By 
Evangelist Phil Kidd has a message for women, and it’s “Hey Lady Shut Up!“:
In I Corinthians 14:34 we read, “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak,- but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law”…. The Bible says everything that has breath has a right to praise the Lord. But there are some times when the Scripture commands woman to shut up!
Mr. Kidd expounds upon the Holy Word of Misogynists to make his point:
First, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Authority of the Church. I Timothy 2:12 tells us that a woman is not to usurp authority over the man. God never has called a woman to preach….
Second, they are commanded to shut up concerning the Administration of the Church… It makes me sick to watch a woman stand on a platform and lead a choir with men in it, or even worse to see a woman lead the whole congregation!
Many Baptist churches have even put women on their pulpit committees. Can you imagine going to a church in view of a call and having a woman asking you questions concerning your doctrinal stand? Someone needs to tell them to sit down and shut up!
Third, women are commanded to shut up concerning the Apparel of the Church. 1 Timothy 2:9 commands the woman to dress in modest apparel.
As you can see, Phil Kidd is a sexist pig — the last thing he should be doing is getting up in front of people and telling them how God wants them to live their lives. When I was a Christian, I would have agreed with some of what he said, as it is clearly biblical, but probably not with his methods.
Unfortunately, he’s right — this is, in fact, what the Bible teaches. It teaches that women should not have any authority over men and that they should “shut up” in church. And people look to that book as the pinnacle of morality and how we should live. That’s not a good thing, and it hinders moral progress.
If you ask me, if anyone needs to sit down and shut up, it’s Phil Kidd.
(via)
GOD ALL DAY: God finds ways into peoples lives. Weather it through dreams or life experinces and your right everybodys... 
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... 
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... 
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... 
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... 
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... 
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... 
215 Comments
It makes me sick to watch a woman stand on a platform and lead a choir with men in it, or even worse to see a woman lead the whole congregation!
Is this serious? This can’t be serious.
Yeah it is serious. I know of a few churches around here that have this same stance when it comes to women. I doubt that there are a large number of believers that follow this line.
Unfortunately, any church that DOESN’T tell the women to shut up is not following the will of god.
The best way to lose your faith is to sit down and READ the bible. Very few people do that.
Agreed. The problem is that many christians read the bible with thick glasses on, and they’re not prescription. For example, my dad has excuses for god’s poor behaviour in the bible saying that we just don’t understand the whole plan, our brains are to small to comprehend the perfect justice of god, etc. When you are prepared to spin everything, and say that the bible doesn’t really mean what it says, it means something else (when it becomes morally untenable to believe it) is very dishonest. At least this preacher is being honest about the bible. Now he needs to have a sermon about why you should kill your children when they disobey you. Next sunday maybe.
Nahhhhhhhh….. just not following the will of that horse’s butt, Paul.
Agreed.
Agreed. I say, “Read it, and be thou appalled and repulsed.”
For more irony, read further down.
I idly wondered something when I checked back here after a hiatus, and soon found my answer: John C still blathers on!
Even in the atheist haven of Denmark a lot of male priests are opposed to female priests. About 60% of female priests say they have been told by male collegues that they are unfit for their office. And this is in our National Evangelical Lutheran Church which is fully sponsored by the state.
But I suppose I shouldn’t complain. Those male priests are probably helping the atheist cause by being such a disagreeable bunch of dogmatists.
I have used that argument twice to debate with female christian literalists. I am a man, you are a woman, so according to the Bible you shouldn’t teach me anything; why are you trying to change my mind?
The objective was that they can realize that the Bible is not that “pinnacle of morality” but the morality of different societies a lot of time ago. It didn’t work -logic doesn’t work usually with literalists- and I did feel dirty for using that argument.
The status of women in early Christianity seems similar to that of that of women in (modern) Islam.
Moses and Usama bin ladin, a lot more similar then you would think…
@ nomad
Oh really?
To be honest, the only similarity I can think of off the top of my head is that women in early christianity couldn’t drive… (for those of you who don’t have a sense of humor, that’s because their weren’t any cars. *rimshot*)
1) female OT prophet = deborah (also military leader)
2) it is specifically given in the NT that women can be gifted with prophecy
3) ‘to prophesy’ actually means ‘to preach’
4) NT Greek women led churches out of their own homes
5) Jesus broke with Judaism quite abruptly on the issue of women’s rights
–he talked with women who were pariahs
–he allowed ‘unclean’ women to touch him without reprimand
–he continually rebuked the religious leaders of the time for their interpretation of the mosaic law, which at that time included a daily prayer of thanksgiving for not being born female. He also associated with women who were socially unacceptable in order to point out the difference between his teaching and the Pharisees’.
With all that said, yes, there are like three NT passages in which Paul indicates that when he runs church, he sets down some rules for women, but to be honest, that can be fairly easily explained away with knowledge of his own background as a Pharisee and his teaching that while all things are ‘free’ we must be careful not to cause others to stumble in their own faiths.
sigh… i’ve come off a little too strong probably.
If we’d like to look for misogyny in religion, i’m sure we can find it.
its pretty easy to make arguments for misogyny in just about every social and historical arena.
I guess, just bear in mind that in order to accept the bible as the word of God you are not forced to be a misogynist, or even to agree with one word that phil says.
On the contrary, it is impossible to believe the bible and not also believe in slavery, tribal murder, and mysogeny. The bible is very, very clear on these counts notwithstanding the few cases the christians love to point out as exceptions to the rule. Check this out:
http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/5_church%20,%20woman_&_Conclusion.htm
I believe that slavery, tribal murder, and misogyny exist, yes.
since this is not a post about slavery or tribal murder, we can leave it at misogyny for now.
what is this text you’ve linked?
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible details the many hundreds of verses in the bible that assume women’s lesser status, or role as the evil temptress who must be oppressed:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html. Further evidence is christianity’s long history of doing just that. If the bible was the word of god, he would have ensured that it would be be so very easily “misinterpreted” as an excuse to murder, rape and pillage. I could write a book easily, myself, that could inspire people to treat each other as equals and I would not include hundreds of verses condoning cruelty to different groups.
I don’t suppose that the SAB mentions anything about men in the Bible typically being represented as cold, domineering, war-mongering, selfish jerks? Or that the vast majority of ‘evil’ figures in the Bible are male? Does the Bible then discriminate against men? Or children, in assuming that they are incapable of making their own choices before a certain age, and that families function as a unit, regardless of the desires of the children?
Is it God’s responsibility to ensure that one can’t easily read something negative into the bible? I hear this a lot, but i’m not sure it makes much sense.
Yes, it also discriminates against men, giving a vision of us adjusted to a pratiarchal society. But still, women had the worst part of it.
That’s something that’s not mentioned much – that is, the consequences to men when women are oppressed. It is impossible to have intimate relationships in the absence of equality. Everyone misses out then.
Is he using 1 Corinthians? How can he explain that Paul was expecting the end of the world 2.000 years ago?
1 Corinthians 7
“29What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short.[...]. For this world in its present form is passing away”. What does “short” mean? 2000 years?
1 Thessaolians 4 “we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord” .
Yeah, we who are gonna live more than 2000 years, and consequently are left till the coming of the Lord…
Oh there’s a verse saying a day is like a thousands years to God. So really it’s only been two days! ;)
(But seriously, that is a real response.)
But Paul wasn’t living for 2.000 years, he was going to be persecuted and marthyrized. So that gives a new problem: did God lie to him, or did God let him have a false understanding? Anyway, for an all-knowing God there is not a real difference: He’s a lier
An other plausible explanation, of course, is that Paul had an hallucination and imagined “talking” with an unnatural being. But Paul is one of church’s fathers, having an influence above their beliefs comparable to that of Jesus
A thousand years are like a day to God. Yeah, that one gets used a lot, from explaining how the biblical genesis is consistent with scientific conclusions, to why Jesus is taking his sweet time with that second coming.
When you get down to it, it’s a really lame argument. No doubt it’s derived from God’s allegedly eternal nature, but just because God is eternal shouldn’t mean that he’s a slacker? He should be able to track each fundamental particle of his creation at every possible point in time, otherwise he is not omnipotent. Saying that he experiences time in a slower way is really contrary to the omnipotence claim. On the contrary, he should be able to perceive and act unimaginably fast.
I mean, if you dig up an old 8086 processor and make it calculate pi to several million digits, it would probably take a thousand years, compared to a modern processor that can do the task in a day. This would hardly cause us to praise the 8086 for its god-like powers.
TRJ-
Saw your question to me yesterday, wrote a response but not sure Daniel would appreciate me posting it, as I have commited to him not to get too “preachy”, not that he has asked, just that I’m trying to be respectful of his forum, etc. You are circling around the second birth question, the how’s and why’s and I appreciated your comments, will try and frame it in some coherent, but not too preachy way, ha.
All the best TRJ! You are not far from the kingdom my friend.
Oh, believe me, I’m very far from God’s kingdom. You’re probably just fooled by my somewhat civil manners.
Your “civility” doesn’t fool me, for out of the heart the mouth speaks. I “hear” some things in your words that lead me to believe some internal wheels are in motion, churning, that’s all. Btw…His kingdom is one of Love.
He, that’s ironic. I think the main reason I’m an atheist is that I tend to analyze things. So far, the more I’ve learned about Christianity and other religions (their scriptures, ideologies, history, etiological nature, etc), the more I’ve become convinced that it’s a load of bunk.
Yea, most of it is. But He is not.
Technically, it’s out of the lungs, by way of the larynx and vocal tract, all directed by the brain, that the mouth speaks, but you probably didn’t go to medical school so I’ll let it slide.
No Andrew. It is the cardiovascular system that connects directly to one of two small bands of muscle within the larynx, also known as the vocal cords, which then connect directly with the oro, also known as the mouth, through the use of a strong muscle anchored to the floor of the mouth, also known as the tongue, through the the muscular folds forming the superior and anterior borders of the mouth, also known as the lips. Therefore we speak from the heart. And I hope you know I’m kidding.
For most people “soon” is a shorter time period than a “day”
But to a fundie “soon” is longer than a “day”
A day is Genesis is 24 hours.
When Jesus said he would return “soon” Soon=2,000+ years.
So any reference of time is the bible is unreliable. Is it god’s time or human time?
He misinterpreted the Mayan calendar. LOL
So I had this conversation with one of my christian friends the other night. We talked about cherry picking the bible and, of course, she had an explanation for all of it. In Timothy 2:9 (NIV), Timmy tells the church that, “I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes…” Her response to this is that the bible has to be updated with the culture. Women no longer are associated with being a prostitute just because they have earrings in. My question to her was why do christians not “culturally update” the whole bible? Women now have rights as citizens- can they not have rights in the church?
So not only do christians already cherry pick the bible, they cherry pick what they cherry pick! That has to be exhausting.
I’m confused here. Why is it that the Christians say that we should follow the bible because it’s the source of morality and so forth, and then your friend says “that the bible has to be updated with the culture”. I thought the bible was perfect as is without changes, or so they keep telling everyone.
They say both, depending on the conversation. :)
Nowadays you’re likely to meet Christians who say that the Bible is full of wisdom, but that it’s a document written in its own time and place. We have to be careful to select its wisdom while being aware of its flaws.
Of course, wisdom is that virtue that we perceive in others when they agree with us. So this seems to mean reading the bible and taking those parts we agree with while discarding the rest.
I also don’t think it is up for individual interpretation usually. If those Christians you ask select passages that are wise as is and passages that apply to ancient times but not today, they will have been confused about these things before, but having had it explained to them by someone in authority like their pastor, it will “make sense” and they will go along. This is not to say when one finds a section of the bible disagreeable even within their church, they will disbelieve it in its entirety. People do self-select their notions as correct and shop for a church that agrees with them as well. I don’t know that a lot of people arrive at these conclusions themselves, but are often influenced by some other argument. They do this in politics also.
For example, if everything your church says seems likely and you’re at peace with what’s being told to you, but you disagree with their attitude toward gay people (some churches are obviously against it, while some churches are open and welcoming), your personal attitude is probably going to look for a church that is against gay people like you (general you that this paragraph is about, not person ^) or more tolerant and inclusive of gay people that you think is right. Where you get your attitude toward gay people may come from people you know who are gay or yourself, or an ability to be influenced to hate and fear, or love and accept.
Whatever the bible has to say about it can be interpreted selectively, but I don’t know that people are coming to their own conclusions without external pressure to go along with the crowd. It may be something more attractive to you that supports your ideas in number and gives you the courage to protest things, but really any activity like that is mostly a social one. I wrote about this when you (Vorjack) posted about the atheist churches – there are a lot of activities that nobody will sign up for unless their friends tell them it seems like a good idea, and you get your enthusiasm (and possibly self-righteous beliefs) from participating inside a group, where otherwise, you wouldn’t have thought about it at all. Your priorities for considering different issues and applying attention and activity toward them come from inside the group and the leader and their ability to influence what you think is important to act on.
Of course you get this guy, if his priority is misogyny and sexism, he’s going to pick that out and people are going to “come out” with their agreement and all reinforce each other. I happen to believe even myself that the bible has wise passages and wise philosophies, as well as things that were historically relevant at the time, and as well as arbitrary rules made by people who backed those demands with the authority of god. It’s a mix. I don’t use the bible as a guide, however. It would probably be as difficult for me, an atheist, who admittedly never read the bible, to justify the usefulness of even the most “obviously sensible” passages from it without defending the utmost ridiculous either. It’s not all shit, but it’s the same as it is today – who do you agree with, who makes sense, who do you respect for their intelligence? The bible has many authors, so some of these are people you’d have coffee with and some of them would get a punch in the nose. There’s no real reason to not cherry-pick, that at least shows discernment for one’s own values, if not the values placed in them by group-think, even if it simultaneously demonstrates being kinda squirrely excuse-making for this god.
I’ve seen this in my own family. My mother was raised catholic, but as an unmarried mother of two (by choice) and independent woman all-around, she obviously didn’t feel comfortable in the more conservative catholic church.
Instead she found the evangelical churches, which do not rail against women all that much. There’s no talk of submission and sin and everlasting fire in the church she eventually went to.
If you ask her about the dietary restrictions, she’ll probably ascribe it to “ancient people’s rules”, “cultural thing” and all.
Ah, yes. The Bible is like a rose:
“We have to be careful to select its wisdom (flowers) while being aware of its flaws (thorns).”
*rolls eyes* Cue the defenders of biblegod now– who will come up with all sorts of reasons to say that this isn’t interpreted correctly… or that it’s a metaphor, or some other way to excuse the obvious misogyny of the bible…
of course, in their hypocrisy, they’ll insist that biblical marriage is between one man and one woman…
I actually heard it used as an explanation of why gay marriage is such a problem. They were saying that because there is two men or two women than how can you determine who should be the boss. The concept of a relationship between two equal partners just couldn’t get through the bible shield around their brain.
“Relationship between two equal partners”? Has anyone told Mme Metro?
Excellent point. The ‘power-over’ hierarchy of the bible is, in my view, one of its primary evils. There is absolutely no concept of partnership, consensus, etc. When I was exposed to the aboriginal belief system, which was holistic, equal, gentle, and egalitarian, I was so excited. This was one of my first steps on the road toward atheism, as eventually I realized that the aboriginal spirituality was just as deluded as christianity, just not as dangerous. They were more in touch with the pre-patriarchal ideas that were in place before the bible was written, when people worshipped the goddess etc. Patriarchy and the OT came together, replacing respect with war, consensus with power-over, and equality with control. (My sister has her Masters of Divinity on the pre-patriarchy era, so I know a little bit anyway!) I remember when my dad talked about men being the “head of the home” because you can’t have “two presidents” in one family. So very sad. Marriages are still trying to heal from this sick perverson.
why, then, are women referred to from the very beginning of the Bible as a “helpmate?”
merriam webster gives that definition as “one who is a companion and helper.”
companion and helper doesn’t fit into a “power-over” model, does it?
(I’ve also heard that the hebrew word for helpmate actually meant something very close to “backup” in a military sense, although I don’t know hebrew.)
lol
JonJon, I’ve even heard than circle and sphere are the same word in hebrew. I don’t know. just be cautious when you use other people’s claims about what a word means in hebrew.
Helpmate still refers to a lower position. Like assistant.
Exactly! People are picking nits while ignoring the elephant in the room.
DUH!
Exactly. Another example of how the bible has no concept of equality in ANY relationship. Ever. Only power-over. No idea of partnership. If anything, people should be “helpmates” to each other, but it is only commanded of women. Along with all the “shut up and be quiet” and “submission” passages, along with condoned rape, polygamy, and women slaves being worth less than women, women being sentenced to harsher punishments for the same crimes, etc etc it is absolutely dishonest to claim that a few passages where jesus talks to women makes this all ok.
@ janet again
I don’t understand why ‘companion’ doesn’t equate to ‘partnership’ to you.
maybe i’m missing something obvious? the dictionary definition is ‘companion,’ not ’submissive,’ not ’slave,’ not even ‘unequal companion.’ I’m legitimately confused.
@ LRA
yes, I mentioned something I heard, which I don’t know about.
I quoted the exact definition of the word. LRA, you just said what you though the word meant: “Helpmate still refers to a lower position. Like assistant.” That was not included in the definition I found. Granted, I didn’t check the OED, although I could if you all wanted, but what I said was not a completely unsupported assertion. Out of curiosity, I’d like to ask the same question I asked Janet: Is there some reason I’m missing why ‘companion’ is apparently not equal?
Sorry to be tetchy on this issue, but I don’t think its fair to point fingers at the Bible for being misogynistic when it is completely possible to point fingers at literally *every single social phenomenon I can think of* for being misogynistic. If you read literature looking for ways women are treated unfairly, you can find it. If you examine politics or business in order to find misogyny, you can find it. Examining the bible as contrasted to culture around it puts it over a thousand years ahead of its time.
Yes, people are stupid, and will persistently confuse conservatism with christianity, using the bible to back up political and social views that have nothing to do with it. Shockingly, however, *that doesn’t make it true.*
Most literature doesn’t identify itself as a directive of how to live on the authority of a supernatural god being. So as quaint as some customs may be or as much as some authors are dolts, very few of them get the benefit of causing a mass of the population to behave in certain ways and have attitudes toward things as commanded by the guy upstairs *(test). Nobody holds up random literature from an ancient era and defends their attitude by some trite philosophy. It is the bible that gives people license to be dumb.
@jonjon – first of all, a “helpmate” means “helper”. In what definition of that word do you see equality? If I am hired as an helper to the director, am I his equal? You are surely pushing the boundaries of the english language.
Here is an excerpt from a christian article on how women can be a proper helpmate to their husbands:
“As you grow in your abiding relationship with Christ you also grow in your relationship with your husband and your ability to submit to him. It is only with your eyes on Christ and your life in Him that you will be able to accomplish the next aspect of being a helpmate.
Second, each wife must submit to her husband as to the Lord (Ephesians 5:22). That is no easy task but that is God’s command. Again, it cannot be done by focusing on your husband. He is unworthy; immature; selfish and at times unruly.
Your submission cannot be based on his worthiness. If it is it will crash and burn the first time you see his fallen nature. Your submission to your husband, as to the Lord, can only be done “in Christ” and “through Christ.” Submitting as to the Lord puts the entire weight of responsibility for leadership on your husband and his relationship with the Lord. In essence, it forces him to be dependent on God.”
http://www.growleaders.org/PDF/%20Keys%20To%20Being%20A%20Helpmate.pdf
Gee, you’re right jonjon. This is awesome. PLEASE tell me where I can sign up.
@jonjon again:
Here are different translations of Genesis 2:18. Nearly all of them use the word “helper”.
New International Version (©1984)
The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is right for him.”
King James Bible
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
American King James Version
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
American Standard Version
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.
@jonjon – I know I’m beating this thing to death, but here’s the history of the word “helpmeet” or “helpmate”:
Word History: The existence of the synonyms helpmeet and helpmate is the result of an error compounded. God’s promise to Adam in Genesis 2:18, as rendered in the King James version of the Bible (1611), was to give him “an help [helper] meet [fit or suitable] for him.” The poet John Dryden’s 1673 use of the phrase “help-meet for man,” with a hyphen between help and meet, was one step on the way toward the establishment of the phrase “help meet” as an independent word. Another was the use of “help meet” without “for man” to mean a suitable helper, usually a spouse, as Eve had been to Adam. Despite such usages, helpmeet was not usually thought of as a word in its own right until the 19th century. Nonetheless, the phrase “help meet” probably played a role in the creation of helpmate, from help and mate, first recorded in 1715.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/helpmate
@jonjon – ok, I am getting carried away here. But I have one more comment (only one, I promise!!) You mention that women are portrayed in a mysogenistic manner throughout literature. Obviously that’s true. But we don’t say that those books are the perfect word of god that is supposed to provide the moral backbone and rules for a good life. This is why the bible’s mysogeny is so dangerous. It has been responsible for the oppression of women for 2000 years in western civilization.
Thanks to both Janet and Kodie for thoughtful responses
You both have made a very nice point. I think Janet said it this way: “This is why the bible’s mysogeny is so dangerous.”
I like to think that the misogyny isn’t necessarily inherent to the Bible, and that maybe it is read in by those with other agendas. BUT, with that said, even the *appearance* of misogyny certainly is more dangerous in the Bible or some other religious text than anywhere else. I find myself unable to counter that argument without seeming a bit silly.
Heck, I even buy that the Bible might be responsible (in a limited way) for the treatment of women through the 2000 years of western history that followed it. (Although this is slightly less compelling to me, since I think people bear more responsibility for their behavior than the book that they choose to read–even if that book tells them how to live.)
The long and short of it is this: I totally, 100% agree that misogyny which is reinforced by a religious text is extremely dangerous; perhaps the most dangerous form of misogyny. (If I may interrupt myself again, I should probably point out that any other kinds of hatred ‘promoted’ by a religious text are more dangerous than if they were not. Heck, I’ll even go so far as to say that religion itself is dangerous.) This is actually why it bothers me so much when people make claims that the Bible is irredeemably misogynistic. Any sort of incomplete understanding of the issue (on either side of the religious/non-religious debate) only aggravates dangers that are already present.
Thanks for the well-thought-out responses. See you around!
Jon- If the bible is somehow the magic word of god, then women’s issues should be clear and not fuzzy on the equality of women.. yet it is fuzzy…
Why?
@jonjon – because presumably god would want people reading the bible to get the message. If a thousand people read a book, and interpret it a thousand ways, how is the “true” message going to deduced?
So the Bible should have one interpretation, which will be obviously right?
@jonjon – yes, unless the point of a book written in code and contradictions is the following:
1. Create division among christians of different denominations
2. Create confusion in people so they don’t know how to be a christian, even if they really want to (ie salvation – works? faith? belief? sell all your stuff? Hate your family? The bible says all of that).
3. To ensure that the bible had zero credibility for anyone who really looked at it so that billions of “unsaved” people would go to hell for the sin of noticing this.
@Janet Greene
Look we’re talking about a guy who made a bit of a balls up when designing the Universe and the life in it — why would you expect him to make any better a job of writting a book? If he wasn’t such an egotisical maniac then maybe he could have employed a ghost writer do have done the job properly.
Jabster – good point. Too bad he didn’t employ some of the writers on these threads – there could have been a bit of wit and humor, as well as clarity, in the scriptures. And words like “miracles” could have been in quotations so that we would know he was just kidding.
Miriacles as in what would my creation really need, a cure for cancer (nope that’s a bit to showy), modern medicine (well they’re progressing well on their own) I know I’ll turn some water into wine — now everybody in the world is going to believe in me!
Jabster – I’d be good with providing food to the children of Somalia, stopping the sexual war against women in the Congo, and maybe one of those thin flatscreen tv’s.
The main things I have never really understood about the Bible are how you can believe that’s it’s anything more than a purely man made book and even if you can manage to get past that point why would you wish to worship the entity as described in it?
Jabster – it’s pretty hard for me to understand now why I absolutely believed it. Never even occurred to me that it might not be true until my 30’s. The only thing I can say is it’s brainwashing, learning from the time I was a baby that the only important thing is BELIEF in Jesus/salvation etc. – this is what will get you into heaven. So to doubt is unthinkable. Until my life got so unbearable I had to explore new possibilities. Unfortunately, I think most christians are able to coast along in their dogma, never realizing what they are missing – that they are living in the matrix.
The point of a text is to present information, and possibly to persuade or convince. Does that mean that those convinced have no responsibility for their own actions? I mean, that sounds awesome! You are indicating that Phil, who I happen to think is a bigot, is not responsible for his actions or his statements. If you insist that blame for this sort of behavior falls on the Bible, then you have given Phil a get-out-of-responsibility-free card.
I don’t understand how we are transferring blame from people behaving as people have behaved for the extent of human history to the author(s) of a book written over a period of hundreds of years literally thousands of years ago.
If you’d like to blame the Bible for all humanity’s ills, I suppose you can, but I simply don’t ‘get it.’ I’d much rather blame, you know, the people who actually chose to behave in a certain way.
What you are indicating is that:
1) Christians are free(r) of responsibility for being divisive and antagonistic. If the Bible is to blame for Christian bickering, then you are removing some blame from squabbling Christians themselves. I am not okay with that.
2) Christians are free(r) of responsibility for not bothering to learn about the faith which they use to define their lives. If the Bible is to blame for being an impenetrable wall of doctrine, then lazy and/or ignorant Christians bear less responsibility for representing themselves falsely. I am not okay with that.
3) Christians are free(r) of responsibility for turning a blind eye to inconsistencies or trouble spots in the doctrines they teach. If the Bible is responsible for people turning a blind eye to what their doctrine actually says (if for example, it is the only or the preferred way to deal with inconsistencies, like if any kind of close examination completely ruined Christianity) then Christians bear less responsibility for being sheep. I am not okay with that either.
The problem with locating blame at the Bible is that you have given a free pass to those who read the Bible and do something abhorrent. This is why locating the blame for people’s actions within a book, even if that book is persuasive, is ridiculous. Feel free to do so if you like, but for myself, I’d rather assign the proper blame to those actually responsible.
That is kind of tricky. It is kind of hard to over-ride god’s authority to the people who believe in him, no matter that it is people who created god and people who authored the bible. It is really difficult to convince people that this is not a magical book or even a very special book. I said around here somewhere that if there were no misogyny in the book “originally” (cannot rationalize even pretending as though god wrote a real book and it got corrupted along the way), this is what people still like to believe, and that’s why it got put into the book.
Some people are more rational who still believe in god and that’s how they selectively ignore or defend the presence of the words while still thinking and behaving with equality towards women like we try to in the modern times. Some people are selectively pointing out phrases that defend their moronic bigoted feelings, and teaching others the same. Not everyone receives this teaching, but a fact of socialization is that people relinquish certain powers of independent thought and have a hard time agreeing they are disillusioned.
So, yeah, I got nothin’. It is not just the book and it is not just the individuals who selectively interpret the book. I think if the bible went away, it wouldn’t be too long before the people made another prop, and none of this stops me from thinking they are idiots for doing that, but I think it must be an incredible power and something of a psychotic need to defend social customs with a higher power. I can tell you all something and some way you ought to behave, and some might be convinced, others would be skeptical. The higher I can go, and say, it’s not just me, but these knowledgeable professors researched it and studied it, and some would say that’s good enough, and some would look for the ultimate god power – if god says so, and I can say god says so, and I can point to a book that’s not just me saying on behalf of god, but he really wrote it or dictated to someone a long time ago; we’re looking at people who want answers and justifications. That’s why they don’t believe all the smartest scientists really are telling them the truth, because it’s not in the book. We’re looking at people who are willing to believe the weirdest things ever happened, ONLY because they were told about in that particular book. Any other book are things too ridiculous to believe.
How do you separate the people from the words and ideas in the book? I find it difficult to blame people entirely, but I do see what you’re getting at. They could stop being stupid and everyone just ignore the book or put it in its place as fictional historical philosophical composition of an ancient age. You make it sound like a simple deed. The book is meant to compel people to believe every single word literally. I find it really odd that it took off at all, but there you are. Whatever use it once had, I think as a political tool, really managed to stick, and yeah, that’s people. All blame is to the people, people wrote the book and people used it like a hammer, people spread the word, and people chose to believe it.
Jonjon – I agree with you to some extent. We are responsible for our own actions. But not completely. There is communal responsibility also. For example, if I’m defending a murderer in court, I will probably talk about the experiences that led him to this place (ie abusive parents, extreme poverty, being let down by the child welfare system, etc.). We are not islands, in my view, and we do have some responsibility to each other. That is to love each other, make each other accountable (with respect, when necessary), to help each other out when needed, etc. So I do not believe that we are 100% responsible for everything we do. Who we are is formulated by many things. However, the more we can take responsibility or our own actions, the healthier we probably are.
Now take influence. If someone is constantly exposed to violence, or pornography, while growing up, would you expect that this would have a significant impact on who he is as an adult?
Now the bible. This is the only religious book in the west that is considered god’s book. Any impact that ANY book will have is magnified 1000-fold because it is god speaking through a book (according to most Americans). How much more influence does this book, written by god, have on a person? When god is a tyrannical psychopath in the OT, and raves about eternal damnation in the NT, how can christians really be expected to be well-adjusted? Especially when we are raised as small children with these beliefs? It’s a miracle that mental illness isn’t more rampant among believers, in my view.
Religion has been one of the biggest reasons, throughout history, for war, violence, and division among people. In other words, without religion, there would be far more peace. Obviously, we wouldn’t be perfect, but as long as religion is about “god”, which obviously it has to be, it will dictate how people act in “god’s” name.
@ Kodie
thanks. I think your assessment is about right.
@ Janet
I won’t hold it against you if you want to assign some blame to the Bible. I don’t, because I think people have a tendency to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and I’d rather they didn’t throw their own responsibility on a book. But I can see some kind of an argument for environmental causes not being completely out of the question. The only thing I really wanted to get across is that putting blame on crazy hateful people who deserve it is probably more productive than placing it on a book they read, which, if I understand the general idea of non-theism, has no magical powers. At the very least, one should be careful not to transfer too many individual responsibilities onto a group or abstraction
thanks for a great discussion. i think i’ll leave this thread in peace…
for now.
o.O
@Janet G
I see absolutely no problem in placing some of the blame on the Bible; taking Jon Jon’s argument also means that the Bible can’t take any irresponsibility for positive things that happen!
The number one indicator for future life prospects is you parents. Does this it have genetic component, I’m sure it does, but the environment you’re brought up in is very important. Children learn from adults and the Bible can be used as a horrific learning tool.
As an aside I still can’t understand how this all powerful entity could have made his word so incomprehensible that it could be taken as anything but positive — you would think it was actually a man made book?
jonjon, you have a good point, but it seems like there are good and bad people of every faith, as well as atheists. Then there is a group of people who only do bad things in the name of religion, but otherwise probably would not do these deeds. Like being homophobic, bombing buildings, or burning witches.
Jabster – I agree with you. My belief is that if you love your kids, laugh with them, make them feel like an important part of the community, and provide appropriate boundaries (with no hitting, ever), you end up with ethical, productive children. Regardless of whether or not religion is taught. However, I also agree with you that religion can impede effective child-raising. Here is an article called “Organized Religion Impedes Moral Development producing Psychopaths”, which is a bit extreme but makes an important point. I found it well worth reading. Here’s the link: http://home.comcast.net/~pobrien48/psychopaths.htm
Only having a quick skim through the article I can’t really comment but I can certainly see how religion can, and has, been used, for want of a better word, to demonize those who think differently and therefore providing amply reasons not to see equality regardless of views as an important right. The one problem I do have is labelling this as producing psychopaths as I don’t believe that environment on its own it enough to produce this. This probably goes along with my second comment that giving a child a ‘good’ environment to grow up in just tips the likely hood that they will themselves grow up to be ‘good’ — I really wish I can live long enough so that the nurture vs. nature debate can have a proper answer!
If you hold it at the correct distance, and squint just right…
…Dr. Kidd’s PayPal is verified….
You can pay him to keep telling you how lowly women are…
Hey, Daniel: Where did you get the picture of the street preacher? That looks like the guy who shows up every year at the Gay Pride Parade here in Chicago. It is going to happen this Sunday, I think. My apartment building is close to the parade route.
I think that’s who it is. I found it doing a google images search, not sure the original source.
I like it when people put things in front of wackos like that so people can’t see their hate signs.
His shirt sleeve says “Jesus is Love”. His sign and face only speak hate.
Jesus believed in Hell. That eternal torture is a just punishment for … anything. I think that is a serious flaw in his benevolence.
The word “eternal” is best translated eon/aeon meaning a “period of time” or a dispensation, an “age”. I dont believe in eternal Hell since God is not punitive but redemptive in nature. I am not saying hell doesnt exist, if it does I have no desire to pay it a visit. If the kingdom of heaven is within us as Jesus said, could not also, hell be there as well, within us? In other words, we are each a little kingdom, that reality of our inner man, consciousness we each “dwell” in daily and rule our lives from. So even now, today we are in either a heaven or a hell of our own making, choosing. What purpose does it serve to burn one in Hell for all eternity? What change of nature, what lesson could possibly be learned? (by that one), I dont see any redemptive purpose in it. I think GM had the true revelation of hell if anyone cares to know. Could there be some hidden grand plan for the end of time? Some fairy tale restoration for all creation that was subject to vanity, to adam’s folly? There are some interesting verses that seem to allude to such an outcome. The one that comes to mind reads “as in Adam all died (a spiritual death, separation) so in Christ shall all be made alive (spiritual life, restoration). 1 Cor 15:22. All the best.
I don’t know what Jesus actually believed. I don’t know if he existed. But I do know that most Christians believe that Jesus believed in literally eternal torture, and also that he was morally perfect / the embodiment of love / etc., which I think are contradictory claims.
Your beliefs are somewhat irrelevant to my point.
I dont have any “beliefs” if the truth be known. Now figure that one out? :)
I knew you wouldnt get what I was saying…errh trying to say.
My comment was about mainstream Christianity’s depiction of Jesus, and your theology differs significantly from mainstream Christianity. It is therefore not a useful rebuttal.
I think you’re probably right in that most Christians today think that Jesus believed in an eternal hell.
However, there’s quite a bit of debate about that in biblical scholarship.
That is a pretty meaningless “however”.
You’re probably right that lemons are yellow.
However, cherries are red.
It’s not at all irrelevant. Biblical scholars study the text, and many conclude that Jesus didn’t believe in an eternal hell. Biblical scholars research, write, and teach at seminaries and divinity schools, where pastors are trained. Pastors study at seminaries and eventually work in churches, where they care for and teach laity.
The short version: the work that biblical scholars do does trickle down to thew pew. That’s a far from meaningless point, especially since John C and I both have some very serious doubts about an eternal hell for ‘non-believers.’
Lemons and Cherries don’t cross-pollinate (which was your point, right?). Biblical scholars and Christian people do.
You are rude to people: calling women “hey, girl”, and when Roger wanted to be called by his name, not Rog, you started typing “Rog–ER”. Rude. Patronizing. Arrogant.
I think you’re divorced; how well have your beliefs worked for you?
No, my point is that they are different. Should have been “lemons are yellow, however water is wet” or something.
The comment was about the JESUS IS LOVE and HELL AWAITS YOU contradiction, which is present in almost all characterizations of Jesus for thousands of years, but is more obvious when one person bears both slogans explicitly.
Which comment referred to what? I’m confused. I thought you were saying that biblical scholarship and what Christians believed weren’t related to each other. I was saying that they actually are related.
The comment was about the JESUS IS LOVE and HELL AWAITS YOU contradiction, which is present in almost all characterizations of Jesus for thousands of years, but is more obvious when one person bears both slogans explicitly.
Yes, that is a contradiction… I think we agree on that?
brgulker: “Biblical scholars study the text, and many conclude that Jesus didn’t believe in an eternal hell.”
Is “Jesus” not a direct descendent of the “Creator of the Universe”, or in some cases, this very “Creator”, himself?(depending on if you believe in a “Triune” biblegod, or not) In other words, it sure seems a bit odd to suggest that “Jesus didn’t believe” in something, in this case “hell”, because it seems to imply that “Jesus” is unsure about the existence of “hell”. “God”?…unsure?
You’re right, boomslang. I’m definitely using the wrong word. I should have said, “Jesus didn’t teach…”
(John 6:43) But Jesus replied, “Stop complaining about what I said.”
(John 11:35) Then Jesus wept.
John C – you finally said something that resonated with me! I agree with you about the concept of heaven and hell. It is our human condition, and not literal places. I think the bible says somewhere that hell is “separation from god”, and I would agree insofar that “god” is really “us”. It is separation from ourselves that creates hell. When we get to know ourselves, let go of subconscious issues that sabotage us, get rid of unnecessary guilt and fear, we allow our amazing bodies to repair the damage, and heal the chemicals in our brain that dictate mood.
I see (and read, here) lots of christians like that.
LRA: Or else we will be tolld that if we just have the transcendent and undescribable and utterly perfect and loving and invisible spirit of Je-sus in our hearts, it will all make sense.
There is a reason that Gnosticism failed (even though it answers the question of evil far better than orthodox Christinity ever did) John C would been burned at the stake as a heretic in medieval France.
I have often been labeled by more orthodox “Christians” as Gnostic due to my emphasis on the spirit, etc but I am not gnostic (I realize you weren’t calling me gnostic, but you were just making a good point) since gnosticism holds that God is imperfect. I was recently called Gnostic by several Lutherans on another website (why do they “call” themselves anything?) This is why I loathe any labels, titles, denominations at all since they invariably subtract and confine us, seek to put one in his/her proverbial “place”. The only true label is the one Father has given us, but very few know what that is. I know who I am in Christ, and I am a nobody in this world.
Some here on UF have even asked, tried to “label” me. I have never tried (nor desired) to label myself. I suppose the closest one that I could tolerate (ugg, if I had to) would be that of a mystic. I love the sense of wonder, mystique, awe and inquiry, am comfortable being left with questions, trusting in a childlike fashion and being sequestered for long periods of time. Today’s IC (institutional church) essentially ignores all the above aspects, having reduced it all to a formula of sorts, too methodical and rigid.
I dont like to dress up, am casual, comfortable. Dont ask me to wear anything that’s not 100% cotton. I dont fit in very well at “church”, have a bit of a hippie style. Not long ago Father showed me a place in prayer to visit, that had a now word for me. It was an all black, traditional church, the Pastor loved God, the people were sweet but were trapped in unyielding religiosity and formulaic rigidity and ritual. The church was very dressy. I showed up in blue jeans and a cotton shirt. You should have seen the look on the greeter’s face as he reluctantly opened the door for me to enter into the “sanctuary”, it was a look of horror as if he had just seen a ghost, and not the holy one. :) I received the word that pastor spoke that day, so true.
You can know someone best by learning who they admire, who has their ear so to speak. Most of those InChristed ones I love to “hear” speak are long gone, are from ages and ages hence. They had fewer distractions, lived simpler lives back then. I love to read, live next to a half price bookstore, probably buy like five books per week, am always searching the bargain bins. Have a fairly substantial library of ancient and historical texts, sometimes feel as if I were one born “out of season”, ha. Love nature, especially the mountains, prefer the mountains over the beach experience any day. Love music, LOVE music. All kinds, well ok, most kinds from classical to hard rock and everything in-between. Love acoustic guitar.
Label me whatever you like, I know who (whose) I am. Blessings today to all of you.
I would like to meet you.
Thx, BR…and I would be honored to meet you as well.
Maybe we could each get our guitars, sit by a fire, and sing Kumbaya (how do you spell that, anyway?)!!
We’re pretty much alike, y’know, minus the whole mysticism thing – and the fact that, due to physical problems, I am more urbane. I love art (oh, classical music to hard rock to heavy metal, oh yes), though, of all kinds and breeds and I include mythology and mysticism in that – I love to learn things, even if I don’t agree with or believe in them. What’s the fun of learning if we only learn what we agree with?
Love nature, especially wildlife – there’s so much to be learned just watching animals being animals. I suppose if I were to worship anything, it would be like the Amerindians who worshiped the land and nature itself. Alas, that one attempt of mine failed too.
So, cheers to JC, brother in humanity.
Yes Siberia, brothers indeed! This is a good reminder of how very much commonality we share in my friend. Thank you.
The Bible is nice when you see pieces of it cross stitched and hung on the front door. It’s not so nice when one actually reads it and realizes what it really says.
Y’know, this kind of thing makes me think.
There are people like this guy who think women should be kept silent and whatever. There are people – the more reasonable – who cherry-pick and discard this line of thought as outdated or a merely cultural thing. Both draw from the same book.
The first guy is actually accurate in that he accepts what his holy book tells him – a sexist prick, but honest.
The other guy, however. I keep thinking, if the Bible was written by God and God did not condone this kind of sexist thing – as well as slavery and etc. – why didn’t he tell his followers so? Why did he not say a word condemning this kind of thing, as he does adultery and lying? Either he doesn’t care or does agree with the Bronze Age morality his chosen people espoused.
Or you could say 100% of the people who follow any portion of the bible are doing so arbitrarily. They may take the book as a whole, or they may take this or that while someone else takes this or those but not that. They’re all concentrating arbitrarily on one book as if it’s the law or wisdom passed down from god. That’s cherry-picking in itself, the explanations for things and the behavioral dicta. They could pick another book or no book, they could be an atheist who agrees some parts of the bible are agreeable and most of it is nonsense or they could be a theist who agrees the same parts of the bible are agreeable and most of it is an historical documentation that no longer applies.
If we look to John C as an example, his version of the truth matters to him and he will follow only what makes sense and fits in with what doesn’t turn his stomach. Other people with other stomachs choose according to their conscience and define their god for their own behaviors and morals. You could hear someone say they can’t believe in a god who is so judgmental and violent and they pick out the loving and kind phrases. They are basically refusing to believe what one sect tells them is the true god because they cannot feel that it agrees with their own ideals. Some people get swept up in the beliefs and actions of a sect – the judgmental people like this dude, who will reinforce his beliefs with the bible. If the bible didn’t say it, he would not suddenly change his mind, but rather look for something to interpret and some church which defined god this way. If the bible said man and woman are equal and have equal voices, I have a hard time believing historically that things would be different than they have been. People would insert their bigotry into the bible or find a passage that gives them permission to be exclusive if they twist it hard enough. Isn’t that what the bible turns out to be? Nothing quite explains to me its popularity or its singularity among a group to which to refer, that’s puzzling that we of modern intelligence are still drawing holy conclusions from the one book without, for the most part, the ability to analyze its function in antiquity and its major lack of relevance or uniqueness where it is does contain any wisdom at all, in modern times.
Hey Kodie, hope you are doing well today, hope you are still speaking to me! All the best.
If there’s anything that can be said about you, it’s that you make a really sharp example for my post. You say god is love but you define it the way it pleases you which you think pleases god. It has led you into affirmed feelings that this is the correct way to regard god, by not thinking and just re-iterating what you define is the correct version of god. What you don’t do is examine other people’s methods of defining god correctly for themselves and arriving at the same affirmative conclusions that they are in the right groove, even though it differs from yours.
You are critical of people who have left god because of the “church” they belonged to and explain that is what turned them off as being the incorrect worship of god, and warn them not to throw the baby out with the bathwater as it were. Just because people conclude with the “help” of church that there is no god is no reason to pick cherries with you, however. You just make a really good example of how it’s done.
I’ve basically always thought that “if there was a god,” not only is he doing it wrong, which is beside the point, but that a wise thing would be to use the methods most likely to appeal to each individual. There, we can take a look around and see that although most people think they are right in that area, they also can’t see what I mean. They are self-righteous, as are you, and that god would not say this or that, and everyone else is doing it wrong and will not be saved. That’s the flaw in god. If he existed, the message would not be so warped that people couldn’t recognize its effect in other people by other ways that are meaningful to themselves. That’s what it boils down to, a cultural relic that continues to divide people instead of unite them. There is nothing you can do or say to unite humans to your flavor, nor you to theirs. If god means all of them, then he doesn’t account for human interference as well as a perfect being might, so I conclude he means none of them, and they are all invented.
Anyway, another example of your cherry-picking is to find posts and respond to a phrase, to generally try to correct people rather than discuss, and you’ve been told that’s annoying. If we were talking about something besides god, you would be the Cliff Clavin of this blog.
I tell you what Kodie, I’ll let you know when it’s my birthday so you can “cherry pick” that one day of the year to be nice to me? :)
Love, Cliff.
I’m not being un-nice to you, that’s you cherry-picking a perception. Take responsibility for where you are and how you portray yourself, what comments you make and how relevant they are to discussion vs. you know, the well, actually the truth is what John C is here to deliver. The Cliff-Clavin-ness of your interjections overrides the ability to appreciate what you have to offer, if anything.
Okie dokie, I refuse to argue with you today Kodie, *you cant make me, no please, dont force me to…*wink wink.
But seriously, I am peaceful, joyful today and simply refuse to fuss with anyone…so yes, today you are right, I concede, you win….all day long! :)
Now go be nice to someone., anyone..please.
This is like Witnessing on LSD. Maybe that explains John’s tortured thought processes.
I dont “cherry pick” because I dont go by the bible (the letter) exclusively, but by the spirit. If you received a letter from a dear loved one that you “knew” very well, maybe even intimately, would you allow that letter to define everything you knew about that person? No, you would read the letter and still hold to “Who” you knew in the big picture, his or her character. I know His true character and heart toward us, and no letter, rightly or wrongly interpreted can ever change that.
But you do. You claim to know the spirit, that’s what informs you, but you are really just receiving what you want to receive and rejecting what you want to reject based on preference.
Indeed. This is abundantly clear to anyone but you, John.
And then claims that his truth (preferences) apply to the whole world, it’s just the rest of us who are doing it wrong.
Like I said my musical friend, my heart (Christ) speaks louder to me than any text ever could. This is how its supposed to be…He’s an “inside” job. That’s where and how we really know Truth-Himself.
This is where a problem is created. I don’t tell you that what you hear and how you decide to act upon it is “wrong.” Wherever the voices that you hear actually come from, I think it is not necessarily destructive. Someone like Phil Kidd is taking it upon himself to dictate what others may do in christ. You say you censor yourself or promised Daniel so maybe you would be inclined to do that also if you did see that as more important way of sharing your beliefs.
But, like I said before, “if there was a god,” he’d be in your ear the way you can hear him, and he’d be in my ear the way I can hear him. I say he’s not there, and you say he is, and I’m still right in my thinking. If you can conceive of a god who allows people to decide that their life is fulfilling and that they are structured in such a way as to “receive” a message, that not everyone needs to know or believe in god to do the right thing, it’s there anyway. I realize this might sound wishy-washy to other atheists, but that’s sort of how I conceive of knowing. “If there was a god,” he would see I was ok without the voices, and that John needs special guidance to get to the same place. As it is, I think John believes it so deeply that he follows his “heart,” the same way I follow mine. I know it’s not the heart muscle, but within the brain to calculate and decipher and navigate this world to live a fulfilling life. Whether that includes a god or not, I think we are all capable of unblocking the way, without having need for calling it “the way,” it just so happens we are all in life from beginning to end, and either way you look at it, it is the way, the only way.
I do have a problem here where people say that someone isn’t doing it right because of what they define and agree with their chosen god or the people who speak for them. John himself went to a church and describes a rigid form of believing that he conceives is not the right god, but it is for the people who belong to that church. They are not “caught up” in a wholly different god than yourself, they are clinging to what they prefer. Phil Kidd is doing the same thing, and the Phelps people are doing the same thing. They are observing the world and their place in it and speaking for god that they prefer. Some people find a “better” god and some people leave it altogether as nonsense. Religious freedom is what allows people to use god to defend what they want to do anyway and sometimes it hurts people and sometimes it’s not that big a deal.
But anyway, John, whatever you feel on the inside with respect to (your) god, is not an alien emotion to the rest of us, we just call it something different because it’s most probably not supernatural.
Another blatant lie, John.
I understand the spirit thing, John. But my problem is that that doesn’t explain the differences about bible’s interpretation. I mean, how is it possible that the spirit says a thing to you, and a different thing to every christian? And you are a special good example because, being serious, you have a pretty particular set of beliefs.
Are all those other christians wrong? Don’t they know God as well as you? Is not the true Spirit with them?
The Bible actually contradicts itself here. There is the keep silent in church but then there is Junia who is described by Paul as an apostle, someone who spreads the gospel (the name is usually considered female but some think it should be Junias, a man’s name, but most of the argument for that seems to be based on the presumption that an apostle has to be male). The Tanakh also has the judge and prophet Deborah.
What about Pastor Melissa? The “porn” priestess:
http://truthaboutpastormelissascott.com/
I dont normally watch her but happened to catch a few minutes last night and ironically enough she was addressing this very issue, women speaking in “church”, teaching etc. I wish I had a transcript, maybe I can find out more about her conclusions since I only saw a few minutes of it.
Unfortunately, he’s right — this is, in fact, what the Bible teaches. It teaches that women should not have any authority over men and that they should “shut up” in church. And people look to that book as the pinnacle of morality and how we should live. That’s not a good thing, and it hinders moral progress.
Daniel, before you left Christianity, did you ever get into Christian feminism and feminist critiques/interpretations of the Bible (especially passages like the one in this sermon)?
I don’t mean it to be a leading question; I’m just curious.
I’ve heard a lot of christians use that or a similar line to start an argument and an opening to bludgeon people to Jeezus. They do not listen and they are lying because they are not curious.
Yes, I think that about you.
I’d expect nothing less.
I meant it honestly; you can take me at my word, or you can call me a liar.
Fortunately, not everyone here writes me off as a liar just because I’m a Christian. I asked honestly, and I qualified in hopes of dodging accusations like yours. Oh well.
I’m genuinely curious whether or not Daniel ever read Christian feminism before leaving Christianity. Discovering Christian feminism contributed to keeping me in the church; for others, it contributes to them leaving. Others never find out about it.
Dodging is the wrong word. Avoiding or preempting would have been better.
Christian-feminism. Ummm. I have to say that I get a little chuckle out of christian and muslim women who proclaim how their religions empower women. lol.
Janet, did you ever read any before you left the church?
brgulker – did I ever read any what? The bible? Not substantially. Like most christians, I read portions of it but never cover to cover. Actually reading it was a shock to me, and was the beginning of my de-programming process. I recommend the bible to everyone, except maybe those under the age of 18 since the content is not appropriate for minors. If people read the bible with an open mind, without making excuses, things suddenly become quite clear. If I misunderstood your question, I apologize and request clarification.
I wasn’t clear; sorry for that.
I was wondering if you’d ever read any Christian feminism before leaving the church.
I’ve read egalitarian theology — is that what you are referring to? Personally I saw it (and still see it) as an exercise in jumping hermeneutical hoops. Somehow they can read a passage and by the end, they say it means the exact opposite of what the “clear” meaning is.
But, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that people can make the bible say whatever they want. If you want women to shut up and sit down, you can find verses to support it. If you want them to be in leadership positions, you’ll find verses or examples to support it (like Deborah).
Gotcha.
What about women like Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza (http://www.hds.harvard.edu/faculty/schusslerfiorenza.cfm)? Or Radford Ruether?
And really, I’m just curious. I don’t mean them as loaded or leading questions.
No, I haven’t read much in the way of christian feminism. The books I was exposed to were quite “traditional” in their approach (read: oppressive to women). If I were a christian, I might be tempted to check out christian feminism, although I find that amusingly paradoxical. As an atheist, and as a person who has studied the bible, I feel it’s a bit redundant. Any feminist theory arising from the bible would be as a result of an incredible amount of spinning and twisting, but as Daniel says, the bible can be used as a basis for any belief. But taken as a whole, and not cherry-picking, it is clear to me what the attitude toward women is.
I have a sister who was basically a fanatical christian for 25 years, when she became “reborn” as a christian in her early 20’s. She attended Billy Graham crusades, was the sunday school superintendant at her baptist church, read the bible cover to cover several times, witnessed to us until we just about had her off’d. She started going to university in her 40’s, taking feminist theology. Gradually, what she’d really read in the bible became clear to her, and she started to open her eyes. By the time she went for her doctorate, she was an atheist. This took about 10 years. She has studied every type of feminism, from ancient to radical to liberal to christian. A big reason she had to abandon her faith was the disrespect to women in the church, in religion in general, in christianity, and in the bible. It didn’t compute with a loving god. So I have it on good authority that christian feminism is pretty much what it appears to be – another attempt by people who refuse to look at the facts honestly to convince themselves and others that the bible doesn’t mean what it says.
Actually, the bible does not teach that women should be silent. Sarah Sumners book “Men and Women in the Church” is a good resource on this very misunderstood subject. The New Testament passages cited are directed to very specific situations and are not to be taken as general doctrine.
So that’s what it says, but not what it means? Gotcha.
David,
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is subjective. How do you determine when a verse in only for a certain particular time and place? We have hundreds of Protestant denominations who differ on which verses are meant to be timeless and which are meant to only for a particular time and place. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who decides? You? The Pope? Bible Scholars?
I know of no ironclad hermeneutical rules that allow a person to determine this issue. Most Christians and their denominations are quite schizophrenic when it comes to determining the current validity of any particular text.
I grew up in a Baptist Fundamentalism that did not believe the Old Testament was for today. Yet, when they wanted to preach on tithing, pants on women, and a variety of other social ills where did they go? The Old Testament.
It’s all quite subjective. God seems to have trouble making up his mind.
Bruce
Or people dont really have the mind of Christ, which is it?
According to the Bible ALL Christians have the mind of Christ………..so either there is a lot of people deceived into thinking they are Christians or there is a lot of subjective reasoning in Christianity.
An arbitrary God followed by subjective thinking people……makes for a nice mess.
No.
According to the Bible all christians *should eventually get* the mind of Christ, and be conformed to it to the extent that their humanity will allow. (we are “being conformed,” not “already conformed.”)
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is subjective. How do you determine when a verse in only for a certain particular time and place? We have hundreds of Protestant denominations who differ on which verses are meant to be timeless and which are meant to only for a particular time and place. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who decides? You? The Pope? Bible Scholars?
Well, it’s not all subjective. Take for example the 1 Cor. passage which instructs women to wear headcoverings and not have unkempt hair. To make a long story short, archaeology has demonstrated that in Corinth, women who did wear their hair uncovered and unkempt were temple prostitutes; in fact, the messy, uncovered hair was their distinguishing factor.
So, when Paul tells them to cover up their hair, there’s a specific cultural connotation to the admonition. Paul’s not being misogynistic; he’s trying to draw lines between temple prostitutes and Christian women (and perhaps ultimately, temples that endorse prostitution and those that do not). And given 1 Cor. 5, it’s not out of the question that this church may have even engaged in this type of sexual behavior at one point in their history, or perhaps that former temple prostitutes had converted — which might even explain why some women were wearing their hair that way.
We don’t have such a neat and tidy explanation for the Timothy passage (women shouldn’t speak authoritatively to a man). But, we do have a variety of passages that endorse women and men as equal with respect to the mission and ministry of the church (Romans 16 and the woman apostle Junia is a poignant example).
So how do we decide? Studying Scripture in its specific cultural context offers at least one way.
“We don’t have such a neat and tidy explanation for the Timothy passage (women shouldn’t speak authoritatively to a man).”
Well, kinda. Timothy and Titus are widely considered pseudo-pauline and may be as late as the 2nd century. It was probably written by someone who was like Tertullian and hated seeing woman taking leadership roles in the early church. But I haven’t had an argument yet where that’s helped.
The pseudo-Pauline “school” may or may not have existed. I don’t know for sure and am not convinced one way or another. In biblical scholarship, I wouldn’t say it’s ‘widely-considered,’ to be true that they were written by a pseudo-Paul, because there are plenty of scholars who reject that notion. But that’s a minor point.
It was probably written by someone who was like Tertullian and hated seeing woman taking leadership roles in the early church. But I haven’t had an argument yet where that’s helped.
Maybe. But it’s not a helpful argument to make as a Christian, really, because you’d be arguing that a sexist bigot helped pen the NT. I would like to think that’s not the case… and I would like to think that there’s a very specific cultural issue at stake that we just don’t know about, such as the relatively recent archaeological discoveries about the temple prostitutes in Corinth. But, so far, there’s no evidence of that.
“…when Paul tells them to cover up their hair, there’s a specific cultural connotation to the admonition.”
Probably the best argument I’ve ever heard from a Christian for completely ignoring the bible as antiquated, outdated and no longer relevent, I have to say!
Yeah, god forbid we examine religion historically…
…
… oh wait…
Good point Bruce. It has benefited some people to interpret scripture a certain way. But the “inability” (unwillingness?) of some denominations to determine the meaning of certain passages is often based in motives, not necessarily the text.
In the case of the 1 Timothy scripture some of the verbiage used in the original language is used no where else in the bible, leading me to believe it’s meant specifically for that church at that time.
I don’t think God has a difficult time making up His mind. I think we (religion or religious people) try to make it up for Him.
I was always told by christian leaders that christianity is so simple, a child can understand it. Yet the bible is full of horrors and antiquated beliefs. These then have to be spun and placed into neat “context” by a host of religious apologetics because clearly the texts do not stand up on their own. Then people have to use their own moral compass to determine what is correct and what is not. The result? Many people interpret the bible literally. Many THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of people. And ya know what? Many more thousands of people have been murdered or oppressed because of it. It’s funny that a perfect book written by god did not seem to anticipate these problems. Maybe the bible would not have been written in a “code” that only the religious seem to understand.
Wow, Phil Kidd. Haven’t seen that name in years. I used to run in the same circles as Kidd. Fortunately, I have long left such circles.
I wish I could say his view is abnormal among Fundamentalist Baptists but it is not. One Church I pastored would not allow women to speak in business meetings. They had to whisper their comment or question to a man and then the man would speak for them.
In the world of Phil Kidd women are to keep the home and do what their husband says. End of story.
Bruce
Phil is right.
Did anyone see “Jesus Camp”? There’s a crazy preacher lady who talks about how Harry Potter is evil and if we were back in the middle ages, he’d be killed as a wizard. Funny coming from a woman who would also be burned for speaking up.
I am a Jew, but not religious. (These days it is harder to find a Jew who IS religious.)
The Torah said that when the messiah comes, 3 main things will happen:
1. The Temple will be restored on the Temple Mound (there is a mosque there);
2. All Jews will return to Israel (I’m in the States along with most Jews);
3. 1000 years of peace (ummm, not yet).
Further, the Torah and Talmud say that you can neither add to nor remove from the mitzvahs/blessings, such as keeping kosher, wearing a skullcap. So, presumably, this Jesus character comes along and says all the old rules are null and void?
So if you ask me, all the Christians should study up on their Torah and Talmud and kick their crucifixes to the curb.
When are people going to wake up about religion?
They get around this by saying those things will happen at the second coming of Jesus. Don’t worry, they’ve got it all figured out. :)
“So, presumably, this Jesus character comes along and says all the old rules are null and void?”
Jesus was very clear in the gospels. He said he didn’t came to change the old rules. But he also said that the only important rule is love and the acknowledge of God. And he also said that only by believing in him you will go to heaven… And that you must left your family and your property to be able to go to heaven…
Well, maybe he wasnt all that clear
rofl
i like you!
I still read your articles all the time, Daniel, and they are usually quite good.
But man, I occasionally forget why I stopped reading the comments section, and click on it. Are there ANY comment threads that don’t degenerate into John C blathering his bullshit, and people attempting to make him make sense? Might as well try to knock down the Great Wall of China with your forehead.
Aw! We miss your funny comments! Maybe you could just skip to the bottom and comment away?
Good to “see” you again Ty. :-) Maybe there could be a three post per thread rule for any individual.
Three posts per thread? I would have been kicked off many threads ago! Oops, this is another comment…sorry…
Sometimes I think it would be nice if Daniel followed the Pharyngula dungeon rules. John C could be guilty of at least three misdemeanors. It often seems that whole threads are taken up with his babbling and he’s even indicated that he doesn’t bother to read the posts.
I must admit, I think John’s presence is actively destructive to the purpose of this website.
This is not “John C’s forum for random ramblings,” it’s “Unreasonable Faith,” and it began as an examination of what life looks like on either side of the faith divide. There’s room in that discussion for people of faith to present their viewpoint, and I’ve enjoyed a few comments by the new-ish guy Brgulker.
But John never adds anything to any discussion ever. He repeats the same random cryptic baloney over and over again, ad nauseum. And people attempt to get him to make sense, which means that every thread turns into him dancing around without ever making a point, while people try to nail him down to anything.
He’s been shown in the past to obfuscate, but when it’s pointed out he just dodges away and never answers any of the criticisms brought.
I admit this particular instance got under my skin. An excellent article from Daniel, I was excited to see people’s comments, and within five comments the whole thread is another John C mumblefest.
I really liked this place, once upon a time. I think it has largely been hijacked by one person’s monomania, and that makes me sad.
/pointless rant
I’ve made some attempts to draw out what John might have to offer with mixed results. He did share with us his transformative experience for a change, but is also likely to just ask me to “be nice” or what I think he means, “leave me alone.” For whatever discomforts him about these attempts, I hope he for some part will either take his own advice and leave us alone or join in with his full self. I really ragged on him a day or so ago since he admitted he doesn’t read the posts themselves and his habit of stalking posts to find gaps to wedge in with his usual ramblings to correct our “misunderstandings” of the faith as he sees it. I’ve also had to see myself where it’s not really my job to straighten this thing out with him and I’m about to give up myself if he doesn’t get a clue. It would be nicer to have his honest input as a Christian than the dopey reactions he has just because someone lays out Christianity in some other way than fits his perception of it. I also do like though not always disagree with the statements and input of brgulker and other folks who believe in god. It is useful to me to exercise my thoughts and what I believe and not just have a happy club or clique of atheists who just point out and/or laugh at the stupidity of religious persons as portrayed in the articles Daniel shares with us.
You get that John? Daniel makes an article and we discuss it. There is no single “atheism” that just because I believe it makes me correct someone else’s usage of terms and such, because I try to read for comprehension and not pick out lazy or incomplete writing samples. We communicate what we think and not just in response to a comment, but in context to the article. You’re accused of causing a degenerative effect in the comment portion of the blog for a reason, hope you can recognize it and offer something of substance more often than not, and not shy away from it just because we’re inclined to disagree with you.
“not always disagree”
I meant not always agree. Probably not most of the time, but neither do I buy all the atheism hurrah stuff. For example, that t-shirt posted a couple days ago, but that’s more about sloganizing. I’d rather not post a trite slogan on my chest or a bumper sticker, and that’s mostly about avoiding complicated discussions or even simple ones where people even say hey, neat t-shirt slogan. As threads like that go, it certainly can go into deep complicated discussion and not just be a funny (if true somewhat) t-shirt that everyone just says funny and shuts up. Sometimes, like John, just leave me alone. I wear solid colors and don’t offer reading material of any kind on my shirts.
That’s even more annoying information, because it means that John C sees these comment threads as his own personal forum for proselytizing.
Ugh.
No, I really do mean “be nice”. I dont mean that in an ugly kind of way, I mean…please be nice. Candidly, you have a rather sharp and pointed tone about you which is fine, its just that I have a hard enough time communicating as it is, ha and that makes it even more difficult to communicate….for me I mean, that’s all.
Not pointless at all, it needed to be said. I agree completely. I wouldn’t have that big of an issue if he would just make it clear what his point is, but I don’t think I’ve ever understood anything he’s posted. It’s just a lot of bible quotes and nonsense. I think he should either man up and actually make a definitive statement, or shut up and leave us in peace.
Though I think it’s important that I mention that he has consistently been polite and respectful, which goes a long way. I have nothing against him as a person, I just wish he wasn’t quite so vague.
Polite and respectful? … I think that depends of what you mean by that. He may not act in an aggressive fashion but I find much of what he says and the way he acts just plain insulting.
I wouldn’t call it insulting but I think Ty is right in calling it boring. I myself used to read
the comments more than I do now because there is no need to read the same
conversation over and over again. I realize some people are new to the forum and it
is fresh for them but after 50 or so times……not so fresh anymore.
I think not reading the posts you are replying to and repeating the same thing over and over again is insulting. Imagine having a real life conversation with someone who did that — wouldn’t you find it insulting that the other person has no interest at all in what you say?
I appreciate you telling me this. I admit I go back and forth on John C — he’s mostly harmless but I agree he has a tendency to threadjack. If that’s causing folks like Ty to not want to visit the comments, that concerns me.
I don’t want to ban John just for commenting. I’d say we could put it to a vote, but I have a feeling which way it would go…
How do other people feel about this?
I’d rather have John C read this and decide to actively engage with the community than sponsor some sort of lynching.
I just want John to read this and realize this forum ISN’T ABOUT HIM.
Comment on the articles. Argue in favor of Jesus. Whatever, man. It’s all good. But stop turning every thread into your own personal soap box.
But, again, I would not want anything I wrote to be the trigger for mob attacks on anyone. Not even John, who drives me nuts. I’d rather leave than think that a community I was involved with would vote on who gets a say. Which is one reason I almost never post at Pharyngula. I thought the Pharyngula survivor thing was a travesty.
Ban ‘em for violating the rules, but don’t do popularity contests. That’s just ugly.
This is what I think also. I have challenged him to be relevant. I’m not always relevant, and I think people know by now sometimes I ramble on. I hope I’m not detracting from the blog either, but I watch myself and regret some posts that I’ve made after I make them (who the hell do I think I am?). Everyone has days like this or days like that, plus their personality and beliefs. But it is a matter of preference. Do we “dislike” the presence because it’s always on and on about Jesus? No. We’d like some substance to discuss with him. I’m sorry for trying to engage John but I’m not. I hope he can read suggestions and be encouraged to share and not discouraged for “being himself.” I think a lot of us are asking for more of John with substance and relevance, or a lot less if he continues the pattern. And that should be up to him. He’ll have some posts that aren’t different but hopefully will approach threads with something topical for the majority of the time.
No board or blog is without a few jerks that rub you the wrong way, I don’t agree with a 3-post rule as suggested below – that’s sort of, make it my way, get everything off your chest all at once or forever leave the matter unclarified to your satisfaction (I try and try not to do that, but sometimes I’m not there). There’s no getting through to a bonehead either, but I like the chitchat to read and the thread evolutions. If we had to stop after 3, I don’t think it would be a relaxed place to come and think things out with each other.
Personally I like talking to him. He’s interesting and I do so enjoy to read about his POV, even if I don’t agree with it. I honestly don’t see why he would be “destructive” – quite the opposite. If we all agreed on a matter, what would be the point of it?
Well consider the three post per thread rule. This was implemented on another board to
keep arguments to a minimum (if you can’t convince someone of your argument in
three posts, you are not going to convince them in twenty). It probably wouldn’t really
need to be policed, just use gentleman’s honor. John is a gentleman, no?
Personally I’m not a fan of banning because it feels too much like censorship.
That being said, I am in the boat with TY. John is detracting from the usually excellent debate and conversation here by repeating the same confusing drivel over and over. The kicker for me is the fact that I sense he may have something substantive to add, but his communication style and intentionally confusing answers make it near impossible to discern what that is.
The best solution would be a commitment from John to substantively debate in a clear and concise way.
The next best solution is a commitment from John to at least tone down the frequency of his posts. He’s basically saying the same thing over and over anyway.
If John will not clarify what he is saying, or answer direct questions with direct answers, I again ask other regulars to just not engage.
If who can and can’t post here is up to a vote, then count me out of here. Censorship isn’t the solution, especially on a blog.
Plus Daniel, everyone has to admit that they egg it on. People ask him question after question and then complain that he gives the same answer — but they’re really doing the same thing, because they keep asking the same questions! (How do you know that? Where does your knowledge come from?) If you ask the same question, you’re gonna get the same answer…especially from someone who’s admittedly a mystic.
If you don’t like what someone has to say, and you engage that person, and then you find that you’re not making any progress with them, it seems the best solution is to move on. Get over it. A ban isn’t the solution. Just stop reading the posts
That said, John C, you gotta start reading the posts and commenting on the topic at hand. I definitely agree with others on that one.
Good point. I think “stop replying” is more important than “stop reading”, though.
True… wouldn’t know if something weren’t worth responding to unless you read it :)
I actually agree – we do “egg” him on by asking questions. I guess we just keep trying to make sense of what he says, but when we get close, rationality disappears like a mirage…
@brgulker
I’m not sure I agree with “everyone has to admit they egg him on”. I stopped replying to his posts when I realised that this wasn’t a conversation but him repeating the same thing over and over again while ignoring what you say.
If more people did the same or pointed out that they wouldn’t converse with him unless he changed how he communicated he would either have to change or leave. To be honest I wouldn’t be surprised if he was a troll.
Okay, maybe not ‘everyone.’ I suppose I was exaggerating a bit.
Just like any group or forum, some people argue flat out with what he claims and some people (easily or not) ignore the whole trial as pointless. Between you get people who are trying to get him to at least elaborate and be less vague, give some substance to his beliefs, something for the rest of us to work with. Only some exchanges are deliberately to get him to admit for whatever sake that he’s vague. And it’s easy to get fed up with him and wrapped up in his deluded messages to try to get him to improve. He doesn’t have to answer every use of the word “sky daddy” (although I noticed he doesn’t flinch if you say “man upstairs”).
Yeah, I wouldn’t say a lot of people egg him on, but enough of a few people (including me when I do it) get the exasperation on, so 1 John C post equals 3-5 full-on idiots posting to either insult or challenge him, which instead of doing so, he answers that he would but nobody wants to hear it, nobody wants to know, or lame dodges like “be nice” or “have it girl, have it.” So yeah, attempts to engage him have failed. It is really up to John to recognize that what we’re saying is not that he’s a dope and he should leave, but that he’s got the power and/or responsibility to improve his level of participation to discussion and not just reiteration and assertion and dodges and (what he seems to think is) witty banter. If he’s just going to post less of the same thing as he always does, he’s going to get engaged again by waves of people who think he could elaborate his thoughts and participate more fully. But if he can’t see that he owns that part, then he should probably say bye.
I wouldn’t vote for him to leave, but he’s boring the hell out of me. Nobody would be exempt from a vote if enough people disliked them or their posting style, but just like any group, you stay as long as you enjoy the people who also hang around. The overall detriment of any blog or group or forum is down to who posts there by option – if I like X number of posters but can do without Y, I skim past those I dislike until there are too many more than there are of X, and then it’s no fun anymore. Maybe my departure in turn makes it more fun for some, and makes it less fun for others. It’s the more or less tolerant you are and who sticks around, and are a lot of people leaving because of John? The noise he makes is in the attempts to engage him, so we should stop trying until he makes a change.
“Plus Daniel, everyone has to admit that they egg it on. People ask him question after question and then complain that he gives the same answer ”
Stupid us for expecting him to take part in a discussion?
I would rather not see John C banned and yes, I’m frustrated like Ty and many others. He’s a sincere mystic so his framework for suggesting helpful info is completely different from what is common. I hardly ever read his posts any more or the responses to said posts. I just skim on through.
Possibly the core problem is the way in which he continually pulls the same kind of comments and back and forths from ever newer posters. Maybe if we had a compendium of JC threads, newer posters could be lead there with a caution when they start up the “John C how can you…” comments.
Perhaps a temporary ban would be appropriate for anyone who continually ignores the opening post or who regularly take the thread off on tangents.
Mostly I’m inclined to think we could better police the responses as a group when newer posters start up with JC.
I want John C gone. I completely agree with these statements.
“I must admit, I think John’s presence is actively destructive to the purpose of this website.”
“He’s been shown in the past to obfuscate, but when it’s pointed out he just dodges away and never answers any of the criticisms brought.”
“it means that John C sees these comment threads as his own personal forum for proselytizing.”
John C isn’t here to discus anything, he’s here to witness and preach AT us.
I’ve tried just Ignoring him and moving on but there are too many replies to him to do that.
I’m in agreement with Sunny Day here. This reminds me of the old saying that free speech doesn’t mean you can run into a cinema and shout fire.
John C’s behaviour (hijacking threads, not reading posts, repeating the same thing over and over again) is clearly insulting and I think it’s fine if he’s banned. He has shown no respect for this blog or anyone on it and adds nothing of value yet takes much value away so why shouldn’t he be banned?
Thanks, Ty. Look forward to conversing with you, assuming you start posting (again?).
Guys-
I have made it plain to Daniel, I dont care to be a destructive presence here, he has worked too hard on this site. Just tell me if you want me to leave, if enough of you do and Daniel agree’s-then no more John C!
As usual,all the best.
Read my comment above, John.
I think you should stay, John, but I also think you should improve your style considerably. Here are my concrete suggestions for you:
1) Stop the repetitions. We know personal faith is not the same as organized religion. We know God is Love. We know we should be childlike to receive the Truth. We know! You’ve told us hundreds of times, literally. If the point of your comment is simply to reiterate any of these points, don’t post it.
2) Post relevant comments. Don’t threadjack by posting something unrelated. See also pt. 1.
3) Try to argue your case. All you’re really saying – again and again – is that you know the Truth (which is that God is Love, etc). But I’ve never once seen you try to use a premise that wasn’t also your conclusion. The Truth lets you know the Truth and therefore it’s the Truth, is what you essentially keep saying. That’s simply boring, tautological assertions. Try to include things outside the Bible (things a little less fluffy than feeling God through love and music) to actually support your case. It’d make things a lot more interesting – for you as well – if you could point to extra-biblical arguments for your views.
4) Don’t avoid concrete questions directed specifically at you with the usual platitudes about how we need to be childlike to see the Truth, etc. That’s either mildly insulting or pointless. It’s ok to decline to answer if you feel people are being disingenuous or rude to you, but don’t be evasive as a general principle.
I have an extra suggestion, which I’d like to hear people’s opinion on:
Daniel could let John guest-blog once, the topic being his beliefs. John would be free to elaborate on what it is he really believes, the tenets of his faith, what we can learn, what we have to do, the mechanisms by which the Truth permeates our existence, the details of how our dual-unity spirits became mortal flesh, etc. He’d get a chance to explain these things in detail in a dedicated discussion and answer people’s questions in the comments. Maybe just one of the aforementioned subjects is sufficient as a topic, rather than the whole package.
Is this a good idea? Daniel? John? Guys and gals?
Hmm, could be interesting, but don’t know how regular readers who don’t comment would take it. It’s sort of like giving a street preacher the stage at an atheist convention.
However, it could be a good example of “unreasonable faith”… ;)
I don’t post comments often and if you did let John C do a guest post I figure I would read it and maybe then his comments, which I seldom read anymore, would make more sense. It could also give us a good laugh, who can say.
“He’d get a chance to explain these things in detail in a dedicated discussion and answer people’s questions in the comments.”
I disagree. He’s had plenty of opportunity in the past to do this in the many threads he’s ‘jacked. He refuses to answer any question except in the most superficial way. Why expect his behavior to change when given a whole post?
Besides no special approval is needed from us for John C to initiate a blog post. Daniel has already indicated his willingness to have guest bloggers put up articles. If Daniel wants to put up a posting by John C, I’m fine with that. What I don’t want is for Daniel to allow John C to post if he has to lower his standards enough to allow it.
As far as “threadjacking” goes, I think my one fair defense is this. Its not intentional but when I do post something (and I really, honestly believe what I share with you) it is such a polar opposite perpsective that it naturally brings out the counter arguments in droves, I get lots of arrows shot my way guys (and gals) and that’s fine, but I feel compelled to answer, to follow up what I said since I do tend (in your thinking) to be rather vague, hard to understand so I “try” to make sense (usually dont do a very good job, ha) and that (itself) winds up becoming lots of comments, back and forth. Does that make any sense? It’s not like I post tons of comments, its just a whole lot of back and forth.
Or maybe you just need a good long John C break and I’m fine with that too. Either way, just let me know and I will…GO, GO, GO! Love to all (yes, I said all, that means you too Aor!) :)
“it is such a polar opposite perpsective that it naturally brings out the counter arguments in droves, I get lots of arrows shot my way guys (and gals) and that’s fine, but I feel compelled to answer, to follow up what I said since I do tend (in your thinking) to be rather vague, hard to understand so I “try” to make sense (usually dont do a very good job, ha) and that (itself) winds up becoming lots of comments, back and forth. Does that make any sense?”
It is NOT the fact that it’s a polar opposite perspective. It is usually the fact that it doesn’t make a lick of sense. I get what you are saying as far as your attempts to clarify, but you actually don’t clarify. You retreat further and further into riddles. I think that your particular brand of Jesus is so nebulously defined, even to you, that it is impossible to explain to anyone who doesn’t share your particular mix of brain chemistry. The issue is that you need to realize that this is in fact true, and stop tossing out riddles hoping for a fish to hook on your line.
And yes, the above quotes section is in fact one of the times you’ve made sense. You are quite capable of making sense any time you are not discussing your own personal theology.
JC– I just think you need to recognize that we rational people aren’t mystics and we will not agree with you. If you think that God is calling you to speak to us, then you are wasting your breath (or finger strokes, as it were). I agree that you should be more concrete, that has always been my beef with you. I don’t mind a differing opinion, but when someone refuses to engage it is very, very frustrating. That being said, you know I think you are a very nice man. But if others think you are threadjacking, then maybe you should limit your posts.
To be fair, I usually ask and answer JC, because of his particular viewpoint. Maybe I’m part of the problem too, tough I’m trying not to debate every comment of JC I see.
(Probably it’s because I’m pretty new on the forum and I’m not tired of you yet)
I enjoy John C on this blog. He must know by now that a “true atheist” (sounds a bit self-righteous, I am aware) will never fall for christianity. In any form. John C, most of us have studied this issue for years, and for many of us it is a real passion and an active journey. Maybe you could post with more clarity if you were not trying to convert us? I do see that you have a “kinder, gentler” brand of christianity than most of what we see, but I do not understand on what this is based. You say “spirit” or “in-dwelling” or something equally nebulous, you cannot expect us to get where you get your information, your “knowledge”, your particular dogma. Anyway, I would not like to see him leave, but maybe what we’re sensing is that wish to convert, and if you just sound sweet and mysterious, maybe we’ll be drawn to it. That’s not how it works for most free-thinkers. Just some thoughts on the John C issue.
Apologies for the constant changes from first to third person in the previous post. About as clear as most of John C’s posts, methinks.
I may have posted this earlier, but the way I remember it, I always canceled my reply: I sometimes think John C believes he’s on the side with the atheists against organized religion that so many of, well, you, not me, have had negative experiences with. He is trying to steer you to the “real” Jesus and not have us reject the messages as they’ve often been taught in church. He distinguishes himself from that factor constantly and possibly thinks everyone is turned off of god because of the fault of churches and people who get it wrong, so he is after everyone to correct our perception.
It is like everyone says their parents only offered them pizza with pepperoni on it and you hate pepperoni and that has turned you off pizza. John is saying, but you never tried it with peppers and mushrooms. Pizza is awesome if you can get past that some people try to force you to have it with pepperoni. If you call the pizzeria directly, you can order the toppings that … here’s where it breaks down, it’s still John’s topping preferences and not what you choose, maybe even ham and pineapple, or anchovies. He’s trying to sell pizza and we’re lactose intolerant or something. Ok, I’m done with this analogy.
And I’d say, the problem is with the pizza, and the toppings are just, well, extra toppings.
However, I don’t like this analogy, because I’m quite fond of pizza, unlike religion. :)
Hey, 7 commas, in two sentences, that’s pretty, damn, good, you know?
This analogy would be better if pizza – and/or pepperoni – were imaginary foods.
Let’s run with this. Pizza feels good, like a sky-daddy. But in any form, and regardless of the toppings, it’s filled with greasy, heartburn-inducing, fattening…delicious, tempting, (sorry, what was I saying??). Not sure this is working. Anyway, pizza may be delicious but that does not make it good for us. Like religion for some people. They may find it comforting, but that does not make it healthy.
Janet-
You know that “sky-daddy” reference is just too much for me, draws me out of hiding every time (did miss kodie put you up to this? lol). Jesus didnt teach that concept, actually quite the opposite. I made good today on my promise to make myself sparse, but saying “sky-daddy” gets me every time so please…if you wanna keep me quiet, lay off the sky-daddy reference would ya? ha.
Maybe one day you’ll understand why that’s such a hot button topic. All the best.
John C – sorry – can I say SD instead? Or the guy upstairs?
Phil Kidd is still a child, he sillt believes in bronze age fairy tales and has an imagery friend (named Jesus)
Yeah, that’s why he’s called “kidd”.
This comment is off-topic, but I just wanted to say it. I was watching a show about a satanic cult, which was really just a bunch of kids angry at their christian parents, and trying to be shocking and “bad”. I find it interesting that christians think that the opposite of christianity is being a satan-worshipper, when they are both occultish, dark, creepy and superstitious beliefs. The true opposite of “satanism” (whatever that means) is rational thinking and a rejection of all things superstitious. Wouldn’t christians be shocked to find that out.
Greetings,
I’m of the mindset that the Bible was not inspired by a god, but inspired and written by man. I wonder what the message of a “Bible” inspired and written by women would be. Would men be ordered to “shut up” and be submissive and obedient to their wives?
Actually, from what I understand from anthropology, the years pre-dating the bible, people worshipped gods and goddesses, but generally goddesses were more powerful and worshipped more. Priestesses ruled the temples in large part, and men and women were more equal. However, the interesting thing is that women didn’t tell men to shut up. It was more of an egalitarian society, with less hierarchical and power-over structures in society. It was based more on co-existing with nature and with each other, rather than trying to control and dominate. This is very similar to the Aboriginal peoples of North America – most of these people also had egalitarian societies, some with matrilineal lineages, and there was no domination of one person over another. Societies with these belief systems were generally more peaceful too, since their values were often based on consensus and harmony rather than the spoils of war and power. Then patriarchy came, with a male god so that male authority and power would have legitimacy. Voila, we got the Abrahamic religions, war, and oppression. Yeah for us.
Funny, I used to be pagan/wicca, and I completely forgot about the god/goddess when I posted that. But you are right, once we had a “God” that placed men in a position of authority over everything, things seemed to go bad pretty fast.
Thanks for that =)
Snekr – Interesting past you have! My sister dabbled in that too for a while, but now she is an atheist also. How did you discover wicca?
Janet-
Ha ha! Its a very funny, and interesting story I can honestly say. When I graduated high school I went to a Christian college wanting to be a missionary, I wasn’t a Mormon but I “felt” I had to convert everyone in the world. I mean I had grown up believing; “since the Bible is right about everything, then I have to show everyone the truth so they could turn from their sinful ways and give ‘glory to god’” I mean, if it was true, and there was all this proof, I was going to find it and show everyone.
Needless to say that when I got to the college, I was expecting all this training and all the “proof” that I needed. Imagine my surprise when my biblical classes only used the gospels as texts, and that there was no “original documents” to study, or anything, just a book that had the four gospels along side each other for comparison. I started asking questions that had bugged me about the Bible, and the the difference between the “truth” in the bible, and the “truth” in reality. I never would get answers and so I ended up dropping out, feeling completely disillusioned about it. I tried to ask my youth minister and pastor about it, and the only answers I was given to any of my questions was “you have to have faith.” I started talking with other people of faith, even JWs and Mormons only to get the same answers. I still wasn’t convinced that there was any truth to the Bible.
I started doing more research and a few years later I was convinced that Wicca was the true way in life, only because the pagans and wiccans were pretty much killed, and/or silenced between then and now. There was a book that was of particular interesting to me, by Raymond Buckland that really sparked my interest in Wicca. I got married, and my wife was very uncomfortable with my beliefs, and thought I was a “devil worshiper” when she found out exactly what I believed, and I had convinced her that I wasn’t evil, I just didn’t believe silly stories.
We both started studying with the Mormons after being married for a few years as a way to “fix” our marriage. My Bishop/Ward President told me that “God had a calling for me” and that I needed to do more in the church. This didn’t “feel” right. I told him that if I was being called into service, then I should at least have the same feeling he had about my “calling.” His response was something to the effect that he had a ‘more direct’ line to “God” through the “Holy Ghost” and that I needed to trust him. After being a very active member for about a year, I started to go back to the problems between the “truth” in the Bible, and the “truth” of reality. I pulled myself away from the Mormon church, and they really pushed my wife to get me to go back to church. They started coming over more often, and I would argue with them about the problems I was seeing. They would tell me that I needed to pray more and I needed to go to the Temple, and that would “fix” my faith. I remembered that my mother went to the Temple for my uncle’s wedding, and she said she felt like she went to a circus show, and I felt that if going to the Temple was like being in a circus show, then I wanted no part in it.
My wife and I ended up getting a divorce, and I remember the Bishop/Ward President coming over to my house, yelling at me saying that I was pretty worthless because I had pushed my wife away from me. He was passing judgement on me as if he had the authority to do so. With that, I parted from the church completely, although I’m still listed as an inactive member.
The past year and a half, I’ve been talking with a friend who has combined Evangelical Christianity (the most dangerous type I believe), with Jewish beliefs, as well as Native American beliefs. My new wife and I both were talking with him about it. I was curious from an educational point of view of the Native Americans and how they mirror the beliefs of a few Wiccans I know. He was trying to show me that all religions are pagan in nature (eating and drinking the body of Christ…how pagan can you get he always said). I’ve told him on numerous times that I didn’t believe the Bible to be an authority on anything, and that it’s very creation problematic at best. His only response to date has been to quote scripture from old and new testament, mostly about tithing to his organization. I haven’t really spoken to him in a while, but our last discussion was about me not doing “God’s Will” and “God’s Plan” which I have a huge problem with.
So that is my story in a nutshell.
Very interesting journey you’ve had (are having, I should say)! I relate to it on several levels. First of all, most christians do not realize that most of their traditions and beliefs are based on paganism (Have you read The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur?) Secondly, I spent about 10 years with the Canadian version of Native Americans, integrating into the culture and spirituality. We call them First Nation peoples here. It was very egalitarian, respectful, no hell or punishment, with an emphasis on harmony within oneself, with nature, and with others. One thing I still use daily is the concept of the medicine wheel, which is 4 colours representing the 4 main races, the 4 directions, and the 4 parts of self (physical, emotional, mental, spiritual). I use it to try to achieve balance in my life. But eventually, I lost belief in the concept of any god, or “Creator” as the natives said. I now call myself atheist. But unlike my religion of origin, evangelical christian (which I agree is probably the most insidious kind of religion), I can still integrate parts of the First Nation belief system into my life. I just don’t buy the superstitious parts.
Your path through wicca/paganism is quite unusual, especially for a man, and that makes your story quite fascinating. I’m sorry that something like religious differences caused your marriage to break up, but I guess it’s better to connect with people who have similar beliefs because they represent common values.
Thanks for sharing your story with us!
Janet
I heard about that book, I’ve never read it….although I’m thinking it might not be a bad idea. I’m finding it harder to believe in anything that is supernatural. I read “The Restrant at the End of the Universe” and in there it talks about a machine called The Total Perspective Vortex and how it shows you your place in the universe. I can totally relate to the idea that all I am is a microscopic dot in an unimaginably large universe. It isn’t that hard to accept once you realize just how big the universe actually is. I don’t have to have a reason for why life exists. It just does, why question it, deal with it, now lets do something really cool and go explore and see just what is in this universe.
I stumbled onto this page last week, and I found it very interesting. This site is very different from other atheist type pages that I’ve seen.
I also find it far more interesting to realize that we are a relatively small part of an enormous and wonderful universe. It’s so different from the perspective I had as a christian, which is an incredibly egocentric belief that we are the centre of the universe, it was created for us, we were made in god’s image, etc. Contrary to what many christians on this site say, about the mysteries and complexities of the universe and atheists inability to appreciate it, I am even more impressed with the workings of this complex system. Because the odds against our existence is astronomical, and the very fact that we are here is a “miracle” (in the natural sense of the word). This, along with the fact that we do not know what happens after we die, makes me appreciate life so much more. And I agree that there may not be intrinsic meaning in life, and that means it is a blank slate on which we can create our own meaning. Hope this isn’t too “John C” wishy-washy.
And about this site – I agree with you. I have checked out a lot of atheist sites, and this is the best one I’ve come across also. Daniel Florien rocks :)