how to justify embarrassing bible verses – part 2
These posts may seem light in tone but they cover serious issues. Rape, for example, isn’t anything to take lightly and while it’s possible to laugh at Bible stories and be amused at Christians trying to concoct reasonable interpretations of these stories, the conclusions that some Christians come to are seriously worrying.
While we learned in the previous post that if a virgin was raped, the law stated she was to marry her rapist, in this next biblical story we learn that a virgin, Tamar, who was raped by her half-brother, Amnon, was distressed that her rapist half-brother wouldn’t marry her:
‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel. Please speak to the king; he will not keep me from being married to you.’ But he refused to listen to her, and since he was stronger than she, he raped her. Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up and get out!’ ‘No!’ she said to him. ‘Sending me away would be a greater wrong than what you have already done to me.’ (2 Samuel 13: 12-16)
Now this is a foul story and of course no Christian thinks this is how their god wishes men to behave. However, it is relevant as confirmation of the law discussed in the previous ’embarrassing verses’ post, which led one Christian apologist to state:
It seems that within their culture this was a desirable law at least according to Tamar who didn’t even bring up the law. She said marriage was the better outcome in a moral sense, not citing the law.
Let’s be clear about several things here:
- If what the apologist says is true, he can never argue that absolute morality exists. According to this argument, morality evolves and changes with time.
- Even if this story is true, did Tamar write this story down? No, a man who believed rape victims should marry their rapists is likely to have written this story and several other men are likely to have been involved in editing it. Did they know Tamar? No, it is likely they lived several centuries after she is suppose to have existed and based the story on an oral tradition handed down by men who believed rape victims should marry their rapists. This being the case, who in their right mind would make any argument based on the supposed wishes of Tamar?
- If a woman wanted to make the case that Tamar would have had a moral sense that she should marry her rapist brother, I’d be worried about her, but I’d listen to her point of view accepting it as potentially relevant. When a MAN decides that he could possibly understand what rape is like for a woman and can project the cultural sense of ‘right’ onto a woman who has been raped by her brother, I’m totally disgusted, offended, and concerned about how lightly he takes rape.
- Why do Christians accept that the god God swooped in to reveal himself to the people of Israel making radical changes to their culture, such as abandoning all other gods, outlawing adultery etc, but it would have been too big a leap to suggest that women (i.e. half of humanity, half of the god God’s creation) should be treated equally to men and not like property? Why do they think it would have been too big a leap for the god God to say that if a virgin is raped SHE HAS DONE NOTHING WRONG, she is not one flesh with her rapist, and that she could go on to have a normal relationship with someone else? Do they really believe that the only ‘kind’ option the god God could come up with was that a rape victim should marry her rapist, and that he therefore enshrined it in their god God-given sense of morality?
- I am now finally convinced that children should never, ever, ever be given access to the Bible. Like any other work of fiction with references to graphic violence and sexual abuse, it should be reserved for the upper shelves, out of reach of anyone under the age of 18. Seriously, would we give any other book with depictions of incestuous rape and such barbaric moral standards as presents to children?
We agree on this point.
For a man to make an apology for rape and claim that his god agrees or has a teaching about it is an affront to being reasonable. It is pointless to engage such a person.
LikeLike
I know everyone else thinks it’s pointless too, but I’m not convinced it is. It’s interesting to hear how other people’s minds work, and it’s interesting to get to the depths of Christian justification.
LikeLike
The analysis of the Bible presented here betrays the malignant provincialism which plagues atheism.
Why is realistic storytelling in a barbarian realm such a sin to the atheist?
Should Homer be subject to the same atheist malignancy because he had the audacity to portray human nature and the ancient Greek way of life?
Yes, the Bible would have only been a worthy tome with violetwisp playing the part of the not so Virgin Mary and the mean, foul mouth, witless drunk Christopher Hutchens playing the part of Jesus.
On yes, I almost forgot, the Bible just couldn’t be true without Bambi playing the part of Pontius Pilot:
“Oh you Jewish freaks, if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”
I hope all the malignant provincials out there are feeling better now.
LikeLike
Che, pelotudo, por la ultima vez, donde viviste en Argentina? La verdad es que tengo dudas que no hablas castellano con un accento italiano.
LikeLike
Don’t be silly. Nobody in Argentina habla castellano just like nobody in Andalucía does/n’t. We all have that funny accent, drop the ends off the words etc.
El marido mio habla español con un accento de pays de gales, mezclado con accento de australia. Beat that.
LikeLike
That sounds very weird. I’m usually entertaining for Spanish people – Scottish accent, confidently fluent yet full of errors, and Argentinian pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary.
LikeLike
Ah well, there you go. Meet Andaluz via Yorkshire, pais de gales and aus. Pretty easy.
What’s funny here is that no one expects Partner to speak Spanish because he looks so Celtic ie British and yet he does just with a funny accent.
People look at me and take me for Gibbo or Spanish. We are all conditioned by what we see eh? So therefore it influences what we hear.
LikeLike
Oh, I thought you meant you were laying on dinner parties for Spaniards. Not that they found you entertaining. My mistake.
LikeLike
SillinessOfMind – you have your cartoon quotations wrong, that was “Thumper’s” mother who said that, not Bambi —
LikeLike
Violet, in order to “understand” this horrific story in its context, you’ll have to start with David’s privileged position with god, which practically makes a joke of the whole Law. No wonder God calls him “a man after his own heart”, placed as God himself, above any law and justice. At a closer look, one might understand that the whole purpose of the law, was the absolute control by the privileged elite of the common people, making punishment of “divine” origin in order to dissociate of responsibility.
God’s justice gave Saul a demon to torment him because of some petty “crimes”, but the “righteous” David was punished for the assassination of Uriah, by having his own son with Bathsheba killed, but Solomon made the wisest of the wisest…
LikeLike
My childhood memory doesn’t extend back clearly enough to let me know what I thought of all this when I regularly read the Bible. I only remember David killing Goliath and thinking that was a ‘good thing’. So having this story drawn to my attention is an eye opener, and I didn’t even get to the bit where David’s son rapes all of David’s concubines in public …
LikeLike
Matt, of Jericho Brisance, composed and posted a powerful piece on this very subject, that he calls, “God Doesn’t Watch Rape.”
I won’t spoil it for anyone, except to say to Brandon what Matt essentially says in his piece – if your god is omnipresent, then he was in the room, watching, as Amnon raped Tamar – what do you speculate he did, watched with his arms crossed? Patted her shoulder and silently said, “There, there –“?
LikeLike
Or was he thinking, “No, I’m happy with the final version of the 10 Commandments. It’s much more important that people love only ME and don’t covet their neighbour’s car/garden.”
LikeLike
I am now finally convinced that children should never, ever, ever be given access to the Bible. Like any other work of fiction with references to graphic violence and sexual abuse, it should be reserved for the upper shelves, out of reach of anyone under the age of 18. Seriously, would we give any other book with depictions of incestuous rape and such barbaric moral standards as presents to children?
Ah…at last, we edge closer to considering religion child abuse.
Once it is agreed steps can be taken on how best to implement such measures.
Imagine if there was a comprehensive full colour edition?
LikeLike
Oooh, I’ve got one of those in the house. Pretty pictures of the flood genocide and the character Jesus tortuously dying. “God was sad”. Stuff like that.
LikeLike
But does it have pics of serious bonking, raping, stoning, slavery, wife beating, murder, genocide, and all such images of love ?
LikeLike
It’s got the flood genocide and god killing babies so Moses can take his people away …
LikeLike
Cor! Real graphic religious ”pornography”. Cool!
Why not find an online copy and post a few pics?
We’ll ask Brandon to let his kids look. (has he got kids?)
“Yes, dear, this is sex in the Old Days. It’s okay, because God was there, watching.”
He’s active on Matt’s blog. This is a corker. ( a week old but still fun) It has unklee as co-star. He’s a bit boring as he keeps going on about scholarly facts but from what I’ve read so far, he’s getting his ”arse chewed”.
LikeLike
It all would just be a form of literal story telling from ancient barbarian culture a bit like the Ilad, or Kalevala, exept that a lot of people think it is a moral guidebook. But it is curious, how when people make the emotional connection to this particular story telling tradition to be true words from the creator entity of the universe, they usually have not read other than perhaps the childrens version. Later however, if they ever read the actual story, they either wake up, or start inventing apologetics for it. Funny and a bit scary.
LikeLike
I can’t believe Christianity still convinces so many people. How brain-dead a species are we?
LikeLike
The species that knows it is going to die, and who will believe anything, if they thought that that could be prevented.
LikeLike
From the blog I linked.
”The truth is whether or not these children suffered and died at the hands of Israel, they would have suffered and died regardless as humans”
Your boy, Brandon. Nice eh?
This is how ”brain-dead” some members of our species are, V.
LikeLike
I hesitate to say so, but I’m beginning to agree with Ark and Arch on this one. Brandon comes across as nicey, nice. But I think he’s been a bit deceptive. He began saying he was [paraphrasing] a reticent re-convert and that he could be persuaded by rational argumentation.
I’m not trying to persuade him not to believe in Yahweh, if that’s what he wishes to do, but rather re-consider his “god is all goodness and light” view. Then he offers up rape apologia and “god is still all goodness and light” because clearly this law was a woman’s idea.
I don’t think he’s reticent at all. I’m beginning to sense a bit[putting it mildly] of false humility in order to be heard. I could be wrong about this, of course, but some recent exchanges he’s had over at Matt’s blog, Jericho Brisance, have equally led me to this conclusion.
LikeLike
Far be it from me to say, “I told you so,” but I told you so —
LikeLike
Yes, I can see how far it is… 😀
LikeLike
If you consider the length of his comments, the depth and detail of his replies it is clear he is so steeped in apologetics any claim to the contrary would be plainly false. Even SOM is not so well-schooled ( or doesn’t come across as such)
Brandon likes to play. He is neither humble nor looking to be persuaded by rational argument and the more commenters up the ante, especially one as erudite as Matt, for instance, the more Brandon relishes the challenge.
He is, quite frankly, a dickhead.
LikeLike
Ruth, Brandon had an ‘experience’. He doesn’t want to let go of this. He thinks that just because he had thoughts of the resurrection at the same time he had this physical experience (abnormal electrical activity and a flood of endorphins) that somehow it makes his experience real and that of the resurrection. He thinks that because he was able to stop cussing, get along better with his wife, and gave up some other habits he deemed wrong, that a god did this. He’s given away his power.
He believes he’s only empowered by believing in a god. It’s a placebo effect, and as a physician he should know this. I think he’s sincere — but he’s sincerely wrong. I base this on his continued, lengthy discourse with John on my blog as well as Matt’s. I’ve seen this pattern too many times on deconversion forums.
LikeLike
I agree that he is sincere in his belief. Of that I have no doubt. I also think he’s a pretty genuinely nice guy who probably sells himself a bit short in that area and does seem to do a good bit of self-flagellation.
I have a reply for Brandon as it seems my comments came across a bit harsher than I intended them.
LikeLike
In that, Ruth, I suspect you have come closer than anyone to the crux of the matter – he strives so hard for perfection, that he creates his own failure. He seems not to be able to accept that we are simply animals, out there putting one foot in front of another, and that we’re going to be imperfect, but the key to doing something about that, lies in changing in baby-steps, not making some Paulinesque, falling-down-frothing-at-the-mouth-flopping-around-like-a-carp conversion in the middle of a dusty street.
One impossible task he appears to have given himself, at which he will consistently fail or go into a phase of self-delusion, is the belief that it’s his job to love everyone. Not everyone is lovable to everyone! (“But JESUS did it!” – No, someone WROTE that Jesus did it – Seigel and Shuster wrote that Superman flies, but that doesn’t make it so.) And sadly, when you love EVERYone, love loses that special something that makes it unique. Neuro would explain it in terms of bonding, and would throw in the word, “dopamine” about fourteen times, but knowing why wouldn’t change anything – love is special only when it’s reserved for a special few – whether friends, family, lovers, ex-wives, or a combination of all, it’s how we’re wired. We evolved at a time in pre-history when the tribe, consisting of 30-40 persons, was our unit – to, and for whom, we were responsible – the survival of the group demanded that we bond strongly with them for the survival of all, and we have carried this with us through the ages, and through all of the changes that society has made – it you will look carefully at your friends, who may be scattered across a city, or in the case of the ‘Net, across the globe, you will still find that same 30-40 people. In the now-famous words of Dirty Harry: “A man should know his limitations.”
According to his own words, his wife accepts her imperfections – I’d probably like her!
LikeLike
It becomes much easier to overcome our imperfections when we accept them. We recognize that’s what they are and learn how to deal with them, and it’s sooo much better not to feel such guilt over having them. That also makes it easier to “live and learn”.
When I was a Christian I would have said many of the same things that Brandon says. I was extremely self-critical anytime I fell short of ‘god’s ideal’ for how I should behave. I’ve learned in my time since leaving Christendom to accept my limitations. I feel I have pretty high standards for myself in terms of personal integrity, yet I can accept it when I fall short of those, learn from it and move on rather quickly rather than feeling guilty, wallowing in how disappointing I must be to god, and begging forgiveness from my imaginary friend. Instead I do just what I’ve done today, accept responsibility and move on.
Perfectionism is a malady difficult to deal with when coupled with the “guilt” of “falling short of the mark” of The Great One. I actually think that rather than solve it, it greatly multiplies it in terms of overall unhappiness/happiness.
LikeLike
This is well stated, Ruth. Brandon was raised in a fundamental environment. Therefore he was raised to see humans in a bad light — depraved. He didn’t like people, and that’s understandable given the environment his brain was wired in. Even though I was raised Catholic, I really didn’t get bombarded with extreme negativity about ‘human nature’ until I got pulled into fundamentalism, though at the time I had no idea what fundamentalism was. They are the most unhappiest people I’ve ever met. Yet there is a paradox — they also come across as haughty. It is, of coarse, as facade. There are studies that people who are too self-reflective tend to battle with depression, even major depression. Evangelical/fundamental religions promote too much self-reflective behavior.
LikeLike
Perfectionism and religion are in my opinion a toxic combination. It sets a person up for disappointment after disappointment.
Having left that behind I find I’m much happier because I can accept myself as I am. Not that I don’t think I should change if I’m wrong, just that I can accept it – view it for what it is, change what needs to be changed – and, basically, get over myself.
I’ve also learned to accept the fact that I don’t like everybody and everybody doesn’t like me. I do what I can to make amends if I’ve wronged somebody, but that’s not a guarantee of reconciliation. And I’m okay with that.
LikeLike
It’s incredibly freeing. I like who I am. I didn’t when I was involved in fundamentalism. I also except the fact that if we were always perfect we’d never learn a damn thing. Making mistakes made me a better person. Trying to be perfect or having the facade of perfection makes one look arrogant, and unapproachable.
LikeLike
Sounds to me like you’re pretty well adjusted.
LikeLike
My point being —> he needs to believe.
LikeLike
Which doesn’t explain why he needs to attempt to shove his belief system down OUR throats – I don’t come onto his blogsite and promote atheism – at least I didn’t —
LikeLike
I agree. When he has kids he will teach them that god is real, that the bible is truth, and the cycle will continue to repeat itself. But, I have seen worse cases than Brandon’s, and they finally came around. I suspect that it will take a big shock to his life for parts of his frontal lobes to come back online. Same as when someone finds out that their spouse was fucking around on them. Suddenly their neural circuitry that has to do with social critical assessment and negative emotions reactivates and the the lovey dovey bond is broken.
He does study a lot, so you have to give him that much. But he’s got one hell of a filter going on there.
LikeLike
That’s a weird comment. This whole public blog (like many sites like it) are an attempt to shove my understanding of Christianity down other people’s throats. Also, we all go on to other people’s blogs to promote atheism. You seem to be carried away a bit – deep breaths. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course I can’t speak for you or anyone else, but I don’t. My respiration is just fine, but thanks for your concern.
LikeLike
Well at least maintain your sense of humour then. You seem to have gone all … angry about this topic. Are you an angry man Arch? Ark is too, nothing to be ashamed of, lots of atheists are. 😛
LikeLike
The topic has nothing to do with it, I’m just not inordinately fond of smarmy, sycophantic insincerity.
Not being one, I wouldn’t know, but I would suspect that an angry man would react angrily to more than one commenter, which I don’t recall having done. Perhaps your memory is fresher than mine —
LikeLike
If I may: I’m not sure he’s shoving it down our throats. Violet’s posts many times are specifically written in an effort to get a Christian’s response. Am I wrong about that Violet?
LikeLike
Definitely! 🙂
Also I want to clarify that I’ve never thought that anything you or Victoria have said could be classified as rude. You both always provide thoughtful and considerate responses to everyone – even when you’re clearly and understandably frustrated.
LikeLike
I thought you had been pretty transparent in your motives for writing these posts. I thought they were specifically designed to illicit a response from Christians.
Well, thank you, Violet, but I really shouldn’t have piled on like that. That was, in all honesty, rude.
LikeLike
I either confused you or me there. I meant to say I definitely write posts to get responses from Christians – you’re not definitely wrong about that. Or something … 😕 (trying out a new face here, not sure what it’ll do)
LikeLike
Oh, I like that face, that might become my new standard face.
LikeLike
He’s cute! 🙂
LikeLike
Violet, thank for this. I continue to work on polishing my debating skills, as I do have my moments. I am aware that sometimes discourse can trigger memories, so I contend with that, which can be disadvantageous in debate. But the whole reason we are having these debates is because of the enormous harm highly stratified, authoritarian religions, i.e., Christianity, have and have had on humanity.
I wonder what would happen if we had a bible that reversed the sexes, and all the scriptures about women were instead directed at men. Would these Christian guys and the women they brainwash see the inhumanity then? Would they continue trying to tell us we are misinterpreting?
‘A
womanman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit awomanman to teach or to assume authority over amanwoman;shehe must be quiet. ForAdamEve was formed first, thenEveAdam. AndAdamEve was not the one deceived; it was thewomanman who was deceived and became a sinner.’1 Timothy 2:11-14 (Revised)
‘Your desire will be for your
husbandwife, andheshe will rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 (Revised)LikeLike
I notice none of the men commented on that. It was clearly utterly ridiculous! I have a draft post in my head reinterpreting the Bible from a feminist point of view. Not sure if I’ll get enough material to complete it though. 😕
LikeLike
Well, my friend, if you need any help on getting enough material to complete that post, give me a shout. *winkydink* 😉
LikeLike
And I should clarify (in case it’s needed) that when I agreed with Arch, it was not regarding shoving it down our throats in debate. I was referring to it being shoved down the throats of vulnerable people, i.e., children.
LikeLike
That it is shoved down the throats of vulnerable people, i.e. children is a given. In rather large spoonfuls.
LikeLike
Indeed. Sharing a fairytale is one thing, but saying it’s real is a whole ‘nother ballgame.
LikeLike
Ruth, I never thought I would say this, but it hurts more to be called insincere for trying to love others, yes even in blogland, than to be called irrational or dickhead or delusional. You have no idea how much I have struggled with pride and continue to have it creep in. The truth is none of this is easy, it’s exceedingly difficult and stressful. I mean palpitations and sweating, anxiety. But, I try to hold myself to an ethical standard of love, not for its persuasive ability, but for the sake of the other person. If I forgo this, then everything else I say, all of my words are lost, they might as well fall into a black hole. “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.”
Also, if you read Matt’s blog, you will see where I say things too quickly and regret them and ask forgiveness from him. He has been gracious in these instances. I am most obviously human, and I do claim to be sincere. I am not here to play a game, but I can see how some of what I say can be interpreted this way. Arch has been saying this for a while. I wish I could somehow change something so as to remove this interpretation, but I’m not sure if this is possible.
Brandon
LikeLike
One way to start would be by being real, instead of so formulaic in your responses, but you needn’t concern yourself with trying to convince me of anything further on VW;s blog, I’ll refer any responses you might have to any of my comments to VW, she can answer them as she sees fit. I DO have a few things I’d like to leave with you, you can do whatever with them you choose:
LikeLike
And I might add this as a confirmational companion piece to Dr. Stavrakopoulou’s BBC documentary, above:
LikeLike
Arch, I think that’s good criticism about being formulaic, so I will try to keep this in mind. I have seen the first video here and I think I’ve seen at least some of the second one. Thanks for suggesting them. I haven’t seen Dever’s lecture, so I’ll have to watch it.
-B
LikeLike
And of course, you begin your comment with your typical, formulaic, complimentary introduction – I will say this, your sly, ironic, subtle wit is not lost on me.
As for anything further, I’m sure that VW will be more than happy to address your concerns.
LikeLike
Can I ask a question about strategy? Because I think Arch is right that it’s formulaic, even if it’s not intentional. I came across it with Katy the Bigot too, and I’m wondering if it’s something that’s taught to certain types of Christians. She heaped praise on people (Ark’s really clever, I take lovely photos) and lots of loving prayer at the start and end of each interaction, but her tone in between made it clear it wasn’t ‘natural’. Yours is slightly different, in that you’re enthusiastically swallowing criticism, but it’s a similar pattern of fake-sounding stroking of your discussion partner, oddly while engaged in a factual discussion. Is it anything you were taught to do from a young age? I’d be really interested to know.
LikeLike
I commented on it early on in this thread, even to the extent of quoting several examples, but no one seemed interested. I suspect he’s been at it so long, he doesn’t know how to turn it off.
LikeLike
Even the name, “naive thinker,” is self-deprecating, chosen to evoke empathy. Rather clever, really – if it weren’t so transparent.
LikeLike
And:
LikeLike
Perhaps I came to my conclusions too quickly and, as I said to Violet, could have handled this better myself. I should have addressed this with you, rather than ‘piling on’ with others. My apologies for doing so.
These are my concerns: you began by saying you were ‘seeking’ just like the rest of us and that you were here to learn. It doesn’t appear that you take anything we say very seriously except in the context of offering apologetics for Christianity. It also appears to be interested only in a “possible” interpretation or explanation that would allow you to continue to believe; not necessarily what is probable or even likely – just so long as it leaves the possibility, no matter how remote AND that you think these interpretations or explanations should somehow be convincing to us. Notice that I say “appears” because there is no possible way for me to actually know your motives. If I am wrong in this I am more than willing to accept that.
This is why I came to the conclusion perhaps you were engaging in “friendship evangelism”, which reduces us to projects rather than equals in a discussion. It is also possible that you are here to learn all the atheist refutations so that you can study up on “possible” Christian explanations to bolster your own faith. You have readily conceded elsewhere that you have no doubts concerning Yahweh, divine inspiration, nor the resurrection. So what are you seeking? Is it a way to reconcile what seems irreconcilable to a good and benevolent God?
Finally, about this idea that God is rejoicing along with us over women’s equality. The idea of female inequality is found within the pages of you divinely inspired text and any measure of equality women have is, in fact, in direct defiance of that. Yahweh, himself, declared that:
“To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
Genesis 3:16
And the Apostle Paul this:
“A man ought not to cover his head,b since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7-9
And in 1 Timothy we find this gem:
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;b she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” Verses 11-15
I will say that part of the reason I felt you might be engaging in “friendship evangelism” is partly because I know that to be a device employed by many evangelicals. They believe this to be love because they believe they are are attempting to save people from hell. I also have given it a go as a Christian, myself. I was goaded into it and felt very uneasy employing to tactic, but I know the inner workings of it as I was trained in it.
LikeLike
Wow, Ruth! EXcellent comment!
When you began with all of the apologies, I was afraid you were going to wimp out, but you dissected the circumstances into a number of possible scenarios – well done. I don’t believe I’ve ever heard the term, “friendship evangelism,” but it’s very descriptive of what I’ve seen here.
RE: “…explanation that would allow you to continue to believe; not necessarily what is probable or even likely – just so long as it leaves the possibility, no matter how remote….”
I noticed this especially, when he attempted to refute my three anachronisms with the old, “Absence of evidence” saw – it seemed incredibly important that the door be left open a crack – not realizing, of course, that the same crack allows admittance to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and a few thousand other gods.
LikeLike
But he rejects supernaturalism. 😉
LikeLike
Or DOES he? (menacing chord: “Da-dummm!”)
LikeLike
But serially, how can one simultaneously accept the resurrection of a dead man, while rejecting supernaturalism?
LikeLike
We don’t know all the laws of physics? *shrug*
LikeLike
Brain cells begin dying in six minutes or less, but yeah, that must be it —
LikeLike
@Arch and Ruth — IMO, Brandon is attributing, making an association to this with his personal experience at the time he had thoughts about the resurrection of Jesus. He had a physical reaction to thoughts he had — and that, I believe, affected his biochemistry and perception of reality. He has nothing to base this on — no proof what-so-ever. Only ‘feelings’ at the time he had an epiphany. This is common with those who had religious type experiences. There’s abundant neurobiological research on this subject.
Behavioral neuroscientist, Todd Murphy writes: “In the aftermath of a religious experience, the individual will almost inevitably interpret in terms of their religious or spiritual views. Whatever the idea the person uses most readily will lend a context to their epiphany. From then on, it acquires an ethos of absolute truth. It ‘feels’ like the truth.
If it glorifies the individual; if it ‘saves’ them, or makes them feel that they are one of the “chosen few” or the “anointed” or that their service to God is special, the person can begin to identify themselves more as the one ‘touched by god’ than simply as a person. Once a person identifies with God, their own life can actually be seen as being in the way, a hindrance to unity with “Him”.
—> People who have had religious experiences will often do whatever it takes to re-capture those moments.”
LikeLike
Yes, I got that from your earlier, encapsulated comment to him – I’m curious as to how his wife, who seems to have accepted her own imperfections, feels about living with a person who strives for ultimate perfection – I feel the winds of change blowing in, whether from within or without, remains to be seen.
LikeLike
Call me naive, but I sincerely believe that Brandon has the best of intentions. Yeah — don’t go there with the “road to hell”…yada, yada, yada, just in case you were. When you’ve seen what appears to be positive changes in yourself that appear to be unexplainable, then this can solidify their faith.
If Brandon is benefiting from this and is not harming others, then I see no issues. He doesn’t have children, yet. If he passes this belief on to his children, then it does concern me. It becomes my business because these children will affect others among our species. Religious belief should remain private, between the person and their god. Period.
LikeLike
That’s why I apologized to him an offered him an explanation of how I came to my conclusions. Sincerely, when I was a Christian, I thought that the most loving thing to do was evangelize. “The bridge is out!” So I get that. Seeing it from the perspective of a non-believer I realize how….unsatisfactory that is.
For what it’s worth I agree with you, Victoria, about Brandon benefiting from Christianity as long as it isn’t harming others. I have said on more than one occasion that if you need to believe in a God to not be a jerk(I probably used stronger language) then by all means you should keep him.
LikeLike
“Sincerely, when I was a Christian, I thought that the most loving thing to do was evangelize.”
Sigh, so true — and you know what else? I remember feeling much grief and fear regarding my friends and loved ones, AND that blood would be on my hands as well (as the scripture says) if I didn’t ‘witness’ to either my family (because they weren’t ‘really’ born again) and others. Like I’ve said before, it’s a mindfuck. The ‘great commission’ and ‘watchman’ teachings are a form of psychological abuse. Scratch that — it’s all psychological abuse.
LikeLike
It’s the ultimate in multi-level marketing.
LikeLike
Spot on, Arch.
LikeLike
Also, I felt I did owe the man an apology as I am generally a pretty direct person. I wouldn’t like to be ‘talked about’ in the manner in which I contributed so I instead took it up directly with him.
If there is something ‘off-putting’ about me I’d rather the person tell me that rather than talk about me as though I’m not in the room.
LikeLike
Yes, well, I had the same thought, but apparently, it is preferred that I not do that.
LikeLike
Oh my goodness, the Bible just gets worse the more you quote! I have no memory that Corinthians gem, although I do remember Corinthians was where I started ‘going off’ Christianity. I finally realised there was no explaining away such foul statements that was in any way consistent with benevolent creator god thing. That also reminds me that I went through an ‘angry with God’ stage. I’d forgotten about that. I didn’t really believe he existed but my brain couldn’t let go of the notion and I just felt angry the Bible was so awful to women and gay people. Maybe I traumatically erased this verse from my memory. 😀
LikeLike
Nice, eh? God is so good. 😉
LikeLike
I went through an ‘angry’ stage, too. I was never angry with god though because it seemed strange to be angry with something that didn’t exist. And I wasn’t even angry at the people who taught me this stuff because I know they sincerely believe it, themselves.
I was totally pissed at myself for falling for it all!
LikeLike
“I was totally pissed at myself for falling for it all!”
Same here, Ruth. Then I went through a grieving process — all those wasted years of my youth —- something I’ll never get back. But I did forgive myself, because after studying how trauma affects the brain and makes people far more susceptible to
conditioning, brainwashing, I let up on myself. But I can still get pissed when I see trusting people subjecting themselves to wolves and vultures. Btw, have you seen this?http://www.trans4mind.com/spiritual/brainwashing.htm
My background is in brainwave training (neurofeedback and brainwave entrainment aka AVE — audio-visual entrainment) creating a cortical evoked response. It’s not fringe science. It’s used in clinics throughout America and If I’m not mistaken, even in the EU to help people with certain neurological conditions and also depression. Not for brainwashing, of course.
When I read the part about churches using specific beats per minute and voice roll, I was livid. I also found an article a couple of years back where they now have companies who come to these churches, especially the mega churches and set up sound and lighting systems to target your brainwaves — to get you in a suggestive brainwave state. 😦
But also notice how fear tactics affect the brain. Inducing guilt and acute apprehension and by increasing the tension, the “sinners” attending revival meetings, they would break down and completely submit. Apparently they’ve been doing this in religious crusades and revivals since 1735.
Btw, when Rick Perry had that “Prayer Rally” with30,000+ in attendance in Texas back during the last presidential election. Well, he had special techs come and set up the lighting and music. The article said: “The event, which cost the sponsors over $1 million, was highly orchestrated and choreographed, and organizers were careful to keep the element of surprise.”
Surprise, surprise. Ha! Do you know that he also asked them to fast? Yeppers.
You should watch the video. Those people are clearly in a suggestive, low alpha, brainwave state.
LikeLike
I read part of that brainwashing article. I’ll gave to go back to that one, but Jesus H. Christ! I had heard/read about part of that before but there’s a lot more information there that I need to dig in to.
It harkens me back to the Minister of Music(my ex and I worked in the a/v booth) in our church making sure the music and the lighting were just so. He made several comments about needing to get it just right.
LikeLike
“I worked in the a/v booth) in our church making sure the music and the lighting were just so. He made several comments about needing to get it just right.”
Yep. Ruth, when I was involved in church, not only was I the music director, but I headed the A/V room. Boy, oh boy do things make since now. Effing vultures!! What really pisses me off is that they are doing this to our children at Christian concerts/rallies. Case in point, Teen Mania International. OMG, I could tell you some stories and when you watch those videos of the concert/rallies — its very clear what they’ve done to those kids. They ‘witness’ to millions of kids, globally. http://www.teenmania.com/ Its primary program includes the Battle Cry Campaign and “Acquire the Fire”. Teen Mania uses overtly militaristic symbolism, as well as techniques that have been compared to military training.
The kids come for the contemporary music, and because the parents think that being at a Christian concert is ‘safe’. Now, this guy that runs this ministry, Ron Luce, teaches teen girls and young women that they are to submit to their husbands and that kids should become warriors for Christ. They even have a type of boot camp for these kids called Honor Academy. But the silence is being broken. http://www.recoveringalumni.com/ Unfortunately, after the damage has been done to these young people. 😦
LikeLike
Ruth, I should also note that while I was the director/minister of music, I was clueless about these techniques — and when I learned about the cortical evoked response and brainwave entrainment, it became clear to me why the pastor(s) and elders took such an interest in what music I chose. What he/they wanted was to start off with upbeat music and then gradually slow it down (specific beats per minute). Now this is EXACTLY how you capture/entrain beta brainwaves, and then bring them down to the suggestive alpha brainwave state.
LikeLike
Yeah, I can remember our Music Minister being quite perturbed on more than one occasion because the Pastor would ask for specific music rather than letting him do his job. I think it got to the point that the Pastor was just telling MM what music to do each Sunday. Now all of that just makes so much sense!
LikeLike
Oh, and the two of them talked each Sunday about “setting the mood” for worship.
LikeLike
Ha! And our government gives tax exempt status to people who deliberately brainwash. Kinda says something about our government, no? I’m not anti-government. I’m anti-religious government — e.g. — the SCOTUS and Congress. “In God We Trust”.
LikeLike
Oops, forgot to leave that Rick Perry link
http://www.texastribune.org/2011/08/06/thousands-attend-prayer-rally-houston/
LikeLike
You need to know, I’m passing this on in a BUNCH of different directions – this is GOLD!
LikeLike
Have at it, Arch. The more people know about this, the better. I have an upcoming post that will be more comprehensive then what I’ve shared here. It’s despicable.
LikeLike
I look forward to it.
LikeLike
And for what it’s worth I think you sell yourself short as a genuinely nice guy, with or without God. We all have shortcomings, but by employing self-discipline are able to overcome them. I’m of the opinion that, because you are, at heart, a kind person you probably are your own worst critic in terms of how “terrible” you think you are without God. I think that rather than God changing you, you have read some things in scripture with which you agree and have found a mechanism for self-discipline.
LikeLike
Ruth, I am not approaching with a uni-dimensional goal of “seeking” or bi-dimensional goal of also “learning”. I am a complex human. I am selective on what I comment on and how I comment on it and what I expect in discourse or from reading a post. Yes, this can appear like “apologetics” which carries a pejorative sense and suggests complacent thinking. If you wish to classify my thinking as such then so be it.
In replying to positive atheist arguments there can be de facto objections and de jure objections. The former would say, “No you are wrong, here it why!” The latter is more modest. It says, “This is possible, so you should not conclude your result with as much certainty.” There are many reasons to pick the de jure objection. For one, it’s not as forceful and easier to run. For two, it tends to err on the side of intellectual humility. Keep in mind when I say I sympathize with the atheist position and have equal criticism for popular apologetics and atheist arguments, I am being sincere. Indeed, it pains me to see apologists out there blasting out cheap answers and some of the inflammatory and hardnosed rhetoric I see on this very blog. They often seem to be defending the honor of their belief system or love winning debates to please their ego more than doing what’s infinitely harder, just engaging another human being.
Just because I am selective about what I comment on and typically approach with a de jure objection or provide my own view (another possibility), does that mean I have devalued what is probable? Do you think I just magically jumped to where I am? Not at all! It started with the probable and has built into a complex thing. But, where I am is radically different from you unless we are on common ground. That’s why I framed the rape law discussion purely as a moral analysis because we can have a rational discourse about it. Does it make sense for me to defend my faith on an ancient law? No! This is about trying to sharpen the moral analysis. The only apologetic benefit I hope to impart is to slightly disarm someone who hates the bible through and through. It’s about opening up new questions.
You have every right to question my motive. I’m one of the few Christians who comments in this blog circle, and I could be interpreted as a “friendship evangelist”. I see that. I’m just going to tell you that I believe in love, regardless of how it is perceived. That doesn’t mean I won’t rebuke people or write poignant retorts. Honestly, I don’t have a game plan for converting anyone. I desire an intellectual and loving engagement with you because part of me will always be with the atheists and agnostics. I am indebted to you for being real with me, all my atheist friends here and IRL, and I will go at any length for you to understand me.
I appreciate the consideration you expressed and for thinking I am nice, that means a lot.
The last thing is that I can reply to all of these verses. I have talked with Victoria about the 1 Timothy verses. I can see that this is important to you, so I will have to address these. Have hope. . . hope that these verses have been misunderstood and just may not be misogynistic!
LikeLike
I think that you answered my underlying question. Are you even really considering any of what we say? And to what end? To sharpen your debating skills?
As you can tell I’m not a skilled debater and I’m not formulaic. At.all. I think I misunderstood your reasons for commenting.
While you’re digging up hope on those verses you might want to go ahead and have a crack at these:
“18Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22“He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”e
23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25For “you were like sheep going astray,”f but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.” 1 Peter 2:18 – 3:6
Even when I was a Christian I understood there was a pecking order. I never liked it, but believed that was because I was sinful. I don’t think that your God is the same one who inspired this book if you believe he means for us all to be equal. Similarly, I didn’t believe that I was entitled to some new interpretation of these scriptures some 2000 years later. Jesus and God left pretty clear instructions if you believe the Bible. Why on earth would someone suddenly “understand” what has been misunderstood for the last 2000 years. Why are some scriptures meant to be understood within the context of the culture(i.e. Tamar and Amnon) and others, like these NT scriptures to be interpreted within the framework of the 21st century? Nice try, but no dice.
LikeLike
Ruth, you said: “As you can tell I’m not a skilled debater and I’m not formulaic. At. All. I think I misunderstood your reasons for commenting.”
I never meant to suggest that you were debating and certainly not formulaic. There must have been miscommunication. I’ve been playing with the quote system recently and I think it should help avoid miscommunication in the future!
You asked: “Are you even really considering any of what we say? And to what end? To sharpen your debating skills?”
I respect people’s opinion and approach. However, in all honesty I’ve been studying this dialogue for more than a decade, and I rarely see anything unique on the blogosphere. So, please don’t take this offensively, but the majority of the time I have already considered what is said. I hope I don’t come off as dismissive. I really do respect the conversation and take it seriously, no matter who is saying it.
And, I don’t care about “debate skills”, these are totally irrelevant. I only resort to begging for evidence when someone is so certain about their assertion but has no evidence, I want to see if their assertion has any merit. . .
Alright, let’s get a dose of hope that I had dug up many moons ago. 🙂
Let’s look at 1 Timothy 2:12-15. The KEY to understanding this verse is historical context. Of course it is possible to render a misogynistic reading, but if you take the remainder of the New Testament seriously, you should not. First of all, let me show you world renowned historian and scholar, NT Wright’s, translation:
“[Women] must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; rather, that they should be left undisturbed. Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence.” (1 Tim 2:12-15)
This passage CANNOT be read with misogynist overtone if we take the remainder of the New Testament seriously. Here are the reasons in bullet points:
1) Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection, thus women were the very first apostles!
2) Women were in high leadership positions including Phoebe who was a deaconess (Romans 16:1) and Junia who was an apostle (Romans 16:7).
3) Women were expected to pray and prophesy in church (1 Corinthians 11).
4) “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
5) Jesus said it was better for Martha to be disciple than to do housework which was a huge deal, this was breaking all cultural rules. Being a disciple meant becoming a teacher in turn, so the importance of this story cannot be overstated. (Luke 10:38-42)
Now that we see how women are equal and can hold leadership positions and teach and learn, let’s also dig into history to give a historically-informed interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12-15, breaking it down:
“[Women] must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission.”
This means that contrary to ancient cultural expectations, women should be allowed to be educated and in submission to the word of God.
“I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them.”
There is reason to think that Paul was writing to Timothy who was in Ephesus. The main religion there was the Temple of Artemis which was a female-only cult that had authority over men. What Paul is saying is that even though women have this new freedom to learn and teach, there should not be a full role reversal as in the female-only cult of Artemis.
“Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass.”
The underlying logic here is that women fall into temptation because they have not been educated! So, this is an argument that they should be learning alongside men, that it should not be reserved for men. I understand that Adam was not educated in the story, obviously this is where the analogy breaks down. But, within the context of arguing that women should be permitted education, it makes sense.
LikeLike
Right, that is NT Wright’s translation. That is not the translation of ANY Bible I have read. Even NT Wright’s translation isn’t overly generous except with regards to women being allowed to learn.
I provided you with a number of texts and you’ve only addressed this one. And in doing so have had to contort and twist the scripture to fit that interpretation.
Women were allowed to teach…other women and younger women. Not men. How is that not misogynistic? And for lack of a better way of saying it, yes, Eve was deceived – Adam knew better(if there even was an Adam and Eve). But let’s say there isn’t. Women are deceived because they’re uneducated? What does that say about men who are but fall under the spell of a deceived woman? Whipped? Yes, your analogy breaks down.
And lest you think that I haven’t studied, I was a Christian for 20 years prior to my deconversion. I’ve studied this pretty extensively because I had to for personal reasons and have considered pretty much any interpretation I could find on all of these scriptures. While most of that time was spent in fundamentalism, I have studied the progressive interpretations of these scriptures as well. I didn’t find they held much water. I’m not being dismissive of your either, though it may come across that way. It’s just that there really isn’t anything new in what you’ve had to say here that I haven’t considered.
I used to, much like you, go by the moniker ‘gulliblestravels’.
LikeLike
Well said, Ruth. I pretty much told him the same thing on his blog when I addressed him with these same scriptures. Ain’t gonna cut it.
LikeLike
Just being able to, in an unconvincing way I might add, that the 1 Timothy can be painfully twisted to mean women were authorized to learn the same as men does not equal equality nor does it make it any less misogynistic.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
I don’t suppose anyone would be particularly interested in learning that Bart Ehrman maintains, in his book, Forged, that 1st Timothy was a forgery, and he cites others who believe so as well. He demonstrates that both Timothy epistles, as well as the one to Titus, differ significantly from the rest of Paul’s letters and were most likely not written by him, but rather by someone who disagreed with Paul’s liberal (for the time) stance on the treatment of women, and decided to correct what he believed to have been Paul’s shortcomings, by writing letters correcting Paul’s earlier convictions, and submitting them in Paul’s name.
LikeLike
Yep — but Paul also said some questionable things about women such as 1 Corinthians 14:34. Apologists say that common sense, church custom, and good principles of biblical interpretation all say that we should not take these verses literally. I call bullshit. If you don’t have study helps or commentators in the footnotes, or what ever — how is one to take this? Yes, literally, and besides that — the supposed ‘correct’ interpretation is condescending to say the very least.
LikeLike
Thank you for pointing that out (I’m definitely interested). However, as you can see from the other scriptures I cited there really is a problem to overcome if one wants to reconcile the goodness of this God with any sort of equality
LikeLike
Ruth, let’s just focus on one passage at a time. It’s difficult enough to comprehend ancient culture and the process of translation.
You said: “That is not the translation of ANY Bible I have read.”
Translating a 2000 year old text written in ancient Greek that’s definitely not written to modern people is exceedingly difficult. There are many theories on how to translate. The two major schools of thought are 1) keeping it word-for-word literal as possible (transliterate but use modern grammar) and 2) translate the idea being expressed as can be understood by the modern reader. Unfortunately, most translations of this passage are heavily weighted towards 1).
Please, pay attention to the list of reasons why this passage should not be read misogynistic. For example, Paul in 1 Cor 11 says that women should wear a head covering while praying and prophesying. He desperately argues for them to wear a head covering. Now, in the historical context what can make sense of this? Is this just an arbitrary authoritarian move? No! Paul established churches and was saying that everyone was equal (Galatians 3:28). In their newfound freedom and equality, Paul thought women were straying from cultural traditions too far by trying to look more like men, so he argues that they should wear head covering per custom (and men keep short hair per “nature”). The probable reason is two-fold.
One, even though they were equal that doesn’t mean we should just ignore the differences between gender. The modern counterpart would be a group of people hearing “Everyone is equal in Christ” and all the sudden making a church with only a unisex bathroom, complete with stalls and urinals. Traditionally we have segregated bathrooms, so Paul would argue that despite our newfound freedom and equality in Christ, we should acknowledge our gender and not completely stray from custom.
Two, Paul has a concern for how outsiders would perceive the church. Certain things had to be changed, this includes women’s education and roles, but that doesn’t mean they should ignore all customs in such a way that could harm the public perception of them.
Sorry about this digression. The point I meant to make is that if you take the NT seriously you cannot read 1 Tim 2 with misogynistic overtones. The transliterated straightforward reading is insufficient. We need to let the remainder of the NT and the historical context bear on its interpretation.
You said: “Women were allowed to teach. . . other women and younger women. Not me. How is that not misogynistic?”
What are you talking about? Do you think Phoebe and Junia didn’t teach men? What is your evidence or reason for making this assertion? This is where I start begging for evidence.
You said: “Yes, your analogy breaks down.”
All analogies break down, they are not facsimiles of the situation at hand. Also, Paul probably did not think this letter would become canonized. He wrote it to Timothy whom he intimately knew. Timothy being in Ephesus with the Artemis female-only cult would understand perfectly well what Paul meant. But, we have to dig a little deeper since we are 2000 years removed and did not intimately know Paul’s use of analogies.
You said: “While most of that time was spent in fundamentalism, I have studied progressive interpretations of these scriptures as well.”
Oh, neither extreme provided satisfactory answers for you? What about rational and historical investigation? That is what I am trying to provide you.
LikeLike
You said: “Do you think Phoebe and Junia didn’t teach men? What is your evidence or reason for making this assertion?”
No, I do not think they taught men. If they taught, I think they most likely taught women. What evidence do you have that they taught men.
http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html
Click to access history-extended.pdf
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3368
The role of deacon was not primarily a teaching one. It was ministry. The Apostles, and then later Bishops were charged with teaching and preaching. So I don’t particularly believe that deacons, male or female, were in the role of teaching.
You said:“Oh, neither extreme provided satisfactory answers for you? What about rational and historical investigation? That is what I am trying to provide you.”
I thought it was implied in my statement, but I will say it outright. These are not the only two areas of my study. I also said, “I’ve studied this pretty extensively because I had to for personal reasons and have considered pretty much any interpretation I could find on all of these scriptures.” Do you honestly find me that illiterate with regards to this subject?
LikeLike
To be fair, I’m not at all certain of Junia’s preaching/evangelizing to men. I know that Paul referred to her as an Apostle, but I also know that there is some debate as to whether or not she was an Apostle or well-known among the Apostles.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading on this subject as well. It seems her role was ambiguous.
LikeLike
I wrote about Junia here:
http://gulliblestravelsdma.wordpress.com//?s=Junia+&search=Go
What I do find interesting is how much you are willing to presume/assume/conjecture out of one verse/scripture about each. There is no extensive or exhaustive detail given about any of these women. Not nearly enough to say that they definitely did one thing or another. Yet, if scripture is to be interpreted in light of other scripture and isn’t contradictory, then in my best estimation these women most likely did not teach any men anything.
LikeLike
Ruth, you said: “Do you honestly find me that illiterate with regards to this subject?”
I don’t know what you’ve studied, but your statement implied looking at fundamentalism and then progressive. Now that I reread your statement, you seem to have searched everywhere, so I apologize for my misunderstanding. I was just hoping that you hadn’t simply seen complimentarian arguments and then gone to the other extreme of watering down the New Testament. And, I don’t think you have, especially if you’ve read about Junia. Please accept my apologies for this.
You said: “What I do find interesting is how much you are willing to presume/assume/conjecture out of one verse/scripture about each. There is no exhaustive detail given about any of these women.”
The lack of data is a huge problem, I will admit. An even bigger problem is the patriarchic convention in culture and written language. For example, compare the resurrection narratives in the Gospel to the creed Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15. Notice that the women have been conveniently airbrushed out. Why is that? Were the ancients, especially Paul, misogynistic? I don’t think so, it was simply a patriarchic culture, that was their convention in language and thought. Another example is that Paul addresses the churches as “brothers”. The fact that there is an egalitarian signal breaking through that can be used as a greater context of Jesus’ love for humanity is what is so amazing!
Also, I don’t claim to have evidence that Junia taught men. Nor, is there sufficient evidence to support an opposite assertion: that there were only male leaders and teachers in the early church. What the evidence does suggest is that Paul set up churches and he had to write letters (especially 1 Corinthians) to specify how much freedom is too much. Specifically in regards to sexuality, customary clothing of genders, order, etc. So, to historically reconstruct why Paul is having to do so much regulation on freedom, it makes sense to think that he had set up radical communities based on the teaching that “there is no male or female, you are equal in Christ”. It is a historical reconstruction that makes sense out of this data. Even more reason is to look at the communities that broke out in Acts that radically “shared everything”. Early Christianity was partly a social experiment and I think women were equally valued.
With this and in light of all the women leaders that amazingly do break through the patriarchal context, it just makes more sense to use egalitarianism as an interpretive lens. And, as for 1 Timothy 2, we have even more reason since Timothy was setting up the church where there was a female-only cult.
LikeLike
“Even if this story is true, did Tamar write this story down?”
It doesn’t matter who wrote it. If the story is true, that is what she found preferable.
The bible is not a children’s book I agree.
LikeLike
Do you think it was true and that was what she felt? And, if so, do you think it was the morally correct thing to think? A morally correct urge from the god God?
LikeLike
violetwisp
I really do not have the information on this to evaluate the likelihood of this story being true in the historical sense.
Do I think it’s possible that women were treated so horribly in ancient times that this would have been her preference? I think it’s possible but I don’t want to believe it.
I don’t think it would be moral to marry someone just because you had sex with them. So no I don’t think it’s moral. No I don’t think God would have urged her to do that. It seems she did that for her own protection.
Would the requirement that men must marry women they rape/have sex with prevent rape/fornication and therefore serve a higher good? Perhaps but I agree it would be a very poor way to go about it. Punishing men directly for rape seems the more direct way to do this. But that doesn’t do anything for the woman who had been raped and might be ostracized from the community if she didn’t have a husband. Please note I am not saying that this is how things worked back then. I haven’t studied these issues. But the passages suggest that is the case.
LikeLike
Oh well, that sounds much more sensible than anything Brandon has to say about it.
LikeLike
😀
Indeed, this person is true and reasonable. And, not reactive or insulting. I followed their blog yesterday!
LikeLike
That is my take on it as well, trueandreasonable. It would have been Tamar’s only recourse; not necessarily what she wanted nor what she thought was just.
LikeLike
Not necessarily, Ruth – as I’ve been trying to get across, if one is raised believing black is white, if asked, that person will insist that black IS in fact, white!
LikeLike
Okay. I guess I was basing that more on opinion than actual truth. Perhaps she did believe it was just because she had been brought up to believe that was justice – even if it is not. A woman losing her virginity, in any manner, has been a source of shame. Since she could not prove her rape, justice to her would have been marriage to keep her from suffering the shame of it. Women have been taught to believe that in many instances, if she is raped, it is her own fault. 😦
LikeLike
Violet, I just wanted to reply to a few of your points:
“If what the apologist says is true, he can never argue that absolute morality exists. According to this argument, morality evolves and changes with time.”
I think there are a few things going on with this story. For one, rape has not changed either morally or legally since ancient times, so this is absolute in a moral and legal sense. What has changed over time is what is considered to be the appropriate justice for the crime of rape. What is considered appropriate justice for crimes depends on many factors, and as mentioned in the discussion beforehand it seems that cultural values/traditions are the underlying difference between ancient and modern times.
We could give a similar moral analysis for something like adultery. It has always been wrong. In modern times we don’t consider it to be a matter of law which deserves punishment. (Note that adultery can still be used against you in divorce court and custody court even though there is no specific criminal penalty). Again, this is due to underlying cultural factors, it’s not as if the ancient’s had no conscience. In Judaism there’s an idea that if wickedness creeps into society, such as adultery, then it affects the whole society in a negative way. It “curses” society. For example, adultery leads to jealousy and anger and illegitimate children and we could imagine other negative consequences for society. Today we value individual rights over “societal” rights. But, consider the fact that this valuation of individual rights has not always been the case.
In these preceding paragraphs I am not arguing for one society being better, I am merely pointing out that there is a rhyme and reason for these laws even though many of them seem to strange and even twisted backwards in the case of rape. So, in order to properly analyze the morality we need to delve into the ancient world as best as possible assuming that the ancient’s have no different conscience than ourselves.
You said: “Why do Christians accept that the god God swooped in to reveal himself to the people of Israel making radical changes to their culture. . . but it would have been too big a leap to suggest that women (i.e. half of humanity, half of the god God’s creation) should be treated equally to men and not like property?”
This is upsetting to Christians as well. We don’t have a knockdown drag out reply for this. It might be that God has forbearance for the evil cultures we have generated because he looks forward to a better situation. It’s a wonderful thing to see women’s rights come to fruition in world history, I believe God rejoices with us.
Also, it’s not as if the Israelites obeyed these laws all the sudden even though they considered them divinely sanctioned. Someone mentioned in the replies above that David was a perfect example unlawfulness and sin, yet David is cited as an “apple of God’s eye”. Is this because he’s an ultimate warrior? No, that may be largely dependent on his genetic makeup of muscle strength, speed, and coordination (i.e., just like a premium athlete) and David’s circumstance of knowing how to use a sling and having good vision. Rather, David was the “apple” because he did what God desired of him: he repented from his sins and had a genuine contrite heart.
Women’s rights is repentance on a cultural scale.
Your blogging buddy who seems strangely enough like an apologist who doesn’t consider himself an apologist but rather just another person with thoughts that may differ,
Brandon
LikeLike
Hi Brandon, thanks for your explanation. In terms of absolute morality, it was you who suggested that morality was different in biblical times, and now you appear to be shifting that analysis because you’ve realised it doesn’t fit with absolute morality. You said:
“She said marriage was the better outcome in a moral sense”
If this is the case, then moral attitudes to rape have significantly. It’s something can be healed by marriage to a rapist in biblical times.
“In these preceding paragraphs I am not arguing for one society being better,” Em, what? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. But I hope it’s not that living in a society where rape victims marry their rapist could be better. Society now is ‘better’, wouldn’t you agree? We have laws that are designed to protect victims, and that are based on equality for all.
‘David is cited as an “apple of God’s eye”’ Yes this is something that’s come to my attention of late. It’s another odd story of the god God creating everyone individually then having ‘favourites’, David being a particularly repulsive example.. Honestly, how could you believe such pettiness and poor judgement of a superbeing? The guy is so useless that when his daughter was raped by his son and he was furious, he did nothing. Now there’s a story written by men.
I’m sorry if you’ve been hurt by some of the discussions about you. Have you considered that the kind of disconnect people are sensing between your description of yourself and your interactions in discussion are because you are trying to modify your personality to please your god and it’s therefore not natural? We can all change the ways we behave but we need logical reasons to do so. I sincerely hope that you don’t continue to be anxious about it all, and if it is causing you stress, I would recommend you quit blogging till you can take part more light-heartedly. Remember nobody has the full picture of any other person here, so it’s really counter productive to take it so seriously. I keep trying to scale down my activities but it’s kind of addictive …
LikeLike
And if I might add to that – “projection” is a normal, human psychological tendency, and if we feel good about ourselves, when we project, and we inevitably will, we project those good qualities we feel we have, onto others – sadly, the converse is also true.
LikeLike
If anyone truly needs a supposedly divinely inspired book to understand morality, and does not have the intellect or inclination to recognise that such an assertion is a crock of Horse Apples and also considers said morality Divinely Bequeathed then said person needs *professional help.
* this is in lieu of using profanity.
And if hundreds and hundreds of words are required by said persons to explain their worldview rather than recognising ordinary commonsense and common decency then said individuals are likely willfully ignorant or indoctrinated and not in control of their mental faculties.
LikeLike
“then said individuals are likely willfully ignorant or indoctrinated and not in control of their mental faculties.”
@Ark — Yes — I agree. In Brandon’s case, I think that by using 100’s of words to explain, he is simply in discourse. Matt has used 100’s of words, too — so has John, during discourse with Matt. However, with Brandon, he’s looking for validation, IMO, which is why he spends so much time in study. The placebo effect is mainly effective because others believe it’s effective, too.
LikeLike
Correction: I mean to write: “Matt has used 100′s of words, too — so has John, during discourse with Brandon.
LikeLike
The ”reasoning” is all about justification: namely justifying the text, and their own belief as their god could not possibly be wrong.This is the premise they seem to start from, which automatically excludes genuine inquiry, for to arrive at any other answer would mean to deny faith.
Apologetics appears to be the consummate skill of obfuscation.
LikeLike
“The ”reasoning” is all about justification: namely justifying the text, and their own belief as their god could not possibly be wrong.”
Well of course, thus the placebo effect. They are benefiting by believing, or at least they think they are. Especially if they think they are special. Children who were raised in authoritarian religions were not raised to feel special. They knew where they stood in a highly stratified environment. They were property of their fathers. When they believe in Jesus — they are acknowledged as special children, not property. That’s not to say that people don’t become prone to abusing this ‘special feeling’. Religious men are the ones we should be the most concerned about because they tend to believe that they have the rule over women, children, and well…others who don’t believe like them. Women fall for this bullshit because they think (have been brainwashed) to think that submission honors the big daddy in the sky. It’s one big mindfuck.
LikeLike
I am busy reading your ”Terrorizing” post.
Ironic that ACE also stands for Accelerated Christian Education, don’t you think? 🙂
LikeLike
Isn’t though? 😉
LikeLike
I also wanted to mention that Brandon said in a previous comment here as well as on other posts that he has issues with pride, and that being a believer in Christianity has helped him curtail this pride. What he fails to see, IMO, is that being a Christian, accepting the doctrine of the man he goes on and on about, Paul, IS a form of pride — prideful, when you look scriptures such as:
1 Corinthians 11:7 claiming that men are the image and glory of God; and women are the glory of man.
So is this not pride to believe that he was made in the image of the god God he worships, which he also believes is the god of all gods?
LikeLike
What 100 words! How could he even hope anyone would be able to read that much.
Seriously, why not actually think about what he wrote and respond if you have one instead of just claiming he is trying to trick you with his words.
If you have studied history you would know you can’t just plunk down what happened thousands of years ago and expect it to make sense according to our modern sensibilities.
LikeLike
Ark, this is one of your least thoughtful comments ever:
“If anyone truly needs a supposedly divinely inspired book to understand morality, and does not have the intellect or inclination to recognise that such an assertion is a crock of Horse Apples and also considers said morality Divinely Bequeathed then said person needs *professional help.”
Or they were indoctrinated from a young age and are trying to makes sense of it or work their way out of it by engaging in discussion about it. Or they’ve been traumatised at some point in their life and religion gives them the structure and explanations they crave. Or probably loads of other reasonable explanations. Oh, and calling people ‘crazy’ because you don’t agree them is really smart.
“And if hundreds and hundreds of words are required by said persons to explain their worldview rather than recognising ordinary commonsense and common decency then said individuals are likely willfully ignorant or indoctrinated and not in control of their mental faculties.”
Most people use hundreds and hundreds of words in any kind of meaningful conversation about their world view. The rest of the sentence is so random there’s no point in even pretending it’s worth a response. Oh, and calling people ‘crazy’ because you don’t agree with them is still really smart here. 😕
LikeLike
As you can see I didn’t go Nite Nite as the geysers had ‘tripped’ and now we are all waiting for the water to heat and I’m blowed if I’m having a freezing bloody shower…
I struggle to figure you out sometimes…One minute you are the UN Diplomat personified the next, you’re about to Set-To religion single-handed. Always bear in mind it was people like these Inculcated Ones who have imposed this diatribe since Grandad fell off the bus.
Right…
I did mention the indoctrination. I am not completely insensitive to the abuse foisted on kids.
But there is an element of context here – Naivethinker is a reconvert ( sounds like car restoration) so he should know better.
The implied ”Crazy” ( not in control of their mental faculties, right?) is meant in the vernacular sense. It sounds better than Dickhead which I am not allowed to call anyone any more so I won’t.
I would bet a few bob that even wholesome individuals such as Ruth or Victoria would openly admit that during their “Oh boy, you are so going to Hell for that ” days they were several sandwiches short of a picnic. And someone like Naivethinker is currently missing most of the rest of the hamper as well.
And I stress again…he has already been round the block once before.
Hallelujah! Praise the Lawdy Lawd…
How much ‘Saving’ can one body take?
“Just pass me that snake there, Ethel..”
LikeLike
Wretched man. Today’s snort award.
LikeLike
Groan! Rough, I’ve told him it’s one of his poorest comments ever and you snort? (I hope you don’t mind me calling you that but SOM made it sound so friendly 😈 )
LikeLike
I know, I’ve just seen and replied again 😀
I do mind, I mind hugely. I will jump up and down about it if you ever call me rough again. Of course you could be really presumptious like said ark and call me by my name. Pesky man.
Hey, it made me laugh. He’s good for a read in the morning. I regret to say I totally agree with him. And his follow-up comments. I don’t agree with his blatant sexism but that’s a different issue. Sexism concerns me, religion does not. Except the two are linked.
I thought it was funny, witty, and extremely accurate. Sorry about that. Well, I’m not really sorry at all. But as it’s your blog I’m trying to be polite. Much easier to let people say what they want on your blog, sadly I don’t get any dickheads on mine so no one ever uses that 😀
LikeLike
Oh well, I’m glad he’s got a fan for his ‘humour’. 🙂
I’ll refrain from calling you Rough, but I guess that’s where I’m a fan of SOM’s humour. He always tries to find the most irritating way to name people, and often succeeds. Don’t tell him I really like being called Wisp.
LikeLike
He’s not the first to call me Rough although most do go for roughseas. If I was referring to me I would probably type rs. As I say, take the easy way out like Ark did, it’s shorter. (Just don’t get it wrong and confuse me with bigot)
Where is SoM? Has he gone to bed at a decent hour for once?
LikeLike
Interesting. What I found incisive and accurate, vi found thoughtless. I guess I have no handle on the indoctrination thing. I find it very irritating that I should need a handbook to tell me how to live my life. It insults my intelligence (such little that I possess).
LikeLike
Such modesty! I suggest that you possess a great deal more than you profess.
LikeLike
Dear Arch
I didn’t want to intrude on your erudite discussion with (Un)T&(Un)R so this seemed as good a place to write as any.
However I wanted you to know that you get todays SOD award. I mean SOTD award. You said you were so disappointed when you were pipped by Ark, so I am very happy to give it to you on this good Friday.
And your winning comment was your very thoughtful and intellectual comment about being exposed to far too much crap on blogs 😀 In the midst of all these supposedly serious discussions (that will not change one thing at all) I like it when people cut to the chase.
Anyway, as my main recipients for this award seem to be you, Ark and John, I shall probably have to stop awarding it, especially as it is invariably on Violet’s blog (although there were a few good ones on bigots) and she will ban me for being nice to Ark.
I did get a HBLWALCSOS from John though over on Pink’s blog, that was nice. 🙂
LikeLike
Do you ever worry that your snort of the day aware might be sexist? Just how many women get it?
(I’m ducking …)
LikeLike
I nearly wrote that in my comment to Arch when I realised who I had given it to!
I could launch into how we women are conditioned into being conciliatory and how men can say what they want? So if I wrote bollocks (ArK) (oh and dickhead of course :D) ,crap (Arch) and can’t remember what John has written, it would not be deemed appropriate for a woman to write. Coarse. Crude. Aggressive. Tell me one woman on your blog who swears like that. If you can, she gets my snort award if she has written a pithy putdown.
It doesn’t even need to be swearing. But women being clever isn’t exactly desirable, is it?
LikeLike
Did you not read Arbourist? She goes against my rude request with every utterance but I’m too afraid of her to say anything directly. She rips people to pieces on her blog. 🙂
LikeLike
I’ve followed her blog actually. Totally co-incidentally I bumped into a feminist I knew ages ago via a fem forum when I was reading her blog. Strange.
I like Arbs comments but they are more like mine, well not on yours because I try to be polite, but the sort of thing I write on my own blog. I haven’t fallen out with Arb yet. I’m sure I can if I try, and with Arch, and Ark and John, and you and Victoria and Ruth and and and, oh not forgetting SoM. (Idiot still hasn’t discovered I have more than one blog, or if he has he decided it was boring and not worth trolling). I’m disappointed he’s not interested in my vegetarian recipes though, I’m a far better veg food cook than Pink.
I’ve done some not very kind pieces about freshly pressed blogs. One of them came back and read my blog, didn’t read all of it, and then read my acid decimation of her blog post. She said she liked my style of writing, even thought she wasn’t happy with what I had written 😀
One has to be careful on your blog. Or perhaps you are like Katy? Maybe you are sexist too and let those loveable men get away with everything?
LikeLike
Why do you have to be careful on my blog? In case I write a post asking people to be nicer? 🙂
I’m not afraid of ‘falling out’ with Arbourist, we’re not best blogging buddies, but I respect her frank opinion. I’m just afraid of wincing under a tongue lashing from her. 😈
LikeLike
Well, now I’ve read it but I got distracted en route. I still have no idea who this Matt bloke is but I suspect he wouldn’t be to my liking. At all.
I did laugh a few times reading through her post though. No snorts, as Arch snaffled those, but I’ve worked out what it is now though. Women have a different take on some of these hideous sexist/misogynist views because we understand how it feels. So that’s why it gets a wry smile ‘I know what you mean’ and not a snort.
However I will refrain from lauding praise on your adorable male readers. I may even get around to finishing a blog post, and NOT about boring old religion. People give it more attention than it is worth.
LikeLike
RE: “I still have no idea who this Matt bloke is but I suspect he wouldn’t be to my liking.” – Nay, nay, not so, my child! You would SO like Matt, he is wise, intelligent, a happy husband and father of two lovely children, and he writes very deep and insightful pieces.
LikeLike
Couldn’t agree more, Arch, and Matt has the patience of a **cough** saint.
LikeLike
I have no interest in his marital status. Nor whether he has a whole brood of quiverfuls (whatever they are called). Does deep and insightful = long and boring? Not to say pretentious? Me, I’m of to finish a shallow and thoughtless piece about monkeys and self-publishing.
LikeLike
Well, why didn’t you SAY so? If you find the wonderful world of monkeys more interesting than fine debating skills, possibly I could interest you in a bonobo —
LikeLike
I saw that somewhere else but never clicked on it.
I can debate quite happily with monkeys and dogs and get far more sense than I can from some people.
Is that a true vid by the way? Probably going by the monkey stories I am going to post.
LikeLike
“Does deep and insightful = long and boring?”
RS — you said you rarely get bored, just tired. 😛
But damn, woman, you’re going down hard on this guy and you haven’t even met him. I’ve also been in personal dialog with Matt, and he rocks, not in a ‘loud’ sort of way, just in case you throw the “I prefer quiet music” at me, lol.
Now take that rat out — chop chop. 😈
LikeLike
Rat has been out. We scampered and did dog things. I don’t get bored. People bore me. Big difference.
Well, I haven’t met him ‘cos there are no obvious links. Don’t you DARE give me one. I need less to read right now, not more.
LikeLike
Sure — and when I mentioned that I’ve had dialog with him, I meant email. I really do have the utmost respect for him and he’s brilliant. However, if you have ADD, skip the comment section. 😉
LikeLike
Thanks. I knew that would provide the link 😀 In fact I think I may have tried it before but it took even longer to load than roughseas does. If it ever appears by the time I have finished drafting my blog post I may glance. I try and avoid ewails, I’d rather it all be out in the open unless it is personal info. I’m prob still not into double figures for the amount of bloggers who have mailed me. Phew! Bad enough replying to comments. 😉
I have no idea whether I have ADD, or high blood pressure, or anything really. I am certainly not inclined to find out.
LikeLike
RS — Matt’s blog is probably not your cup of tea or coffee or what ever your preferred beverage/blog is. I only say that because I think you are pretty far removed from the reality of believers and ex-believers. I’m only basing this on our own dialog together. It seems you’re more interested in the blogs with religious tones when it involves women’s rights or lack thereof. But I get that. I have to be selective on what blogs I spend my time on, otherwise I’d spread myself thin, and also get nothing done. Matt’s blog is primarily educational.
LikeLike
I’m a long way removed 😀 Any rights. I have just as much interest in gay rights as women’s rights, well not personally but from a human rights perspective.
I’m not interested in religious blogs. I don’t know how I even started reading them. There are some good comments though. I’m too old to be educated (although not as old as you :D) .
LikeLike
Yes, I understand. I’m not interested in religion, per se. I’m interested in human rights, and religion, most religions, affect human rights on a grand scale. So, yeah, I get involved.
LikeLike
I understand that too. But um, I’m interested in animal rights and environmentalism and workers’ rights, and and and. I can’t add value to the religious crap. I haven’t been there. The rest of you maybe can although, I’m not sure. I try and add my value where it might help. Arguing or discussing with fundies is not a good use of my time. If you think it is, tell me. But I very much doubt it.
I would prefer to convince people that rescue animals are not societal rejects and that using derogatory languages and images reinforce stereotypes. Those are subjects about which I know and in which I am interested. If I change one person’s view on any of those topics it is worthwhile. Small beer, but worthwhile.
LikeLike
Well, if you read any of my past posts, not just on WP but other places, and saw the simple informational videos I’ve produced, you’d see that we are not that much different when it comes to what we are involved in. I am very proactive about several issues that affect us, other species and the planet.
Watching the movie when I was a kid “Planet of the Apes” had a huge impact on me. By the looks of that video that Arch posted, and the fact that we had a monkey as a member of our family for years when I was a youngen, I’d say we better think twice if we think well remain at the top of the food chain.
LikeLike
The short answer to that is that I have far more respect for animals than people.
LikeLike
I can understand that. I do believe that humans, when they are not subjected to conditions that create/cause antisocial behavior via various practices, like within authoritarian religions, it would be a whole ‘nother ball game. My daughter is a very good person. Caring, compassionate, and yeah, I’m boasting on her. But you get the jest.
If you check out “Peace Among Primates”, you see that baboons (and chimps) can be misogynist assholes too, and oppress and abuse their females and lower ranking males. Again, it has to do with resources and environment which affect genes and neuroplasticity. Alpha baboons and chimps hog the resources. Not much different than what you see with many alpha males in humans. We are beyond the need to pass on our genes — for selfish means. We’ve overpopulated enough. Other primates may have an excuse. We don’t.
LikeLike
I’ll check it out, but I STILL haven’t finished my blog post, need to get a pizza, need to walk Rat again, it won’t be tonight. My interactions with monkeys are on a person to monkey level. Not the same 😀
LikeLike
“person to monkey level”
LOL
Enjoy your pizza and evening. I’m preparing potato soup. I look forward to reading your new post. Catch you later.
LikeLike
Bought pizza, added extras (from me not them hence cheap). I look forward to finishing my new post! One day.
I speak to all animals the same. Children too. They all deserve respect. No more no less. How difficult is that?
LikeLike
Not difficult at all. Humans love to complicate things.
LikeLike
If this is the guy that Ark reblogged, I thoroughly recommend his posts. But if you’re bored of Christian stuff you might not want to go there …
LikeLike
I am, I don’t, but I tried and it took too long to load. I need some dog blogs, or even flower blogs or something. I need to detox.
LikeLike
Try this one, loads of fantastic photos every day from some random nature reserve. Horses, foxes and bugs too!
http://mike585.wordpress.com/
LikeLike
I don’t like photoblogs particularly, but that has some brilliant piccies. Plus, I loved his description of his Welsh self (my partner’s Welsh and also can’t sing).
LikeLike
RS — you wrote, addressing Violet:
“Maybe you are sexist too and let those loveable men get away with everything?”
Nope, notta. Not to my knowledge. Though I have only been following her blog a couple of months, she doesn’t take shit from these guys. She’ll call their hand in a heartbeat. I gained a lot of respect for Violet because of this.
LikeLike
I’d answer but I’m too busy reading through your dialogue with Arch 😀
And given my not so old age (still annoyed about that one!) I’m winding down now, plus I need to take out the Rat for some fun somewhere as he is destroying the house. I’ll save the sexism debate for later.
LikeLike
Hehe — I look forward to it. 😀
LikeLike
I’m not going to get over you pipping me by a year for some time, I tell ya!
LikeLike
Shuuuuuu. 😉
LikeLike
Here’s a taste of her posts:
http://deadwildroses.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/christian-patriarchy-featuring-matt-ball-of-slime-in-training/
LikeLike
RE: “women being clever isn’t exactly desirable, is it?” – I’m easily bored, any woman who ISN’T clever, doesn’t last long in my company. The woman who can REALLY tweak my beak, so to speak, is one who can match wits with me and actually, periodically take me down a peg – I’m sure it has escaped the attention of everyone here, but I can, on very rare occasions, get just a bit full of myself.
LikeLike
Is that an apology? I forgive you. 😛
LikeLike
Actually, it was a response to RoughSeasintheMediterranean’s comment – to the best of my knowledge, I’ve no reason to apologize to anyone, being, as I am, faultless.
LikeLike
“being, as I am, faultless.”
Get back in your cage.
LikeLike
*yawns* 😈
Most women are more clever than you give them credit for, or that you are aware.. It’s also not uncommon for them to ‘dumb themselves down’ — cuz you know — the guy has a fragile ego. Been there, done that — burned the tee-shirt.
LikeLike
RE: “It’s also not uncommon for them to ‘dumb themselves down’ — cuz you know — the guy has a fragile ego.” – Suppose that’s a direct result of the kinds of choices they make in men?
LikeLike
LOL — like we have that big of a choice to find ‘real’ men who aren’t full of themselves and believe they are god’s gift to women? Pulease!
LikeLike
You’re right – those men are probably out looking for ‘real’ women who aren’t full of themselves and believe they are god’s gift to men?
LikeLike
Oh common, Arch, surely you know what I’m talking about. How many men do you know really see women as equals, you know — fully human? You and I both live in the South. I’d say that would be about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001%
LikeLike
While I may not disagree with you, by the same token, if you’re going to use that information to “rib” me, I’m certainly not going out of my way to help you!
LikeLike
**grins**
LikeLike
The % got cut off.
LikeLike
I meant to write ‘oh come on’.
LikeLike
Is that a challenge? 😀 I actually don’t discriminate on intellect. My 80 something neighbour can’t read or write. Is she stupid? Is she hell. She is sharp as a razor as it is, if she was literate she would be lethal. I admire her immensely.
I shall however, try and avoid replying to you in case I am not sufficiently clever ….
LikeLike
RE: “I shall however, try and avoid replying to you in case I am not sufficiently clever ….” – Oh, BS!
BTW, my grandfather could neither read nor write, yet he could do math in his head faster than most today could do on a calculator.
LikeLike
Another challenge? Are we on maths now? 😀
LikeLike
Didn’t you just mention a lady who could neither read nor write? I’m just saying that that needn’t be a significant handicap.
LikeLike
Some thoughts on illiteracy.
(I wrote shorter posts seven years ago)
It’s also a handicap when she needed to be escorted down the town shopping because she couldn’t see prices, and the only reason she can tell the time is by the position of the hands, she can’t read the numbers.
While she can write her name, (about the only thing she can write) what is the point of that when she can’t read what she is signing?
I’m sure I don’t need to get into the debate about women, illiteracy, poverty etc. (I’ve written about that somewhere too).
Given her huge disadvantaged start, I think she has made the best of her life, and she isn’t always bitter about picking beans in the fields at six years old or her father being carted off by Franco’s fascists to a prison in northern Spain where he was killed. But I think literacy should be a basic right for anyone (numeracy too) rather than for them to try and catch up with such a disadvantaged start.
LikeLike
My grandfather never seemed bothered by his illiteracy – he had a smile that could light up a room, and died at 83, with all of his own teeth (how many can say that today?). They literally came from Pennsylvania, to their farm in Oklahoma in a covered wagon, straight out of the movies. My grandmother was the first female mail carrier in the area, and possibly in the state – she delivered the mail in rural area on horseback. After he became too old to work the farm, he moved to town, bought an entire block, had houses moved in, and lived the rest of his life on the rent.
He, Albert Einstein and Walt Disney became my idols, after whom I’ve attempted to pattern my life.
LikeLike
Arch, that is a great story. Loved it!
Funny, I was reminded of the 1949 movie “It’s A Wonderful Life” when you shared about your grandfather buying up a city block, having houses moved in, and living off the rent. Of course, I wasn’t thinking of the old greedy codger, Potter, but Stewart’s character, George, when he built Baily Park.
LikeLike
He was a good man, and I loved him fiercely.
LikeLike
I felt the same way about my Nana. An incredibly strong, independent woman who lost two husbands to death; one while in her 20’s, the other in her 40’s (I never knew my grandfather — died just before I was born). She never remarried, and lived to see 3 of her 5 children die, one being 18 months years old. I adored and admired her. She passed away in her mid-90’s. I miss her.
LikeLike
LOL — I meant 18 months old. First wrote 2 years old but corrected without deleting ‘years old’.
LikeLike
@Violet Wisp
My apologies, consider the belligerence dialed back even farther.
I did not realize that I had not sufficiently moderated my tone when responding so specious arguments. I did read your post on being rude and having reread it will take it to heart while commenting here.
Sorry about the vitriol, sometimes my disdain for bullcookery gets the better of me.
LikeLike
“Sorry about the vitriol, sometimes my disdain for bullcookery gets the better of me.”
Please don’t apologise. Your comments are great! I was using them to try and get Roughseas to recognise that she gender preferences her snorts – she only seems to like comments I disapprove of. My strategy failed. 🙄
LikeLike
Do I want to know what SOTD stands for?
LikeLike
Oh – Snort Of The Day! – got it! You have to understand, I just got up and am only now half way through my first cup of coffee.
LikeLike
Violet, morality can be very complex! I don’t think the story of Tamar implies that the perpetrator marrying his victim is morally right for all time, in an absolute sense. Not really an absolute or a relative sense. Thinking about absolute versus relative morality is probably a recent innovation in philosophy and anthropology compared to when this story was penned. It’s only by retrospective analysis that we see that what has survived is that rape is immoral and unlawful in an absolute sense. Moral and legal justice seems to be more relative to the cultural environment. And, we see this with other laws too. But, that’s a story for another time!
I appreciate your concerns about my stress. I’m not trying to change my personality per se. I intentionally waited until things became stable before I entered the blogosphere. That doesn’t mean I’ve got everything ironed out or I’m perfect or anything, but I’m just at a point where I’m not confused and uncertain about who I am, what I believe, and how I want to engage others.
Also, I’m just a stressful person all around. I usually work 70+ hours a week commute 2+ hours/day in a car, my wife has been working night shift so I rarely have seen her for the last few weeks, and I genuinely like the interactions at the blogosphere like you do, so I’ll forgo sleep to reply. I sleep on average 5-6 hours per night.
To me, it’s just that important to be engaged. And, your blog is great and I really appreciate you defending a healthy environment for differing opinions. I understand that atheists won’t agree with me and logically must think I am irrational and deluded. And, this can invoke anger. It’s good that I understand this and can consider what to expect, so that I don’t say something reactive that is unproductive.
Anyway, sorry about another WOT. Can’t help it. 🙂
LikeLike
“It’s only by retrospective analysis that we see that what has survived is that rape is immoral and unlawful in an absolute sense.” You believe your god wrote the rules for this society but he was being sensitive to their culture by making or even allowing them think a rape victim should marry her rapist. Now you’re trying to create a narrative around it that justifies it. Think. There is no justification. Looking for justification will only serves as an attempt to lighten the crime of rape – and that’s what you’re doing here. You can still believe in the Christian god and accept this story, but the only way to do with integrity is to admit that the Bible doesn’t make any sense but you know that the god God is working in mysterious ways. I have much more respect for Christians for who accept the limitations in defending these passages, and I personally see nothing inherently illogical about Christians using their supernatural trump card. I would recommend you use it more often.
LikeLike
Just to say also that I’ve updated my ‘Christians Read This’ page because you made me realise it’s important to mention the supernatural trump card. If you’re interested you can find out about it here:
LikeLike
I reject the supernatural category. And, why should I play a “trump card” when I can just discuss a topic as a moral analysis? Isn’t that what you want?
I even begged for evidence and reason from you and Arch, even providing the best questions to answer, but I got nothing. Would you rather me play the “supernatural trump” so you can look down on me?
LikeLike
Where were these best questions? All I saw were more attempts to excuse a benevolent rule-maker encouraging his people to think that rape victims should marry their rapists, and continuing on to state that there has been no change in our moral understanding of rape. Maybe you asked them to Arch and I missed them.
I don’t look down on people who believe a creator made all this. And if a super-being did make our existence, how on earth would you expect to be able to understand its motives?
LikeLike
Those questions were on part 1.
“. . . how on earth would you expect to be able to understand its motives?”
I don’t know. I mean a creator deity could be “deistic” and sort of run away. Or, the creator deity could reveal itself somehow. Either way it would be entirely up to the creator deity as to whether and how to reveal itself. That’s one of things that kept me searching when I was agnostic/atheist.
LikeLike
Did you read Victoria’s most recent post?
LikeLike
Planning on it. Actually that’s what I’ll do now! 😀
LikeLike
Both of you leave me out of this – I made it clear that I was deferring any and all of your questions and/or remarks to VW, who believes she knows best how to deal with you. If your questions aren’t getting satisfactory answers, take that up with VW.
LikeLike
There’s no ‘best’ way to ‘deal’ with people. I only requested a cessation personal attacks. If Brandon has bested you with logic and evidence, I can understand why you want to leave the conversation. 😉
LikeLike
I left the conversation for no other reason than to avoid confrontation with you, on your own blog – should you choose to attribute more to my motivation than that, that, of course, is your option.
LikeLike
What confrontation with me? You’re mixing your blogs up. 🙄
LikeLike
RE: “What confrontation” – you left out the word, “avoid” – see, when you avoid a confrontation, there IS no confrontation. So, “What confrontation”? The avoided one.
LikeLike
anaivethinker said
“In these preceding paragraphs I am not arguing for one society being better,”
violetwisp said
“Em, what? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.”
I don’t think he is suggesting the specific rule regarding rape is better. But rather the preceding sentence “Today we value individual rights over “societal” rights. But, consider the fact that this valuation of individual rights has not always been the case.”
And although our society is much better on issues of women’s rights. I think its morally worse in other respects than certain ancient cultures.
LikeLike
“And although our society is much better on issues of women’s rights. I think its morally worse in other respects than certain ancient cultures.”
Go on, tell me how then. You’ve admitted you’ve never studied history much so I’m assuming this is based on what you’ve been told at church. I’m a history graduate and I know at least three others read this blog, so I could invite them to join me in an unbiased analysis of your opinion on ‘certain ancient cultures’. 😉
LikeLike
I’m one, but I can only comment on ancient and medieaval history and archaelogy with a European bias from a degree perspective.
LikeLike
If I thought it would help, I could expound for days on the origins of peanut butter —
I also know a bit about the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Amurrites, the Assyrians, the Cannanites (subset, Phoenicians), the Philistines and the Hebrews (btw, they didn’t like being called that, it was like calling the Romani, “Gypsies – from the Sumerian word, “Hibiru,” it basically meant, “vagabond”).
LikeLike
. “You’ve admitted you’ve never studied history much …”
I don’t think I admitted that. I said I did not know enough about the history regarding the times that Tamar would have lived to give an opinion on whether she would have really wanted to marry.
Rather than claim I did or did not study history much I can just give some facts. The fact is I really enjoy listening to history. I have had an audible subscription and that is the source of much of my learning in history. I wouldn’t call it “studying” I guess. I just listen and enjoy and make no particular effort to ensure I remember what I listened to. But its not the same as just having someone at my church tell me something either.
I listen to historians on topics that are interesting to me at the time. The gamut is fairly broad but I have over time taken a particular interest in the crusades, Christian Church history from Christ to the reformation, and World War 2. But it really varies. I enjoy learning about history. I have actually wondered why I like it so much. I didn’t really care for it when I was in school. I used to get the great courses stuff but now its on audible and I listen to those there. I’m a big fan of audible. Its true the number of books there are limited but its growing.
I am now listening to
http://www.audible.com/pd/History/Bloodlands-Audiobook/B0047E9696
I am glad you are a history graduate and others here like and have studied history. I listen to the history and often wish to have others to discuss it with. But no one I know personally likes history as much as I do.
Now for you question. I get the impression that people in the middle ages were less self centered than they are now. I can’t really give one event or even a few that would prove this. I think knowing motivations is hard to do and it may be an impossible task. But I get that sense.
But let me ask you, and others who study or enjoy history the same question. Do you think people in history acted more nobly or morally than people today in any capacity? Or do you think modern people are at least as moral as the those of the past in every respect?
LikeLike
I realize you’re addressing VW, T&R, but I asked you a question a few moments ago, and while I’m awaiting your answer, I’m sure you won’t mind if I knock off a quick response.
You ask, “Do you think people in history acted more nobly or morally than people today in any capacity?” That opens a whole raft of questions, not the least of which is, “What is morality?”
Our species has built into us, through a million or more generations, a sense of what it takes to live peaceably within our society, and how to behave in order to assure the survival of that society, and on a grander scale, our species. To that extent, only in detail has our morality changed in all of those millions of generations.
I suspect, however, that on the whole, the human population has grown less and less fearful of a “Divine Retribution,” in the event we step outside the guidelines set down by whatever divinity d’jour happens to prevail at the moment, so in that sense, we behave as though we are less fearful of acting “morally.”
On the other hand, those who write history often tend to exaggerate it, tell it from a particular perspective that illustrates their own biases, or neglects to report any but the barest essentials of it. Thomas Jefferson, for example, represented one of the finest of his generation, but owned slaves, the females of which he regularly took to bed – an historian is far more likely to tell, in the history books, of the marvelous ideas Jefferson had about forming a democratic republic, and the many things he did to bring it about, but gloss over, or omit entirely, the – shall we say, seemier side of what I personally believe to have been a truly great, but very frail and entirely human, man.
So I must say that I really don’t believe that that question can be honestly answered.
LikeLike
Sorry I missed this reply and was more concerned with something else you said elsewhere about morality and judgement. I’ll give this a wider airing on my next post. Your comment about people in the middle ages being less self-centred is laughable, but your questions could raise an interesting discussion. 🙂
LikeLike