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.
474 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.
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!
@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!
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….
@ 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 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.
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 respon