreasonable about the argument and say… that’s an open ended statement that have no place in a discussion.
In fact it sounds like you are agreeing with the BIbleluv.
A double minded person are you or not. Make your points be clear.
I think the Bluv was saying that people are using there own interpretations of the WORD to mess up their relationships and then blaming Christianity. That’s why Bible Study is important and searching out a good church with a pastor that teaches the Word of God and is trust worthy, is recommended. I don’t trust all pastors and church assemblies however, I do trust the one I attend. There are a whole lot of garbage being taught in the name of Christ. I’ve heard some and spoke about it with my friends and family. Yes, it hurts the body of Christians but which of you have a body which has not been afflicted at one time or another? We still live in a sinful world. Christians are called saints in the bible but, not in the mother Theresa, catholic sense, that is heresy and apostasy. The sense the bible refers to is in the adopted sense, we are adopted into the family of God when we believe in Jesus Christ (not God), although they are the same – you’ll never see salvation in the belief of God. The devil also believes in God but he’s condemned for life and he trembles because he knows his time is short.
1 John 2:18-19 (KJV)
18Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
Yes, I do believe my version of the bible is right, so no one please don’t do not ask that question, A: Yes
However, the bible warns about that too. It warns that people will change stuff in the bible and they will be severely punished, that’s why it’s important to have a good pastor that studied Greek/Hebrew also and knows how to teach with it and clarify things. He/She does not need to be a Hebrew/Greek speaker however because there are tools like “logos” that can help with that. The bible is written in simple language but, it is not always easy to equate it to our modern understanding of things. Also one should always pray to God for understanding of the scripture and validate every scripture and references given to you by a pastor – they are fallible also. We are commanded to put our trust in God, not man. A pastor is there to guide with the Word of God.
Regards
Godserv
This should be my actual ID but because I link to here from my wordpress blog admin, it shows loswl, so anywhere you see loswl it should be Godserv speaking.
By agreeing with me about “cooking” is reasonable has nothing to do with unresonable “antichrist” so as to speak.
Are you “frog jumping” somehow?
No, I’m just carefully hopping around the subject as in an informal dance. I’m just giving my perspective on the subject, not trying to convert you from your ideas. I didn’t learn anything from you, however, I did learn from this blog, and the host is kind and fair, that’s why I’m still here.
Thanks for trying anywoes.
Godserv / loswl
PS for blog admin – I will not be using loswl anymore for posting. I found a work around for the clich with offline worpress logins through blog WP admins
Where did you get that from Darkmatter? The universal nature of humanities love also comes from God. So we do not expect non- believers to be sinners in every step they take. It’s not biblical. I don’t expect humanity to be perfect in their ways either, also not biblical. The same goes for christians. Christians will be made perfect at the return of Christ. They will be given a new body. If anyone, christian or non-christian says they have no sin they are a liar and the truth is not in them. Jesus says I am the way the truth and the life no man com to the Father but through me. I can’t give you a verse for the universal love nature thing now but if I find it I will shoot a reply – hopefully that will help to debunk some of the junk.
Christian are told to give to ceasar what is ceasar’s but if the government lay down a law, perfect example, get a mark on your forehead or right arm (Mark of the Beast) the bible tells you should not follow such a command. Obeying government is not always good for the Christian, especially in some countries where they are forced to give away secret location of churches, and if they do , those church will be burn and the people will be murdered in the most cruel way possible Just for following Christ. Its’ and harsh world, we need to wake up and realize it is not perfect and it will never be perfect or peaceful until Jesus returns. Which I think is sooner than later. The world earth is going through labor pains as we speak and these labour pains are happening in more rapid successions. Just watch the news and watch out for the New World Order that your government are working on to place all of us under. It coming make no doubt about it and the bible teaches it – just watch the news. I could give you articles on the internet to read up about these thing but, yah!
The bible is very, very mysogenist. My father, who is a paster but not a sexist, has been trying to spin the plain words of the bible all his life so it doesn’t sound so bad. If the bible is the holy book of god, you should not need a degree in anthropology to understand it (”context”). It should be understandable by its words (as we say in law, “within the four walls of the text”). So, that said, we all know that Paul did not believe that women should be in a position of power over men. We also know that there are many such verses in the bible:
(sorry, I know this is really long, but defending the bible this ways really, really bothers me:)
Genesis
God fashions a woman out of one of Adam’s ribs. This was necessary since Adam couldn’t find a “help meet” in any of the animals that God made for him. 2:20-22
Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the serpent. 3:12-13
God punishes Eve, and all women after her, with the pains of childbirth and subjection to men. 3:16
Adam is also punished, although less severely. He now will have to work for a living because he “hearkened unto the voice” of his wife. 3:17
Lamech is the first of a long line of biblical men with more than one wife. It seems that God approves of such marriages. 4:19, 23
Finally, sometime in the next 800 years, Adam begat some daughters. These nameless ones are the first (and nearly the last) girls to be born in the Bible. 5:4
“The male and his female …” Notice that in the Bible female animals are the property of male animals, as women are the property of men. 7:2
Abram makes his wife lie for him, by telling the Egyptians that she is his sister. But at least it was half-true, since she was his half-sister. Such incestuous marriages are condemned elsewhere in the Bible, but god makes an exception for Abram and Sarai. (See Gen.17:15-16 where God blesses their marriage.) 12:13
Sarai is the first of a long line of barren women who were desperate for children. (In the Bible, it is the women who are barren, never the men.) She sends Abram into her handmaid, Hagar, so that she can “obtain children by her.” Abram gladly complies. 16:1-4
Sarah, who is about 90 years old and has gone through menopause, laughs at God when he tells her that she will have a son. She asks God if she will “have pleasure” with her “Lord” [Abraham], when both are so very old. God assures her that he will return and impregnate her at the appointed time. 18:11-14
Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two “virgin daughters” instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to “do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes.” This is the same man that is called “just” and “righteous” in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8
Lot’s nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26
Lot and his daughters camp out in a cave for a while. The daughters get their “just and righteous” father drunk, and have sexual intercourse with him, and each conceives and bears a son (wouldn’t you know it!). 19:30-38
Honest Abe does the same “she’s my sister” routine again, for the same cowardly reason. And once again, the king just couldn’t resist Sarah — even though by now she is over 90 years old. (See Gen.12:13-20 for the first, nearly identical, episode.) 20:2
God gets angry with king Abimelech, though the king hasn’t even touched Sarah. He says to the king, “Behold, thou art but a dead man,” and threatens to kill him and all of his people. To compensate for the crime he never committed, Abimelech gives Abraham sheep, oxen, slaves, silver, and land. Finally, after Abraham “prayed unto God,” God lifts his punishment to Abimelech, “for the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah.” 20:3-18
God “closed all the wombs” because Abimelech believed Abe’s lie. 20:18
“And the damsel was fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her.” (Oh boy!) 24:16
Abraham had several concubines. 25:6
“She was barren.”
In the Bible it’s always the woman that are “barren”, never the men. And when God “opens their womb,” the resulting babies are always little boys. 25:21-26
Isaac uses the same “she’s my sister” lie that his father used so effectively (see Gen.12:13, 20:2). 26:7
Esau “takes” two wives. 26:34
Esau, who already had two wives (26:34), “takes” another. 28:9
Jacob offers to work for seven years to pay for Rachel. As it turns out, he is tricked into having sex with her sister, Leah, instead, so he has to work for another seven years so in order to pay for them both. 29:18-30
Jacob is tricked by Laban, the father of Rachel and Leah. Jacob asks for Rachel so that he can “go in unto her.” But Laban gives him Leah instead, and Jacob “went in unto her [Leah]” by mistake. Jacob was fooled until morning — apparently he didn’t know who he was going in unto. Finally they worked things out and Jacob got to “go in unto” Rachel, too. 29:21-30
As part of the deal with Jacob, Zilpah and Bilhah (Laban’s slaves) are handed over to Leah and Rachel. 29:24, 29
Laban gives Rachel and Bilhah to Jacob. 29:28
Since Jacob hated Leah, God decided to “open her womb” and make Rachel barren. (Like he did to Sarah and Rebekah.) 29:31
Leah conceives and bears four sons. And it’s a good thing, too, since her husband hated her until then for not giving him any sons. 29:32-34
Give me children or else I die.” Rachel considers herself worthless if she cannot produce children for her husband. 30:1
But luckily she has an idea. She says to Jacob, “Behold my maid Bilhah, go in unto her.” She solved the problem the same way as did Sarah (16:2). 30:3
Leah, not to be outdone, gives Jacob her maid (Zilpah) “to wife.” And Zilpah “bare Jacob a son.” 30:9
Leah thinks her husband will honor her now that she has given him six sons. 30:20
And finally, “God remembered Rachel … and opened her womb. And she conceived and bare a son [surprise, surprise].” 30:22
“Then Jacob … set his … wives upon camels.” Jacob had four wives (or two wives and two concubines — this distinction is not clear in the Bible): Rachel, Leah, Billah, and Zilpah. There is no indication that God disapproves of this arrangement. 31:17
Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy. 32:22
Laban, Rachel’s father, is hunting for the “images” that Rachel had stolen from him. Rachel sits on the “images” and says to her father, “Let it not displease my lord that I cannot rise up before thee: for the custom of women is upon me.” She knows that no man will come near her when she is menstruating. 31:34-35
Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy. 32:22
What did Dinah want? Did she love Shechem? Did she want to marry him? Or did she want him killed? We’ll ever know since it was of no interest to the biblical author. 34:1-31
Dinah’s brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say: “Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?” To the author of Genesis, rape is a crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman. 34:31
Rachel dies in childbirth; but at least she had another son. And in the Bible, a woman is expected to die happily as long as she has a son. 35:17-18
“Reuben went and lay with his father’s concubine.” 35:22, 49:4
Esau (Isaac’s son) had several wives (continuing the tradition of polygamy, with no editorial comment from the Bible). 36:2, 6
“And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite … and he took her, and went in unto her. And she conceived, and bare a son; and she called his name Er. And she conceived again [I guess Judah must have went in unto her again] and bare a son; and she called hi name Onan.” (It seems that the probability of having a biblical daughter is considerably less than 50%.) 38:2-4
After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she “played the harlot” and “is with child by whoredom.” When Judah hears this, he says, “Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.” 38:24
Exodus
To commemorate the divine massacre of the Egyptian children, Moses instructs the Israelites to “sacrifice to the Lord all that openeth the matrix” — all the males, that is. God has no use for dead, burnt female bodies. 13:2, 13:12-15
Moses, like a coach giving instructions to the team before the big game, tells the men to “come not at your wives” before he goes up to Mt. Sinai. 19:15
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, … nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.” In the Bible, women are the property of men; they are his possessions — like an ox or an ass. 20:17
God explains how to go about selling your daughter — and what to do if she fails to please her new master. 21:7
God’s instructions for taking a second wife. 21:10
If you “entice” an “unmarried maid” to “lie” with you, then you must marry her, unless the father refuses to give her to you, in which case you must pay him the going price for virgins. 22:16
“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18
Three times a year God wants to see all of the males. The females he never wants to see. 23:17
“Their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods.” God always blames the women; it is they who “go a whoring” and then “make” the men “go a whoring.” 34:16
“Thrice in the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord.” But what about the “women children”? Don’t they ever get to appear before the Lord? 34:23
Leviticus
Only unblemished males are to be killed and offered to God. Females don’t even make good burnt offerings. 1:3, 10
When a king sins only the best sacrifice will do — he must offer a male goat to God. But if a commoner sins, a female will do. 4:22-28
Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys. 12:1-5
After a woman gives birth, a priest must kill a lamb, pigeon, or dove as a sin offering. This is because having children is sinful and God likes it when things are killed for him. 12:6-8
God lays down the law on menstruating women. Such women are to God both filthy and sinful, and anyone who comes near them is contaminated by them. 15:19-30, 33
A man who has sex with a menstruating woman “shall be unclean seven days.” 15:24
“Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is apart for her uncleanness,” Don’t even look at a menstruating woman. 18:19
If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don’t punish the man. (Even if he raped her?) 19:20-22
If a man has sex with his father’s wife, kill them both. 20:11
If a man has sex with his daughter in law, kill them both. 20:12
If a man has sex with his wife and her mother (now that sounds like fun!), burn to death all three. 20:14
If a woman “lies with a beast” both the woman and the animal are to be killed. 20:15
If a man has sex with a menstruating woman, they both “shall be cut off from among their people.” 20:18
Women with “familiar spirits” are to be stoned to death. 20:27
Priests can’t marry “whores”, “profane”, or divorced women. Why? Because “he is holy unto his God” and they would defile him. 21:7
A priest’s daughter who “plays the whore” is to be burned to death. 21:9
A priest can only marry a virgin. No harlots, widows, or divorced women will do. (God really likes virgins.) 21:13-14
If a priest’s daughter marries “a stranger” she can’t eat any holy things. 22:12
God defines the value of human life in dollars and cents. Of course, to God, females are worth considerably less than males (50 – 60%) — but neither are worth much. 27:3-7
Numbers
When “Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord” he was told to count “every male from a month old and upward.” Women and girls didn’t count as persons. 3:15-16
The Law of Jealousies. If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, he reports it to the priest. The priest then makes her drink some “bitter water.” If she is guilty, the water makes her thigh rot and her belly swell. If innocent, no harm done — the woman is free and will “conceive seed.” In any case, “the man shall be guiltless from iniquity, and this woman shall bear her iniquity.” 5:11-31
Miriam and Aaron (Moses’ brother and sister) criticize Moses for marrying an Ethiopian woman and thus breaking the law of God. But God makes it clear that his rules don’t apply to his favorites, and he strikes Miriam with leprosy. Notice that only Miriam is punished, though both she and Aaron complained. 12:1, 9-10
When one of the Israelite men brings home a foreign woman, “Phinehas (Aaron’s grandson) sees them and throws a spear “through the man .. and the woman through her belly.” This act pleases God so much that “the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.” But not before 24,000 had died. 25:6-9
For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13
If a man dies and has no son, then his inheritance goes to his daughter. But if he has a son, then the daughter gets nothing. Also no mention is made of wives, sisters, or aunts. 27:8
If men make vows, then God expects them to keep them. But a woman cannot make a vow, unless it is “allowed” by her husband or father. If it is “allowed,” then she must keep it — but even so, she is not responsible (her husband or father is). 30:3-16
Under God’s direction, Moses’ army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: “Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins — Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty — including the virgins.) 31:1-54
Deuteronomy
Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife or ass — or any thing that belongs to your neighbor. You see, in the eyes of God, women are the possessions of men. 5:21
Three times a year all of the males are to appear before God. The females he never wants to see. 16:16
In the cities that god “delivers into thine hands” you must kill all the males (including old men, boys, and babies) with “the edge of the sword …. But the women … shalt thou take unto yourself.” 20:13-14
If you see a pretty woman among the captives and would like her for a wife, then just bring her home and “go in unto her.” Later, if you decide you don’t like her, you can “let her go.” 21:11-14
Rules for those who have two wives: “one beloved, and another hated.” 21:15
When a man dies, his sons inherit his property. Wives and daughters get nothing at all. 21:16
Women are not to wear men’s clothing — it’s an “abomination unto the Lord.” 22:5
If a man marries, then decides that he hates his wife, he can claim she wasn’t a virgin when they were married. If her father can’t produce the “tokens of her virginity” (bloody sheets), then the woman is to be stoned to death at her father’s doorstep. 22:13-21
If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die. 22:22
If a betrothed virgin is raped in the city and doesn’t cry out loud enough, then “the men of the city shall stone her to death.” 22:23-24
If a woman is raped in the country, then only the man shall die (since there was no one to hear her if she cried out.) 22:25
If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. 22:28-29
God says not be bring any whore into the house of the Lord. For “these things are an abomination to the Lord.” 23:17-18
If a man marries a woman and later finds “some uncleanness in her,” then he can divorce her and kick her out of his house. If another man marries her and then dies, the first husband cannot marry her again. “For that is an abomination before the Lord.” 24:1-4
If a man dies before his wife has a child, then the widow must marry her husband’s brother — whether she likes him or not, and whether she wants to or not. 25:5
If two men fight and the wife of one grabs the “secrets” of the other, “then thou shalt cut off her hand” and “thine eye shall not pity her.” 25:11-12
“Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife, because he uncovereth his father’s skirt.” (Why?) How does having sex with the father’s wife uncover the father’s skirt? Well, I guess it’s because the father owns his wife. So the offense is against him, not her. 27:20
“The tender and delicate woman” will be forced to eat her own children “that cometh out from between her feet.” 28:56-57
Joshua
Caleb offers to give his daughter to whoever conquers the city of Debir. Caleb’s nephew wins the contest and is given his cousin for a prize. 15:16-17
Judges
Caleb offers to give his daughter to anyone who conquers the city of Debir. Caleb’s nephew wins the contest and is given his cousin for a prize. 1:12-13
“Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two?” 5:30
Gideon had 70 sons (no one knows how many daughters) “for he had many wives 8:30
After being hit in the head with a millstone thrown by a woman, a soldier orders his armor bearer to kill him so that no one would say that a woman had killed him. 9:53-54
When “the spirit of the Lord” comes upon Jephthah, he makes a deal with God: If God will help him kill the Ammonites, then he (Jephthah) will offer to God as a burnt offering whatever comes out of his house to greet him. God keeps his end of the deal by providing Jephthah with “a very great slaughter.” But when Jephthah returns, his nameless daughter comes out to greet him (who’d he expect, his wife?). Well, a deal’s a deal, so he delivers her to God as a burnt offering — after letting her spend a couple of months going up and down on the mountains bewailing her virginity. 11:29-39
Manoah’s nameless wife, like so many biblical women, is barren. But an angel fixes that, and Samson is born. 13:2-3, 6, 9
Samson sees a Philistine woman and tells his parents to “get her for me; for she pleaseth me well.” 14:1-3
“If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.”
Samson called his wife a heifer. 14:18
Samson’s father-in-law gave Samson’s wife away to a friend, since he thought Samson “hated” her. He suggests that Samson take his younger daughter instead, saying the younger one’s prettier anyway. 15:2
After taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest’s concubine to a mob of perverts (who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they “abuse her all night.” The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite puts her dead body on an ass and takes her home. Then he chops her body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel. 19:22-30
To find wives for the Benjamites (they were unwilling to use their own daughters), the other tribes attacked and killed all occupants of a city except for the young virgins. These virgins were then given to the Benjamites for wives. 21:7-23
Ruth
Ruth does as Naomi says, and then at midnight Boaz wakes up and finds Ruth “at his feet.” He asks who she is, and she says, “I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore your skirt over thine handmaid.” 3:7-9
Boaz purchases Ruth to be his wife. 4:10
1 Samuel
“He [Samuel's father] had two wives.” Once again, by its silence, the Bible endorses polygamy. 1:2
“The Lord had shut up her [Hannah's] womb.” Why? The Bible doesn’t say. Maybe God had nothing better to do. 1:5
“And Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her [he probably said something like, "Oh yeah, she's the one whose womb I shut up."]. And Hannah conceived and “bare a son [Oh boy, another boy!], and called his name Samuel.” 1:19-20
David and Saul have a contest to see who can kill the most people for God, and the women act as cheerleaders saying, “Saul has killed his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.” 18:6-7, 21:11, 29:5
David kills 200 Philistines and brings their foreskins to Saul to buy his first wife (Saul’s daughter Michal). Saul had only asked for 100 foreskins, but David was feeling generous. 18:25-27
The priest tells David that he and his men can eat the “hallowed” bread if “they have kept themselves at least from women.” David assures the priest that they have and that “the vessels of the young men are holy.” So it’d be OK for them to eat the holy bread. 21:4-5
“And it came to pass about ten days after, that the Lord smote Nabal, that he died.” This was convenient for David who then took his property and his wife, Abigail. 25:38
David takes his second wife (Abigail) after God killed her husband (Nabal). He also, at the same time, took another wife (#3), Abinam. In the meantime, Saul gave Michal (his daughter and David’s first wife) to another man. 25:41-44
David just keeps getting more wives. God doesn’t seem to mind a bit. 30:5
2 Samuel
David, by this time, has at least seven wives (Michal, Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, and Ehlah), and he was just getting started. 3:2-5
David says, “deliver me my wife Michal, which I espoused to me for a hundred foreskins of the Philistines.” Well, he actually paid with two hundred foreskins (see 1 Sam.18:25-27). 3:14
Michal was bought by David with 200 Philistine foreskins (1 Sam.18:25-27), then she was “given” to Phatiel (1 Sam.25:44), and then “taken back” by David. Poor Phatiel must have loved her dearly since he “went along weeping behind her.” 3:15-16
“And David took him more concubines and wives.” (How many? God knows I suppose, but he doesn’t tell us in the Bible.) 5:13
David sees a woman (Bathsheba) bathing and likes what he sees. so he sends for her and commits adultery with her “for she was purified from her uncleanness.” She conceives and bears a son (of course). 11:2-5
David tells Joab (his captain) to send Bathseba’s husband (Uriah) to “the forefront of the hottest battle … that he may be smitten and die.” In this way, David gets another wife. 11:15, 11:17, 11:27
God gave the wives of king Saul to David. 12:7-8
God is angry at David for having Uriah killed. As a punishment, he will have David’s wives raped by his neighbor while everyone else watches. It turns out that the “neighbor” that God sends to do his dirty work is David’s own son, Absalom (16:22). 12:11-12
To punish David for having Uriah killed, God kills Bathsheba’s baby boy. 12:14-18
After Bathsheba’s baby is killed by God, David comforts her by going “in unto her.” She conceives and bears another son (Solomon). 12:24
Ammon (David’s son) says to his half-sister Tamar, “Come lie with me, my sister.” But she resists, so he rapes her and then sends her away. Tamar, knowing that she now belongs to him (since she was a virgin), expects him to marry her, but he refuses. 13:1-22
David leaves ten of his concubines home to clean house. 15:16
Absalom “went in unto his father’s concubines in the sight of all Israel.” This was according the God’s plan as announced in 2 Sam.12:11-12. 16:21-22
To punish his ten concubines for being raped by his son, Absalom (See 16:21-22), David refuses to ever again have sex with them and forces them to “keep house” for the rest of their lives. 20:3
1 Kings
Old King David tries to get some heat by having a beautiful virgin minister unto him. 1:1-4
“King Solomon loved many strange women. And he had 700 wives and 300 concubines.” God didn’t mind the number so much; it was their strangeness that he objected to. 11:1-3
Note that Solomon is told to stay away from foreign women. Why? Because they have different (”strange”) religious beliefs, and God disapproves of mixed-faith marriages. 11:2
The wisest man that ever lived (1 Kg.4:31) was misled by his wives into worshipping other gods. 11:4, 15:3
Jezebel (Ahab’s “strange” wife) “stirred up” Ahab to “work wickedness in the sight of the Lord.” to punish her, God vows that “the dogs shall eat Jezebel.” 21:23, 25
2 Kings
King Menahem rips up all the pregnant women in Tizzah “because they opened not to him.” Does God approve of such acts? It’s impossible to tell from this passage; the mass murder is simply reported without editorial comment. 15:16
1 Chronicles
“And Tamar his daughter in law bore him Pharez….” See Gen.38 for all the sordid details. 2:4
Since Sheshan had no sons (and was getting impatient about it), he gave one of his daughters to a slave so they could produce a son for him. 2:34-35
Ashur had two wives, continuing the long line of biblical polygamists. 4:5
“And David took more wives” with the apparent approval of God. 14:3
2 Chronicles
Solomon’s Egyptian wife can’t be around holy places. Is that because she is a woman or because she is an Egyptian, or both? 8:11
Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. Once again, if silence implies consent, then God must approve of such arrangements. 11:21
“But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives.” Apparently, in the eyes of God, a man’s status is determined by the number of wives that he possesses. 13:21
“Jehoiada took for him two wives” — without comment, complaint, or criticism from the bible. 24:3
Ezra
The Israelites offend God by “taking” foreign wives and thereby corrupting “the holy seed.” 9:2
Ezra tells the men that they must abandon their wives and children if they are to avoid God’s wrath. 10:2-3, 10-12
Nehemiah
Nehemiah rebukes the men for marrying “strange wives.” To punish them he “contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair.” 13:25-27
Esther
King Ahasuerus throws a party and encourages his guests to drink to excess. Then, when they are all drunk, he orders Queen Vashti to show her stuff before him and his guests. 1:7-11
Vashti refuses to entertain the king’s drunken guests by dancing before them. For this she is no longer to be queen, to be replaced by someone better (prettier?). 1:12-19
Because of Vashti’s disobedience, the king decrees that “all the wives shall give to their husbands honor, both the great and the small” and “that every man should bear rule over his own house.” 1:20-22
“All the fair young virgins” throughout the kingdom are brought before the king, and the one that “pleaseth” the king the most will replace Vashti. 2:2-4
When it was Esther turn to “go in unto the king,” she pleases the king the most. So, having won the sex contest, she is made queen in Vashti’s place. 2:8-9, 12-17
Since women are inherently dirty, the woman that “pleased the king” the most must be “purified” for twelve months before she can be made queen. 2:9-12
Job
Job’s wife rightly says that if Job is to keep his integrity, then he should curse God (for playing vicious games with Satan) and die. Job replies that she is talking like a “foolish woman.” 2:9-10
Speaking of births, Job says: “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean. Not one.” So according to the Bible, women are dirty (sinful), giving birth is dirty (sinful), and the newborn baby is dirty (sinful). 14:4
After God (or Satan) kills Job’s first set of kids (1:19), he is given an even better set — with even prettier daughters! 42:13-15
Psalms
“In sin did my mother conceive me.” God considers both women and sex to be sinful. 51:5
God sent a plague on the Israelites for “committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab.” But “then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment [by throwing a spear through a newly married couple]: and so the plague was stayed.” But not before 24,000 (1 Cor.10:8 says 23,000) had died. (See Num.25:6-9 for all the gory details.) 106:29-30
“Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.”
A man should have as many children as he can. To hell with birth control. 127:3-5
Proverbs
God warns us about the dangers of “strange women.” Strange men are OK though. 2:16-19
The feet of strange women “go down to death,” and “her steps take hold on hell.” 5:3-5
Watch out for those evil, strange, and whorish women. 6:24-26
A woman that seduces a man is evil — the man is just an innocent victim. 7:5-27
We are warned again about “foolish women” who are “simple” and “knoweth nothing,” who drag their guests into “the depths of hell.” 9:13-18
A fair woman without discretion is like a golden jewel in a pig’s snout. 11:22
Avoid living with “brawling” women. 21:9, 25:24
Try not to live with “contentious” or “angry” women. 21:19
“Strange women” have “deep pits” for mouths into which fall those whom God hates. 22:14
“Whores” and “strange women” lie around waiting to trap innocent men. 23:27-28
Don’t even look at any “strange women.” If you do, you will utter perverse things. 23:33
“Contentious women” are like “a continual dropping on a very rainy day.” There are no contentious men. Well, maybe there are a few, but they are like sunny spring days. 27:15
Adulterous women eat, wipe their mouths, and say “what a good girl am I.” 30:20
One of the four things that the earth cannot bear is: an odious woman when she is married.” 30:21, 23
Don’t give your strength to women. 31:3
“Who can find a virtuous woman?” Virtuous men are much more common. 31:10
Ecclesiastes
“But a woman among all those have I not found.”
The Preacher could find a few good men (maybe one in a thousand or so), but not a single good woman. 7:28
Song of Solomon
“There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.” 6:8
Isaiah
Isaiah shows his contempt for women by saying that things have gotten so bad for his people that “women rule over them.” 3:12
God will “smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion” and “will discover their secret parts” since he doesn’t like the way they dress and walk. 3:16-17
After God takes away the women’s jewelry and perfume, “discovers their secret parts,” and makes them all bald and stinking, he’ll kill their husbands. Women will then become so desperate that “seven women will take hold of one man, saying … let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” 4:1
After God “washed away the filth” from the women and killed the men, he set up “a cloud and smoke by day” and a “flaming fire by night.” 4:4-5
Egypt will become weakened and frightened “like unto women.” 19:16
Talking about graven images Isaiah says, “thou shalt cast them away as a menstrous cloth.” 30:22
“Tremble, ye women that are at ease .. strip you, and make you bare … They shall lament for the teats.” 32:6
Jeremiah
Jeremiah insults people by calling them “harlots” who have sex on every hill and under every tree. 2:20
God compares Jerusalem’s sinful ways to a promiscuous woman, or a wild donkey in heat. 2:24
“Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire?” This is meant to be a rhetorical question with an obvious answer: Of course not; women think only about their clothes. 2:32
A divorced woman is “polluted” when she remarries. The man, of course, remains perfectly clean through it all, even though he was the one who “put her away” in the first place. 3:1
“In the ways thou hast sat for them …” A woman can’t even sit anymore without being condemned by God. 3:2
Jeremiah loves to insult people. His favorite insult is to call someone a whore. In this verse he accuses Judah of having a “whore’s forehead.” 3:3
More talk of harlots who have sex under every tree. 3:6
Judah commits adultery with “stocks and stones.” 3:9
“Thou … hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under every green tree.” 3:13
“As a wife treacherously departeth from her husband …” If a woman leaves her husband, she is “treacherous,” but a man is blameless when he “puts her away” for no reason. 3:20
God threatens to punish the men by taking away all of their property, including their wives, and giving them to others. 6:12
To punish men, God will “give their wives unto others.” 8:10
God compares the destruction of Jerusalem to the rape of a woman who deserves to be raped because she has sinned. 13:22
God plans to expose Jerusalem’s private parts to the world by lifting her skirt over her head, so to speak. He’s seen her commit whoredoms and abominations and whatnot on the hills, and he’s getting darned sick of it! 13:26-27
“Have you forgotten … the wickedness of your wives?” Jeremiah blames it all on “the wickedness” of the Israelites’ wives. 44:9
God is going to do some really bad things to the people because the women burned incense to the “Queen of Heaven” (Mary?). 44:15-23
God will cause the daughters of Rabbah to be burned with fire. 49:2
God plans to make the Babylonian men “become like women.” (A fate worse than death to a misogynous god.). 50:37
Lamentations
Jerusalem is compared to a naked woman who sighs and turns backward. “Her filthiness is in her skirts.” 1:8-9
The adversary puts his hand upon “all her pleasant things. 1:10
“Jerusalem is as a menstrous woman.” (To God this is an insult.) 1:17
God mercilessly kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children. 2:20-22
God “accomplishes his fury” by making women eat their children. 4:10-11
When God gets angry at you he calls you a drunken whore. 4:21
Ezekiel
God sends a “man clothed with linen” to mark the foreheads of the men who will be saved. Apparently only men are considered good enough to keep, the others (unmarked men, “maids”, little children, and women) are to be slaughtered. God says he’ll “fill the courts with the slain” and will have pity on no one. 9:4-10
“Woe to the woman that sew pillows … Behold, I am against your pillows.” (God likes neither woman nor pillows.) 13:18-21
God dresses up Jerusalem, cleans off the blood that she was wallowing in, and compliments her on her nice hair and breasts. 16:6-7, 22
Jerusalem was a harlot who had sex with everyone that passed by. 16:15-16
“Thou hast … madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them.” 16:17
“Thou … hast opened thy feet to every one that passed by.” 16:25
“Thou hast also committed fornication with the Egyptians thy neighbours, great of flesh.” (Jerusalem had sex with Egyptians with big penises.) 16:26
Jerusalem still wasn’t satisfied after having sex with the well-endowed Egyptians (v.26), so she had sex with the Assyrians too. Yet she still wasn’t satisfied. So she had sex with the men of Canaan and Chaldea, but still was not satisfied. 16:28-29
God calls Jerusalem “an imperious whorish woman.” 16:30
God says that Jerusalem has sex with strangers, hiring them to “come in unto thee on every side.” 16:32-33
Because she is such a filthy harlot, God will expose her nakedness before all of her lovers. 16:35-36
After exposing her nakedness, God will give her “blood in fury and jealousy” and strip her naked once more. 16:38-41
A good man never gets near a menstruating woman. 18:5-6
Information from God about discovering the nakedness of fathers, committing adultery with neighbor’s wives, sex with menstruating women, daughters-in-law, sisters, etc. 22:1-11
Two sisters were guilty of “committing whoredoms” by pressing their breasts and bruising “the teats of their virginity.” As a punishment, one sister’s nakedness was discovered, her children were taken from her, and she was killed by the sword. And the fate of the surviving sister was even worse: Her nose and ears were cut off, she was made to “pluck off” her own breasts, and then after being raped and mutilated, she is stoned to death. 23:1-49
God kills Ezekiel’s wife and then tells him not to mourn her. 24:15-18
God says he will destroy Tyrus. He plans to kill everyone, but he is especially looking forward to killing all of the women. “And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.” 26:1-21
In condemning Israel God says, “their way was before me as the uncleanliness of a removed woman.” 36:16-17
Daniel (None)
Hosea
God tells Hosea to commit adultery, saying “take … a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms” because the land has “committed great whoredom.” So Hosea did as God commanded and “took” a wife named Gomer. 1:2-3
God (or Hosea?) tells his children that their mother is a whore who is not his wife. He asks them to tell their mother to “put away her whoredoms” and “her adulteries from between her breasts” or he’ll “strip her naked … and slay her with thirst.” 2:2-3
God “will not have mercy upon … the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot.” 2:4-5
God says he “will discover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers.” 2:10
God acts like a jealous lover. 2:13
God tells Hosea to “love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress.” 3:1
So Hosea buys a wife for 15 pieces of silver and one and a half homers of barley. 3:2
Committing whoredom by going a whoring with the spirit of whoredom. 4:10
If you misbehave, God will make your daughters “commit whoredom” and your wife “commit adultery.” 4:13
Israel has “gone a whoring” and has “loved a reward upon every cornfloor.” 9:1
God will induce miscarriages and kill the children of Ephraim. 9:11-12
“O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” 9:14
“I will slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” 9:16
God will punish Israel by “dashing” together mothers and their children. 10:14
Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God will dash their infants to pieces and their “women with child shall be ripped up.” 13:16
Joel (None)
Amos
“A man and his father will go in unto the same maid, to profane my holy name.” 2:7
Amos tells Amaziah that his wife will become a whore, his children will be killed, and he’ll die in a pagan country. 7:17
Obadiah (None)
Jonah (None)
Micah
“I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand.” 5:12
Nahum
God will “discover thy skirts upon thy face, … show the nations thy nakedness” and “will cast abominable filth upon thee.”3:4-6
“You’re all a bunch of women” was the biggest insult God could think of at the moment. 3:13
Habakkuk (None)
Zephaniah
“Woe to her that her that is filthy and polluted.” (Only women are filthy and polluted.) 3:1
Haggai (None)
Zechariah
Evil is personified as a woman. 5:7-8
God will make “all nations” fight against Jerusalem. The women will be “ravished.” 14:1-2
Malachi (None)
Matthew
Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn’t seem to care about that. 5:32, 19:9
When Jesus’ mother wants to see him, Jesus asks, “Who is my mother?” 12:47-49
Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give you a big reward. 19:29
“Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days.” Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? 24:19
Jesus compares the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins who went to meet their bridegroom. 25:1
Mark
Jesus shows disrespect for his mother and family by asking, “Who is my mother, or my brethren?” when he is told that his family wants to speak with him. 3:31-34
Jesus will reward men who abandon their wives and families. 10:29-30
In the last days God will make things especially rough on pregnant women. 13:17
Luke
Even Mary had to be “purified” after giving birth to Jesus. Was she defiled by giving birth to the Son of God? 2:22
Males are holy to God, not females. 2:23
Peter and his partners (James and John) abandon their wives and children to follow Jesus. 5:11
Jesus, when told that his mother and brothers want to see him, ignores and insults them by saying that his mother and brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it. 8:20-21
Abandon your wife and family for Jesus and he’ll give you a big reward. 18:29-30
John
Jesus tells Mary Magdalene not to touch him because he hasn’t yet ascended — as if the touch of a woman would defile him and somehow prevent him from ascending into heaven. 20:17
Acts (None)
Romans
Paul explains that “the natural use” of women is to act as sexual objects for the pleasure of men. 1:27
“Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church.”
The Revised Standard Version calls Phoebe a “deaconess”, which would make would make her a church leader. If the RSV translation is correct, this verse contradicts the requirement that women not be permitted to teach and that they must be silent in church. (1 Cor.14:34-35, 1 Tim.2:11-12). 16:1
“Junia … of note among the apostles”
Was there a woman apostle? That is how some interpret this verse and use it to justify a more active role for women in the church. 16:7
1 Corinthians
Paul would prefer that no one marry. but he says “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife.” 7:1-2
“Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.” 7:27
Paul says “the head of the woman is the man,” meaning that the women are to be subordinate to men. 11:3
If a woman refuses to cover her head in church, then her her head must be shaved. 11:5-6
Men are made in the image of God; women in the image of men. Women were created from and for men. 11:7-9
Every women should have power on her head because of the angels. 11:10
Women are commanded by Paul to be silent in church and to be obedient to men. He further says that “if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in church.” 14:34-35
2 Corinthians (None)
Galatians (None)
Ephesians
Wives must submit to their husbands “in every thing” as though they were Christ. “For the husband is the head of the wife.” 5:22-24
Wives must reverence their husband. 5:33
Philippians (None)
Colossians
Wives, according to Paul, must submit themselves to their husbands. 3:18
1 Thessalonians (None)
2 Thessalonians (None)
1 Timothy
Women are to dress modestly, “with shamefacedness” — “not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.” 2:9
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” 2:11-12
Men are superior to women since Adam was made before, and sinned after, Eve. But even though women are inferior to men, they shouldn’t be discouraged because they shall “be saved in childbearing.” 2:14-15
“A bishop must be … the husband of one wife.” Apparently, it’s OK for laymen to have several. 3:2
Real widows are “desolate” and pray “night and day.” But those widows that experience pleasure are “dead while [they] live.” 5:5-6
You should help a widow only if she 1) is over 60 years old, 2) had only one husband, 3) has raised children, 4) has lodged strangers, 5) has “washed the saints feet,” 6) has relieved the afflicted, and 7) has “diligently followed very good work.” Otherwise, let them starve. “But the younger widows refuse [to help]: for … they will marry; having damnation.” Besides the young widows are always idle tattlers — “busybodies, spreading things which they ought not.” He adds that “some are already turned aside after Satan.” 5:9-15
2 Timothy
In the last days, “silly women” who are “ever learning” will be “led away with divers lusts.” 3:6-7
Titus
A bishop should have only one wife. I guess it’s OK for laymen to have several. 1:6-7
“Teach the young women to be … obedient to their own husbands.” 2:4-5
Philemon (None)
Hebrews (None)
James (None)
1 Peter
Peter orders all wives to be “in subjection” to their husbands. 3:1
Wives are to use “chaste conversation, coupled with fear.” They are not to braid their hair, wear gold, or put on any “apparel.” They are to do these things in imitation of the “holy” women of the Old testament who were “in subjection to their won husbands: even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him Lord.” 3:2-6
In relation to her husband, the wife is “the weaker vessel.” 3:7
2 Peter
Lot, who in Gen.19:8 offers his two virgin daughters to a crowd of angel rapers and later (19:30-38) impregnates them, was a “righteous man.” 2:8
1 John
John writes to the men (fathers) only. Women (mothers?) are not important enough to address. 2:13-14
2 John (None)
3 John (None)
Jude (None)
Revelation
Jezebel (whom God had thrown off a wall, trampled by horses, and eaten by dogs [2 Kg.9:33-37]) is further reviled by John, saying “that woman Jezebel” taught and seduced God’s “servants to commit fornication.” 2:20
Jesus will “cast her [Jezebel] into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her.” 2:22
Only 144,000 celibate men will be saved. (Those who were not “defiled with women.”) 14:1-4
Drinking the wine of her fornication. 14:8
The great whore has “committed fornication” with all the kings on earth. Everyone else is “drunk with the wine of her fornication.” She sits on a scarlet colored beast with the usual 7 heads and 10 horns. She carries a cup full of the “filthiness of her abominations” and has a big sign on her forehead saying: “Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.” You’ll know her when you see her. 17:1-5
“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs.” 17:6
“All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her.” 18:3
The “great whore” corrupted the earth with her fornication. 19:2
Sorry, I see how long this is – please let me know if you want me to delete it. Also I need to cite – it’s from http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/.
All the more reason to discard a two thousand-year-old book (NT included) and its guidelines on how to treat people.
Yes, it is 2009. And yet, we still get our moral guidance from a book thousands of years old; when slavery was ok and women & children were property. We have come far past these morals – we have surpassed the bible ethically. I am an ethical, generous, loving atheist. We do not need christianity to be good people. And I still don’t understand exactly WHY anyone believes the bible. Did nobody see all the women-hating verses (COMMANDED BY GOD) that I quoted earlier???? How can any self-respecting woman believe that this is a HOLY BOOK???
Reposting, since Christians keep ignoring the facts and making excuses:
*cough* Fact *cough*
Christians don’t get along with facts.
This pastor posted this factual statement of his actual observations in 2009.
DUH!
@mrshenson
I think the point Janet is making is that adhering to the principles of hope and love and the Golden Rule can be accomplished without the Bible or belief in gods.
If your children came home with a two thousand-year-old geography textbook and started explaining to you how flat the world was, you’d be in front of that School Board so fast, their heads would be spinning.
I don’t see blind faith as a character strength :) but hope, love and the golden rule are wonderful attributes. They predate christianity; are irrelevant to christianity (because there are just as many atheists who have these as christians). And I love studying and analyzing literature. But nobody takes MacBeth and claims that it is the perfect word of god. Therefore, all the immorality in that book does not mislead us poor imperfect humans. But if a book claims to be God-inspired, it had better be perfect. ‘You will know a tree by its fruit”. Why, then, is the bible so subject to interpretation and context that it takes a scholar to really understand it? Is it not supposed to be be open to all people, even semi-illiterate ones? My point is that a perfect book should be CLEAR to everyone reading it. It should not be able to takes “words out of context” and on this basis murder thousands of people and persecute millions more (witch burnings, inquisition, slavery, oppression of women, tribalism/genocide – all based on God’s commandments or condonation in the bible).
And any perfect God should have known this when he “wrote” the bible.
OK, there is only “one true faith”. Islam & Judaism agree with you on that point (even though there is not a scintilla of evidence for any of them). And we will kill each other off because others do not follow our faith. There is no good end to believing that you hold the “Truth” and have the ONLY “one true faith”. It is misleading and very, very dangerous.
I agree with you for my stand is not with religion, is it not what I am saying?
DarkMatter – I don’t follow.
I do not think christian women are pathetic or weak. I think they are misinformed. I used to be one of them myself – I wasn’t any different than I am now, I was just wrong! I found this out through reading “outside my comfort zone” (like Bishop John Shelby Spong) – over years and years of searching, I finally woke up one day and realized that the whole thing was false. So if you are a christian, I disagree with your beliefs. But I would never put you down as a person. I’m sure you are not oppressed in your marriage; you sound like a feminist too (hope I’m not putting words in your mouth). But I personally believe that you are a strong women IN SPITE of the bible, not BECAUSE of it (see my earlier post on the hundreds of mysogenist verses in the bible – god clearly doesn’t like women much – fortunately in our society we have discovered that sexism is wrong).
I have never accept that man and woman are equal. Man and woman are different, accordingly.
For example:
I can never experience the woman’s satisfaction of sex. I can read many books, but I can never really know because I am a man, vice versa.
For me, let a woman lives her life fully, likewise man, of cause there are exceptions that I can only read about or hear and in a marriage live according, woman and man.
The bible was written by humans, they attribute morality to their theos(God).
They use this in recent times to deny atheists of morals since atheists do not believe that morality comes from God as a strategy. Why don’t they argue that since it is their God that gives humans hands and feet that atheists should deny their bodily parts?
We must not fall into their trap on morality by these inmoral christains’ arguments? You will not purposely lie to your good friends socially, right?
here, equal mean equal under the law (have equal rights) not equal as in identical or same. Hope that helps!
Where are you from?
Men and women are very different – I agree. But that does not mean we are not “equal”. You can be “equal” in value even though you are not the same. I think we are just talking semantics here – I don’t think you would argue that women are less valuable than men. (?)
Oh, right.
Check with Daniel. I don’t use proxy on my IP address.
No, not semantics, but a “different human”, the one I love. Equality I think is a “lesser word” for laws I that am under do not dictate my humanity, they protect, though not all laws.
Sorry, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
For laws, I mean the laws of the country a person resides in. For laws I am under means not breaking the laws of my country.
I begin to doubt my little comprehension of english language.
Sorry, didn’t realize there was a language barrier. You’re doing very well. But I still think it’s important to call men and women “equal” even though they are different. It was “lack of equality” that was responsible for terrible oppression of women thoughout history.
I see it as a unresonable perception of women, like, the bible says it was Eve who cause Adam to sin, blaming women.
I hope Daniell won’t a sleight of hand otherwise.
I read through your earlier post… the really really long one… and have a few comments. It applies to this post as well, so I’ll just keep it all here. I’m not going to point-counter-point every verse and every issue because a)I probably can’t and b)it would be fruitless argument.
I do, however, want to address the bigger picture that you’re getting at.
All of these points come down to a simple base argument – whether or not God is truly good, and whether or not His character is consistent throughout scripture. My answer is an exuberant “YES” – I believe that God is completely good, and that His character remains absolutely consistent throughout both the Old and the New testament.
You’re about to tear me to pieces, I know. But I want to lay down a skeleton outline of why I believe what I believe. Even so, it’s long, so I apologize for that.
Here we go.
You’ve gotta start at the beginning.
God’s intent for humanity was only for love, for good and for blessing. Sin enters the picture, and the world, which was once good, is placed under a curse. Why? Because we were created to have every need in our lives completely satisfied in God. He is life. So when that need is satisfied elsewhere, it leads only to death. God was telling Adam and Eve, “You can’t do it on your own. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
(by the way, Adam’s sin was just as great as Eve’s. He stood there and did absolutely nothing while she was being tempted. I want to punch the passive jerk in the face.)
God’s intent for humanity is still the same. His purpose is love, and He is still after the good of all the earth. I’ll expand on this in a minute, because I know that the Old Testament is blasting through your mind like a freight train right now. Here’s the breakdown that happened with Adam & Eve and still goes on today – free will. I don’t want to get into this, but I believe that God is both absolutely sovereign AND man has complete free will. That’s why there was that blasted tree in the first place. Love is a choice. The ability to choose not to love must exist in order for love to be worth anything.
Okay, fast forward to Abram. God picks him out of a crowd and says “through you, all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” What a guy to choose, though. Abraham, human to the core, messed-up big time – a LOT. This guy’s the “father of our faith”? He’s the last guy I would’ve chosen, had I been God. So why did God do it? To prove, yet again, that “His power is made perfect in weakness.” God uses the weak, the messy, the imperfect to still accomplish His purposes and remind us that He’s a whole lot bigger than us. God was telling Abraham, “You can’t do it on your own. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
God then tells Abraham’s descendants, the Israelites, to proceed to massacre all the nations of the earth that they are supposed to be a blessing to. Doesn’t sound like a blessing, right? Let me clump this with the law system of “an eye for an eye,” and “stone the sinner” stuff. It has the same principles.
This is the bigger picture. God wanted to reveal Himself to all the world so that they would know Him and love Him. But most of the world had rejected God and boasted either in their own strength or in the strength of their respective god. So God chose to set apart a people group who would be “holy” i.e. different than the rest of the world to reveal the character and nature of God. God wanted the Israelites to be a bright light shining for people to go, “Hey, those Israelites have really got it going. Their God must be the true God, and He must really love them.” That was their purpose.
This is now the second time you’ve probably objected to the fact that God’s purposes aren’t seeming to happen, and the opposite takes place. God intends love, sin happens. God intends x, z happens. 2 Peter 3:9 says “God wishes that none should perish.” Ummm… yeah. So, obviously, there are things God wishes that simply don’t happen. If God is sovereign, shouldn’t he be able to control that? Well, not with free will. He has a perfect will that brings life, joy, peace, etc – and whatever isn’t in line with that will is what I would define as sin.
So then does free will have power over God? Not in my opinion. Consider this analogy. God’s like a master architect who constructs a building while it’s falling over. He takes the fallen, broken pieces and uses them other places, or fixes them and puts them back, or throws out the unusable ones. And in the end, the building is even more magnificent and bring the builder even more glory because of how He was able to still make it so magnificent even with so many broken, seemingly worthless pieces. He makes a mosaic out of broken glass. You get the analogy, right? He’s bigger than our problems. Cliche Bible verse, “God works all things together for the good of those who love Him.”
Okay. That was a bunny trail. But a necessary point to clarify.
Israel. Purposed for light and goodness to draw all the nations back to God. Except Israel doesn’t follow God. They don’t set themselves apart. They still worship idols, they still sin, they still live just like everybody else. So there are two things that consistently happened in Scripture that we view as atrocities that God used to bring the Israelites back to Him, to purify them, to make them a light to all the nations again.
One was that God would consistently devastate His own people. They would rebel, so He would send some nation to conquer them. God was telling the Israelites, “You can’t do it on your own. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
Two. God would tell the Israelites to go and conquer other nations, leaving NO ONE alive. Women, children, the whole lot. This is often what people have the hardest time with. And I agree, ethically it doesn’t make sense. But here’s where I’ve come to rest on it: God hates sin because it leads to death. He wants His people to be set apart – and every time that Israel left people alive or didn’t follow through with total annihilation, it was those same people who would come back and lead the Israelites into idolatry and away from God. God was trying to protect His people from sin by wiping out every source of temptation. He knew that they were human, and weak, and would be led astray all too easily. God was telling the Israelites, “You can’t do it in your own wisdom. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
That’s all fine and dandy for Israel, then, but what about the people that just got brutally massacred? Even if you can see God’s love evident in “preserving a people for His name,” God’s love is often difficult to see from the perspective of the dead.
And this is all I can say here: sin results in death, every time. God gave ample opportunity to those other nations to turn to Him as well. God’s “fame” was well known in Mesopotamia; the other nations knew who He was and they knew God’s track record. Yet they did not respond to God. They relied instead on whatever idol or false God they worshipped. And since sin deserves death, God was just in dealing death. His mercy and His grace is the only thing that keeps us from complete and utter destruction on such a scale. Because sin results in death, every time. If God was completely fair and just in his dealings with us, we would all be dead, for our sin can’t bear His glory. His mercy is the only reason we exist. God is telling us, “You can’t do it on your own. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
So this cycle goes on for a while. God revealing His glory through Israel; Israel totally blowing it; God humbles Israel so they remember Him; Israel returns to power and the world knows that God is God. And then, finally, comes the fulfillment of Abraham’s promise: Jesus. The long-awaited fulfillment of the law. The blessing to all the nations of the earth. The very picture of grace and mercy. Justice embodied.
And Jesus says the very same thing, “You can’t do it on your own. That’s why I’m here. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me SHOW you your dependence on Me.” And Jesus replaced Adam. Jesus became the final death penalty for sin; all the justice and fairness that God required was completely fulfilled in Jesus – the death of all was paid by Him, allowing God’s grace and mercy to be expressed without inhibition.
And Jesus brought freedom from the letter of the law (sin and death), in order to reveal the heart of the law; God’s love. Our need. That we were created to find our satisfaction, our fulfillment, our love, all of our needs in God. To show us how to live in purity; to show us how to be a people set apart for God’s glory; to show us how to be a light to the nations; but most importantly to show us God’s heart. The depth of relationship that was lost in Eden was regained at Calvary. We are no longer bound to death (because of Jesus’ death and resurrection), but we are made alive in Christ.
And God’s intent – His purpose of love and the good of all the earth, is made possible in Jesus where we will always fall short.
It’s all about God’s love. And it’s always been.
And about your comment of Scripture not being clear – you’re right. It would seem a heck of a lot better for the Bible to make perfect sense and to be easy to follow. But then we don’t need God anymore. God’s like a parent who knows what His kid needs and therefore doesn’t always give him what he wants. And God knows that we need Him. We were created to need Him. If I could figure it all out on my own, why would I need God? There He is again, saying “You can’t do it on your own. Life can be fulfilled only in Me; I love you, so let Me remind you of your dependence on Me.”
And after all of this – please, please understand that I am NOT trying to prove that I am right or that I know everything, or anything like that. I’m no scholar, and I’m sure I botched a lot of that.
But when I look at Scripture, I see God’s love. I see Him defending the widow and the orphan. I see Him loving the weak and the oppressed. I see God’s heart of mercy everywhere. My experience in knowing God says the same thing.
So when people tell me that the God I serve is abusive, unjust, oppressive, or bloodthirsty, I can’t stay silent. Because that is NOT the God I serve.
The God I serve is good. And He has always been good. The God I serve is full of love and mercy; He cares for the weak. His love for His people is passionate and strong. He is the God who heals diseases, who forgives all of my sins, and who has redeemed my life from the pit. He is compassionate. And He is worth everything. My life is found only in Him, and I am nothing without Him. He has given me everything I have – I am not ashamed to say that I am wasting my life for the purposes of God, but I know that it’s worth it. His love is worth it. Knowing Him is worth it. Seeing Him break addictions, transform lives, heal broken hearts, set captives free, heal the sick… it just makes me love Him even more.
The God I serve is good. And He is worth everything.
The God that you describe is not “Good”, he is an ego maniac.
First off “Sin” only existed in the garden of Eden because God willed it. NOTHING existed before him and that includes sin. He intended for Adam and Eve to fall to the temptation of the fruit because he created them to have that temptation, he created the serpent to tempt them, and he put the beautiful tree with the candy like fruit in with the people that he knew would eat them.
It is like building a robot to do a job, and he does it well, but I write into that program that every time it sees the color red it stops working. Then I blame the robot when it stops working when a fire truck drives by.
It is not fair to punish something for a fault that you created in it. It is saying that what you created it fine, its something else outside of your control that ruined it.
Also, God commanding the Israelites to kill all of those around them tells me a few things…
1) If God’s followers were so easily tempted away then their faith was weak and the others were stronger. Again if God is all powerful he created all temptations so if he wanted to make sure that his people stayed then he would have made sure that anything that he did for his people would overcome all temptations.
2) These other tribes were following deities that they felt were also performing miracles, at least if the writings of ancient religions are to believed (and if you are going to believe on you might as well believe another) so why should they have changed to the Hebrews faith? If they are people who are just as good as the Israelites only followed a different deity does that really mean that they should be condemned to death? Maybe the temptation that these other tribes constantly used to draw in the Hebrews was kindness.
All of this just brings me to my main reason for not believing in any form of main stream deity worship. If any of the “Higher Power” religions were correct, said higher power could rely on something other then a book that can be misinterpreted in order to prove his existence. He wouldn’t need strong arm tactics and fear. I do what is right because it is the right thing to do. No one needs to give me a reward of “Everlasting Life” and I am not doing right because I’m afraid of “Eternal Torment” because I do not. If that is not good enough for God then I don’t care.
@ jasonsubers
You are so completely immersed in this stuff — totally brainwashed, really — that I believe there is nothing anyone can say at this point which will dissuade you from your beliefs. You are young, full of yourself and impressionable, and you have taken with blind faith that which you have been taught and made it into your own reality. You and Trinity will make a nice pair of godzombies with stars in your eyes.
Sigh…two more minds down the drain :/
If you had created everything that exists and sustained it by your power, you’d probably have an ego, too. Difference with God, though, is that His love is humble. He doesn’t force anyone to love Him. He wants to be loved! But He’ll never make you a robot.
The Bible isn’t a scare tactic – well-meaning Christians who are dumb as rocks are scare tactics. I don’t blame you for feeling the way you do! I wouldn’t follow Jesus out of fear of torment, either! I’m not even in it for the reward of heaven.
I’m in it because of God’s love. Because of the deep, intimate relationship that I have with Him! I just want to be with Jesus… I don’t give a rip about heaven or hell. Just give me Jesus! He makes all things new; and He is worth it all.
“He doesn’t force anyone to love Him.”
He just burns you for all eternity if you don’t.
Isn’t punishing you because you don’t love him the same as forcing you to love him? The difference being that if he just programed us to love him from the get go we wouldn’t have as many wars and unhappiness in this world.
And show me somewhere in the bible that has an example of God’s love being “Humble”. An example of humble would be God saying “It doesn’t matter that I created you, you have your own path to follow and that is okay” or “It doesn’t matter that I created the universe, I’m not better then any other immortal being out there”. That is humility.
Instead all I hear about is that if you do not love or believe in him you will be punished for all eternity. That is not humility.
I feel sorry for all of the people who are raised Buddhist, Islam, or Hebrew and honor their parents by keeping their faith, because according to the christian God they are going to be tormented for all eternity for their choice.
Well, there’s a worldview difference we’re coming from.
It’s not that God “punishes” you by sending you to Hell. Believe it or not, I don’t believe that Hell is a punishment, per se, the way we define the word.
I know it sounds like I’m arguing semantics, but it’s actually a pretty important point. So bear with me.
We either choose to love God, or we choose not to. God simply gives us our choice. Heaven is eternity with God, and Hell is eternity without him. That’s really all it comes down to. He allows you to make your choice. You don’t want God, great, have it your way.
The reason Hell is described as “damnation” and “suffering” is this: in God and God alone is life, joy, love, peace, goodness, etc. Nothing “good” exists outside of God, because he IS those things.
So if you’re choosing eternity without God, then you’re choosing eternity without His characteristics as well. To be eternally separated from God is my very definition of suffering.
God IS life. So eternity with Him is “eternal life.” On the same token, eternity without Him is “eternal death.”
But it’s not like He sends you to your doom. He doesn’t “send” anybody. We go there ourselves. He allows us make our own choice.
So by that reasoning someone who is not Christian can not do “Good” works? I don’t know, there are several non-Christians that I know that do, what I believe, are good works. Does that mean when they spend hours sewing blankets for children in the hospital, their work is not good because they are Jewish or atheist? I had a Christian that was teaching bible study actually tell me that if you didn’t do good in God’s name then it was a selfish act, and to tell the truth I think that was one of the things that started me doubting.
If God IS Life then again he is Damning someone just because they were raised in a household that believes in another religion. If someones parents are loving parents, but happen to be Buddhists, and they live in an area where Buddhism is the norm, and the only contact that they have with Christians is some stuff that they see on TV, do you really think they are going to convert? Do you think that it is fair to “Doom” them for their choice? What if they never even heard of Christianity?
Just because America is a mostly Christian nation doesn’t mean that all nations are the same, there are areas in the world where people know as much about Christianity as the average American knows about Confucianism. If there is a God I would hope that he would be as fair to them as he is to me.
Of course people can do good things. Anybody can do good things. Every human being is created in the “image of God” and therefore has a propensity for good (even though all men are inherently sinners – for “there are none righteous. not even one.”)
But good deeds vs bad deeds aren’t what merit’s God’s favor. God loves everybody unbiased, and He offers freedom from sin and eternal life unbiased. It doesn’t matter if you’re a serial killer who in his last breath realized his sin, repented, and believed in Jesus or if you’re the Pope – the only thing that matters is Jesus.
And that’s why Jesus commands His disciples to “go and proclaim this good news [of the Kingdom of God] to all creation… teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you.”
You’re right. There are people groups still living in savagery in the Jungle who have never heard the name of Jesus. So what’s their story?
2 Peter 3:9
“The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.”
Rom 10:14
“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”"
It’s the command of God to his followers to tell every people group – every person – every tribe and language of the good news that the Kingdom of God is here living within us, bringing life!
I can’t say what happens with those people groups until they hear about Jesus. I don’t know how God will deal with them; I don’t know what they are going to be held accountable for on judgment day. But I do know this: God is absolutely just, and absolutely good, and I can trust that He has a way for every single one of those people to know Him, in some way.
There is always opportunity to choose life. We just can’t always see it.
Andy he is saying good works alone will not get you into heaven. You have to be saved. God is not going to “damn” someone to hell until they have been given every opportunity to be saved. Even that tribe deep deep in the jungle you can only get to by plane. God does not “damn” anyone. People “damn” themselves. What about the ones who died prior to a Christian reaching them with Gods word? They are forgiven. If you are a father how are you going to punish your child for doing something wrong if you have never told him it was wrong? God is good and just.
I just wrote an unorthodox christian perspective on the subject of morality which I believe is greatly misunderstood.
You can find it on http://www.josiahconcept.org if interested.
That was a very well written post, thank you for sharing. I will contend that what you are writing about there falls under more of “Ethics” then “Morality” because as you can see with other people who claim to be “Christian” the interpretation of those words can change over time.
I also would like to say that if more Christians out there would just hold onto the idea that forgiveness, acceptance, and love are the most important lessons that Christ taught then Christianity would not be loosing as many followers every year as they have been. Unfortunately too many are judgmental and unforgiving as can be seen in how they react to things that they feel is outside of their “Christian Ethics/Morality”. We hear about how anyone who is Islamic is a “Terrorist” and how “All the homosexuals are going to hell” and my personal favorite “If the Catholics don’t change their ways God’s going to burn them in fire” (I’m not making any of this up, not only can you find these things on the internet, I hear everyday people saying similar things). These ideas are what is pulling Christianity apart because I personally feel they are against Jesus’ teaching.
No Reck…its the living word. Its not just a book in the way other books are just books…
living word… how do you know?
I think all books reveal the human condition. This includes the bible among many, many other books that also reveal the human condition.
Night owl, yes. Can’t help it. I don’t sleep enough… but Newton didn’t either… :) I know you don’t want to debate with me, but can we discuss? I promise not to get mad at you… you’re my gp-esque friend. But really, how do we know about the human condition if we don’t look at all literature?
:)
I saw that, John C. Interesting ideas — I’ve seen you extrapolate them before. Certainly it is not the typical response I’ve seen from Christians, to say the least.
“She is kind and submissive to him” – does not necessarily mean she is happy.
Can you narrow down to your dilemma to the tragic trap of christian marriage?
I think you might be fooling yourself, I hear exactly the same thing from Saudi girls who aren’t allowed to leave the house without a male escort and still think they are hardcore feminists – the alternative is to admit that you’ve been conned manipulated and shortchanged, which it took me years to do.
It’s amazing how people justify anything rather than face up to uncertainty.
It still amazes me to hear girls worry themselves about what they wear in case they tempt the boys but boys walk around near knaked and don’t worry about tempting the girls, message loud and clear women are sinful its all your fault boys get off scott free..
I know its hard but you might evenutally come to the conclusion that the two are incompatible not least because men have got power by framing the ultimate creator as … MALE
however, if you want to keep your beliefs you might be in a better position to help christian girls because they often won’t listen to atheists who are trying to help them – tho i suspect you will always feel conflicted – it’s better in my experience to get the heck out and start a life away from the church, although you do lose a lot of your social network. I don’t deny it’s tough. But hey, fight on and see if you can bring down the woman-bashers from the inside. Or admit that humans are funny little storytellers and this is one story that, like slavery, is long out of date.
I am a living witness to the gender damage that christianity can do, we are all ex-christians here. That means we’ve been on both sides of the fence and are in a far better position to judge than someone who’s always been a christian.
Sure some men are anti-female but in my experience non-christian men are far far nicer and don’t think equality is a joke. In fact if you’ll pardon the pun, they’re a Revelation! geddit?
“… just because a person has the label of Christian, does not mean he is.”
If the non-believers can’t rely on the label people put on themselves (”I am a Christian”), what list of attributes should be look for to determine if someone actually is a Christian?
Bill, I know I am probably going to say something wrong but here goes. If you would read and listen to what I said you would have your answer. I don’t know how smart you are so I will give you the benefit of doubt and repeat the answer for you.
“For example the crazy guy in Waco, TX.”"I love my wife I would give my last breath for her.” Something along those lines Bill. I can sum it up in a few words for you. Love, honor, respect for your fellow humans, personal sacrifice. Not lying to get people to believe you. Stuff like that. Oh and contrary to popular belief God does not want Christians to murder each other.
But again I ask you, what of the people that are raised to be a certain faith other then Christian? They have as much evidence supporting their beliefs as the Christians do so how can you blame them for keeping the faith that their people have?
What if the only Christian that they ever met in person was someone who most Christians would not want representing them (bigoted, violent, angry, etc.), would God still punish them for not converting? What of all the people in Europe in the middle ages that saw their families killed by Christian Knights if they didn’t convert, and only payed lip serves to that faith out of fear of torture and death?
I look at it from the point of view of a Parent (God) to their children (humanity). If I were to be separated from my child after birth, but I still sent him letters to know that I am here (the bible), but I never met him in person, I would not blame him for not really feeling as though I’m their father, and I would still be proud of them if I learned that they have done good in life. To expect anything different is just egotistical.
I know that you are going to say “If you just open your heart, you will know him in person” but what about other people that say the same thing about their religion? Are they making it up? What makes your feelings right and theirs wrong? Some people just are not going to have that connection, or their feelings are going to be biased by outside forces, is it fair that they are damned for it?
I have read works from several religions and they all have resonance in what I feel is right in the world. If all people in the world that have faith, no matter what religion, were to see that in others faiths then this world would be a much better place.
So your scared to just come out and say you don’t believe in God because you do and you don’t want to suffer the consequences. At least your no quitter. I’m telling you please don’t make the same mistake these other guys have. You know there is a higher power than yourself. And atheists call Christians arrogant. He loves you. Believe me I have been down many roads I thought that He would never let me come back from and He has. Please don’t make this mistake.
@Obviousman. Did your mom teach you to be that respectful to women? Shameful.
WWJB.
(what would jesus blog?)
Val get a clue.
CM, this is how many of you atheist types respond to Christians. Hes just giving you a taste of what it’s like. I think it’s pretty funny.
Janet, just because you have left Christianity doesn’t mean it has left you.
See what I mean. What you have written has been written many times before.
Please do no delete this work of research. Put it in a permanent archive somewhere.
oh wait a minute, I thought this was the Jesus blog!!
very good point
The problem? PEOPLE. Not God. Not Jesus. Not even the Bible. It’s not the fault of religion (which is inanimate).
What an insane piece of nuttery.
According to your delusions, god made the people. He made us in exactly they way we are and he did it intentionally and with full malice aforethought. Malice, since he fully intended to blame us for his own poor decision making ability.
You are saying that if you are walking below my window and I drop a safe on your head that I can not be blamed since it’s the fault of gravity.
Truly, a delusional worldview. It’s no surprise decent people are so terrified of you monsters.
your a moron, people like you should invest in a used cars , you make me laugh ,idiot,
right on i totally agree.
So by your logic…*obviousman* a leader doesn’t need to be responsible for what he leads. He need only be a figure head…and not someone who holds everything up/together…
ie
…the foundation….
What class do you teach three time a week? Certainly not English. Are you actually just that one dumb sub teacher all the kids make fun of, but don’t want to admit to it?
As an aside, I was homeschooled in high school. I think homeschooling is good if the district one is in is crap (like mine). However, I guess I assumed one ought to be intelligent to homeschool their children. You obviously don’t share this view.
6 Trackbacks
[...] http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/ [...]
[...] January 24, 2009 by shadybrook http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/01/the-tragic-trap-of-christian-marriage/ [...]
[...] 13, 2009 by Daniel Florien A few months ago I wrote an essay on The Tragic Trap of Christian Marriage. In it I argue that the Christian teachings on submission and divorce cause suffering for many [...]
[...] Not only is this golden rule practiced in Christianity is that its also something present in other faiths, namely Islam, Buddhism, and I believe several others as well. So question 1) How is Christian morality different from the other faiths? If its not, then why should I believe in it? Here’s another problem. I picked this up from a comment on unreasonablefaith.com: [...]
[...] of intolerance. Even in Christianity, women are most definitely inferior to men. Daniel Florian of Unreasonable Faith wrote a great article on the trap of Christian [...]
[...] I can say that because I used to be one. [...]