how to justify embarrassing bible verses – part 3
So, why did the Bible use submission for women only? It didn’t. If one reads closely it says two things that we’ve entirely ignored.
First, it commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Christ loved the church by working tirelessly for us, day and night, for years. All of his actions, full-time, we’re in the service of the church. He was, essentially, a willing slave. And, when the church completely rejected him, he decided it was better to face torture and execution than be without us. Ordering men to treat their wives this way is simply incompatible with a chauvinistic view of marriage.
Second, and similarly, the Bible claims that anyone who is to be a leader, is to be slave of all. So, any intimation that men are to be leaders of their wives is an intimation that men are to be the slaves of their wives.
I know people keep trying to get chauvinism from the Bible. I know many do it for self gain. But this is simply not what the text says. And, personally, I delight in pointing it out to them. In any case, I hope that strikes you as more reasonable than the “Biblical” view of marriage you’ve had quoted at you.
Last, I’d like to add that, if I’m right, there is a transcendental truth to the claim that these chauvinists are wrong. It isn’t (again, if my religion is right) simply be that they contradict the current cultural value of equality. It would be that they are fundamentally wrong. In fact, it is largely because I know that they are fundamentally wrong that I can’t accept atheism.
My best apologist blogging buddy Fide Dubitandum (which Google tells me means ‘trustworthy’ in English) provided this explanation for Bible verses calling on women to submit to their husbands. It got me thinking about how people interpret the Bible … yet again.
Fide and his blogging buddies all believe in a benevolent and loving god. They seem to be reasonable people with normally developed senses of empathy and the standard cultural indoctrination of our times that demands equal treatment for all. They start from their premise of a good and loving god, and apply their rose-tinted view to all Bible passages they come across.
Let’s look at one of the submission passages in more detail:
Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:22-33)
While most people who aren’t indoctrinated by Christianity shudder when reading these verses, seeing instructions for damaging inequality that are rooted in patriarchal culture and all to often lead to repression and abuse, nice Christians only see that if the man is to love to his wife as himself, no harm can befall the wife as a result of the instruction.
However, let’s be clear about what we expect from equality. My best blogging buddy, Victoria Neuronotes, has a very handy exercise to help those blinkered people see these instructions from a fresh equality perspective.
Husbands, submit yourselves to your own wives as you do to the Lord. For the wife is the head of the husband as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also husbands should submit to their wives in everything.
Wives, love your husbands, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for him to make him holy, cleansing him by the washing with water through the word, and to present him to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, wives ought to love their husbands as their own bodies. She who loves her husband loves herself. After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. “For this reason a woman will leave her mother and father and be united to her husband, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love her husband as she loves herself, and the husband must respect his wife. (Ephesians 5:22-33)
Suddenly, I can see sense in the message. It reflects the natural balance in heterosexual relationships and I can genuinely understand how in this form it protects our husbands and provides them with the equal, loving and supportive relationship they deserve. But then my rose-tinted glasses are those of a powerful woman.
The Bible tells unvarnished tales of human weakness and human evil.
But leave it to the atheist to shoot the messenger and blame God.
LikeLike
Messenger Season doesn’t start til next week and you have to have a license, but they’re not expensive. May I suggest a 12-gauge?
LikeLike
How does relate to the passages above?
LikeLike
To help you keep the record straight, Messenger Season immediately follows “Wascally Wabbit” Season. We employ beaters in the bush, hounds and everything, in case you’d care to join us – nothing says Marksman like a wallful of mounted Messenger heads, and I can give you the name of a good taxidermist.
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
I hear noise but I realize that’s just you chirping.
We have a species of crow here that we affectionately call the shit bird because it’s so useless.
I heard the downstairs cat murder one of them one early morn, and I thought of you.
Watch out for dem cats. My apartment building no longer has a shit bird problem.
LikeLike
So you live in an apartment, interesting. I’d always envisioned you living in the basement of your mother’s house.
LikeLike
Here is Tara the cat saving a four year old boy.
Tara must be a religious cat. Just look at her as she jihads the canine attacker.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-27428819
LikeLike
Actually, Bart Ehrman, in his book, Forged relates that there is evidence that Paul did not write Ephesians, that the letter was forged by one who disagreed with Paul’s more liberal views toward women (he even made a few, priests), and wanted to put Paul on record as holding contrary beliefs.
LikeLike
Oh, did Paul write Genesis too? “To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.””
LikeLike
Oh yeah – he was brought in on that one as a ghost writer, and due to having a lousy agent, never got full credit.
LikeLike
What’s that they say about, “Ask a silly question –?“
LikeLike
What silly question? Paul didn’t write the whole Bible. The passage here is an example, a mild example, of the attitude towards women. Thanks for the info though. 🙂
LikeLike
Did you honestly not know that Paul didn’t write Genesis? THAT silly question. If you simply wanted to make a point that sexism is found in other parts of the bible, as well as in Ephesians, you could simply have said so, rather than becoming abrasive.
LikeLike
For a dirty bird, you’re really touchy with a poor sense of dry humour. Must be all that Texan air. 😛
LikeLike
So THAT’s what passes for humo(u)r in your part of the world! Have you considered enrolling in a comedy workshop? It could do wonders for improving your routine.
LikeLike
LOL! This whole concept of female submission really bothers you, doesn’t it Violet? I have to laugh, because I was once a very good feminist. I not only had a dislike for men, I’ve been known to pitch a few teacups at my husband. He learned how to duck very early in our marriage.
So what happened? Never mind religion for a moment, biology happened. The reality is that men and women simply exist together in greater harmony when “equality” is not ruling the relationship. Equality requires you to keep score, to live in a state of constant hyper-vigilance, to perceive men as oppressors and yourself as a victim who must always be in battle mode to guard against any perceived slights.
There is great wisdom in the bible, in Paul’s words, not just regarding marriage, but all interpersonal relationships with men in general. We’re different, we’re biologically different, the way our brains work is different, the way we communicate is different, the way we perceive life is different. Given the realities of our differences, the whole idea of equality becomes simply asinine. It demands sameness of people who are not the same, it attempts to measure people by one standard, and it ultimately seeks to erase our diversity and individuality.
LikeLike
Oh dear, I’ve never thrown anything at my husband. I treat him with the respect he deserves and lovingly look after him as myself. I just think men need protecting and sometimes they don’t make the clearest decisions, so it’s natural for the woman to lead. In that sense I agree with you about the biological differences. This isn’t about anger, it’s about love and natural leadership.
LikeLike
I concur. To say that men are natural leaders and women are not goes against nature. If this was the case, men would have been the ones giving birth — the ones who have traditionally been the primary teacher and nurturer of the whole species. Truth be told, we can see in certain species of monkey (the predominately peaceful ones) that both male and female are equal and raise their young equally together.
“In less aggressive species, such as gibbons or marmosets, groups tend to live in lush rain forests where food is plentiful and life is easy. Couples mate for life, and males help substantially with child care. In violent species, such as baboons and rhesus monkeys, the opposite conditions prevail.” Dr. Robert Salposky
So, when there is more equality between men and women, the society/culture tends to be more peaceful. Patriarchal religions, such as Christianity, which are male dominated, highly stratified, promote male dominate, highly stratified societies much like you see in very aggressive baboon troops. It doesn’t take a neuroscientist to figure that one out. If InsanityB was throwing cups at her partner, she most likely had anger issues, or perhaps she belittled her partner, which had nothing at all to do with what she assumed was equality.
LikeLike
Neuro, you and I are generally not that far apart in thought, despite your need to maintain your bond with VW in the Ya-Ya Sisterhood, but in this instance, I don’t believe you’ve thought it through. In a hunter-gather society, one has to hunt while the other gathers. Who better to travel for miles in search of game, than the one who is not pregnant, or who doesn’t have suckling young to care for? Or, for that matter, the one with the greatest upper body strength?
LikeLike
Arch, not sure how ya-ya sister’s come into play in this debate. Also, you seemed to have missed the point I was making. And while I agree that women who were pregnant or taking care of young would tend to stick around locally, they were still working to gather the majority of the tribes food. Anthropologist state that women were the primary bread winners. Quote: Psychology Today
“When anthropologists began to look systematically at how modern-day hunter-gatherers use their time, they discovered that, far from exhausting themselves in their search for food, they actually spent only 12 to 20 hours per week at it. Interestingly, women were the main “breadwinners” in hunter-gatherer groups. Anthropologists estimate that women’s gathering provided around 80-90 percent of groups’ food —a fact which has led some anthropologists to suggest that these peoples should be renamed gatherer-hunters. This is also meant that their diet was largely vegetarian (only around 10-20 percent meat),”
————
Anthropologists state that women didn’t stop providing for their families and tribes after giving birth. This is still evident today. The babies were with them while they gathered plants and hunted smaller animals. And I wasn’t devaluing upper body strength, if that came across to you.
LikeLike
” I just think men need protecting and sometimes they don’t make the clearest decisions”
A bit like children you mean?
LikeLike
No, a bit like being human.
LikeLike
Men deserve the dignity and respect that comes from trusting them to make their own decisions. To perceive men as humans in need of protecting, indeed monitoring, because of the potential lack of clarity in their decisions, sounds not only disrespectful, it sounds like infantilizing them.
LikeLike
@InsanityB
Women deserve the dignity and respect that comes from trusting them to make their own decisions. To perceive women as humans in need of protecting, indeed monitoring, because of the potential lack of clarity in their decisions, sounds not only disrespectful, it sounds like infantilizing them.
LikeLike
Yes, I can see how you would try to turn that around as if gender where a completely interchangeable reality.
Ironically, being submissive does not assign you doormat status nor does in infantilize women. Quite the opposite actually, it respects us for who we are and honors what we are capable of.
LikeLike
InstanityB, we (women) are human beings with vaginas. We give birth, and we have less upper body strength — but we have more endurance strength then men. Does that make men the weaker sex (requiring submission to women) because they have less endurance capabilities than women, and because women give birth to the whole species?
LikeLike
Insanity, you keep talking about biology. I know you’ve probably posted on this – what is it biologically about women that you think makes them need to be submission? Also the same for men, what is it about biology that makes them the head of a marriage? Do you genuinely think they make more rational decisions in every heterosexual relationship?
LikeLike
Submit means to yield, Violet. Women have a tendency to never yield and a biological imperative that makes it difficult for us to relinquish control. In the process, men’s needs, capabilities, talents, can be easily overlooked. When women do not submit, it is very easy for men to simply opt out or turn into Peter Pans who never have to grow up.
LikeLike
“Women have a tendency to never yield and a biological imperative that makes it difficult for us to relinquish control.” Can you provide a reference for this biological imperative? It’s nothing I’m familiar with personally or have read about. To be honest, it sounds like you might be generalising for all womankind on the basis of your experiences with prior failed relationships – could this be true?
“In the process, men’s needs, capabilities, talents, can be easily overlooked.”
But you think when women submit and are controlled by men this is not the case? Perhaps you believe women’s talents only lie in keeping a good home for their menfolk and the offspring they need to be generating. I hope this isn’t the case.
LikeLike
“Perhaps you believe women’s talents only lie in keeping a good home for their menfolk and the offspring they need to be generating.”
So says the one busy generating offspring and keeping house 🙂
LikeLike
Really? Your webcams in my house obviously aren’t functioning very well. Both my partner and I work, we both look after my daughter, we both cook, we both clean etc. Fair enough with regards to your biology argument unfortunately I’m the only one that can generate offspring, but that’s where the gender difference in terms of role starts and stops.
Still waiting for those links. 😀
LikeLike
Now, my point in sharing that, InsanityB, was not to negate what Violet said, but to show that both male and female bring value to the table, equally. We are organic beings greatly affected by our hormones and the environment. Those with more testosterone, both in males and females, tend to be more aggressive. The studies are conclusive. For example, a female mouse who was between two females in utero will be more docile than a female who was between two males. A male mouse who was between two females (in utero) will be less likely to help look after the offspring. Why? Because of hormones. Female rhesus monkeys exposed to testosterone towards the end of pregnancy will be more likely to engage in rough play and other “male” behaviors. But Christianity promotes higher testosterone (hyper-masculinity), and this is clear in the fact that Christianity has never been a religion of peace. History speaks for itself.
My guess is that you are using submission to curtail your (possibly) higher testosterone levels and you have anger issues. But also, you may have been raised in an environment that promoted aggression. Don’t tell every other women on this planet that your invisible god, which requires faith, told all women that they should submit to their husbands because you had higher testosterone levels or anger issues.
LikeLike
LOL, higher testosterone levels and anger issues? Is that a fancy new fangled way of calling me a bitch?
I’m rather delighted to submit to both God and my husband and in fact, quite happy. I’m also free to share my happiness with “every other woman on the planet” just as you are free to share your misery over your alleged oppression.
LikeLike
InsantiyB. I don’t assume that you are miserable, and neither did I call you a bitch, which is a female dog. You appear to have found a way to curtail your aggression by submitting to your husband. What works for you does not work for others.
I do not need to submit to a person with a penis or upper body strength to curtail any anger issues I might have, and neither do I expect any male partner to submit to me just because I am part of the gender who gives birth to the entire human race.
LikeLike
Thank you for your unsolicited psychological analysis. You’re quite right I’m sure, there must be some deeply buried psychological issues that would account for my contentment.
LikeLike
You’re quite right I’m sure; there must be some deeply buried psychological issues that would account for your incessant need to tell other women that they should submit to their husbands because an invisible deity, that requires faith to believe in its existence,said so in a 2000 year old book that knew nothing about the nature of human biology and neurology.
Hello placebo effect. The more you can convince the masses in believing in your particular god of choice and culture, the more effective the placebo effect of eternal life and acknowledgement.
LikeLike
Hello projection! I am not the one spending my time attacking the bible, submission, and Christians. I seek to share some things that have given me great joy in life. You seem to seek to ridicule and mock something that has brought a great deal of pleasure to many people.
Now who has the deep seated psychological issues?
LikeLike
InsanityB — you are a part of the religious movement that believes that your Christian values trump any law of the land.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/14/3437587/nebraska-sasse-absolute-religious-liberty/
So I am not going to sit on my ass and allow for people who need to believe in the afterlife, who have death anxiety and control issues, to the point that they bring harm to all of society in order to keep their delusions alive, to bring down my country and possible extinction of our species due to the fact that you appear to primarily function from your limbic system rather than your frontal lobes.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/is-your-brain-culture/200906/we-humans-have-fatal-biology
I have shared with you, in the past, plenty of data regarding the harm your beliefs bring. But you can’t see it because you need to believe to behave.
LikeLike
You are correct about my beliefs, if, as that Think Progress article says, “government cannot force somebody to act against their religious beliefs.” Yes I strongly believe that.That’s an old fashioned American principle that goes way back to our founding. Until just recently, it was also a liberal, progressive value, advocated not by Christians, but rather atheists, agnostics, and several others. You might want to keep in mind that those same laws that allow for Christians to practice freely, also protect atheists.
LikeLike
No — -they do not protect atheists. Do you want a theocracy? Did you even read the article? You are opening up a can of worms, such as allowing the killing of women because a religious book said so. Is that what you want?
LikeLike
US laws do indeed protect atheists. Also Satanists, witches and Muslims.
Speaking of killing women, why don’t you protest Islam, communism, one of the myriad of atrocious systems that really does advocate killing women? Instead you attack the bible.. and apparently Nebraska.
LikeLike
InsanityB — our country isn’t being brought down by communism. You watch too much Fox News. The Christians are doing a fine job of that all by themselves.
Christians like that GOP representative in that article, who is favored to win, are a threat to the well being of our country. That you can’t see this is very disconcerting. Now, did you miss the bigger picture? If our country protects all religions, than any Muslim or Christian man has the right to stone his daughters for not being a virgin. That’s in your bible. If other faiths and non-believers don’t bow down to your god, ‘godly’ men can kill married women, men, and boys, but keep the girls for themselves. They can also steal their property and split the plunder between them. Numbers 31. They can kill people who don’t listen to priests. Deuteronomy 17:12 They can also kill homosexuals, according to the ‘good’ book. Leviticus 20:13 They can kill witches or anyone suspected of being a witch. Exodus 22:17 Death to the child that hits his father or mother. Exodus 21:15 Death for adultery. Leviticus 20:10 Death for ‘fornication’. Leviticus 21:9 Kill the entire town if one person worships another god other than yours. Deuteronomy 13:13-19 Kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Deuteronomy 22:20-21 Kill followers of other religions. Deuteronomy 13:7-12 Kill kids for making fun of a ‘prophet’. 2 Kings 2:23-24 It would become law that women be forced to submit to their husbands.
And on and on it goes. No— our country has enough to worry about with regard to your biblical values.
LikeLike
Neuron,
Barack Obama is indeed a communist and he is indeed destroying the United States, with forethought and malice.
You need to change the channel from CNN and MSLSD.
Jeez, haven’t you heard of the slaughter victims in the Veterans Administration hospitals, the ObamaCare fiasco, Obama unleashing the IRS on his political opposition, more lies from the global warming crowd.
What’s wrong with you?
LikeLike
I have nothing to say to you except that I hope Violet bans you.
LikeLike
Neuron,
Silencing the opposition is what atheists, feminists and gay rights advocates do.
It’s all you can do because you can’t defend your ideas in any rational way.
LikeLike
@insanitybytes22
Men make atrocious decisions more often than not. we mean well, generally, but we’re hopeless.
LikeLike
Ain’t that the truth! 😀
LikeLike
There’s an awkward history backing the statement up 😦
Women can be proud they didn’t have a hand in the penning of any religious text. That’s a badge of honour!
LikeLike
I never considered this before. It is quite profound when you think about it.
LikeLike
I’m embarrassed we didn’t get our shit together sooner and trump your pishy male religions with something more convincing. 🙂
LikeLike
Please read my comment to SOM below.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m a bit annoyed you copied and pasted them so they appear twice now. 😉
LikeLike
One of those little nuggets, isn’t it?
LikeLike
Worthy of a post perhaps?
LikeLike
I’d like to see a treatment on it, but I feel this might have Wisp’s name written all over it.
LikeLike
Did I not already cover that?
LikeLike
That’s about women in the bible. Aren’t we talking about women not writing any of the nonsense, for any religion?
LikeLike
I did say it as written by men for men. I think you should do a post, like Ark says, you’ll give it the Zande je ne se quoi that causes mass deconversion in the female population.
LikeLike
So asking men to submit is being overprotective, controlling, second-guessing, disrespectful and infantilizing, but asking women to submit is different how?
LikeLike
The biology of men and women is different and so are our natures. You all seem to have some crazy ideas about submission as if it were about being in a battle and involving surrender or one’s position on a hierarchy of value or something. That right there expresses the nature of women. Everything must be defined as if it were a never ending power struggle. The men I know do not perceive submission as subservience, as surrender, nor do they lord their power over their wives. Women who do not submit however, quite frequently can be seen lording their power over men. Quite often women do not take men’s feelings into account, instead perceiving them only in the context of potential oppressors. The reverse is not true, men do not often perceive women as potential oppressors.
I do not submit because I am in need of protection, regulation, or incapable of making decisions, I submit because my husband’s way of perceiving the world is different from mine and experience has taught me that he makes some good decisions even when I can not always see where he is coming from immediately. Where I not to submit, I would never see the fruits of those decisions. Also, his choices tend to revolve around what’s best for me and the rest of the family, mine will tend to have a much narrower focus.
LikeLike
So, were it not for your husband, you’d be selfish and not make decisions in the best interest of your family unit? Then by all means, continue to submit. It sounds as if you need some direction.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Every institution needs a leader.
Corporations have CEO’s. Congress has a speaker. A nation has a president or prime minister.
Those leaders are not dictators or oppressors if they want the institutions they lead to function well.
Likewise marriage. The marriage needs a leader. And that leader is optimally the man.
That the man is the leader does not mean the woman sits there with one thumb up her butt and the other up her vagina.
Men who do not listen to the wisdom of their wives nor take into account their wishes, should not be married.
Likewise, if a woman cannot accept the leadership of her husband then she should not be married.
Marriage does not happen all by itself. It requires a certain personal structure between man and wife plus loads of commitment, faithfulness and strength.
LikeLike
Silence of Mind,
That the man is the leader does not mean the woman sits there with one thumb up her butt and the other up her vagina.
I’m not sure where in my comments you read that I welcome crudeness. I do not. Let no unwholesome talk proceed from your mouth, mister!
Now, as to the rest of that load of manure:
I personally do not feel I need a leader in my home. I do not feel my husband needs a leader. We both support one another. We made sure before we married that we had mutual goals and ideas so that we work together for our common good. It works for us. Your wife may welcome your leadership. Hooray for her! Or my condolences. Probably both.
Marriage certainly doesn’t happen all by itself. It takes two. Equally.
LikeLike
Ruth,
If you have not accepted the leadership of your husband, how do you know that the so-called “equality” of your arrangement is the best situation.
You, like all atheists make your arguments from very simple, common logical fallacies.
The logical fallacy you used was setting yourself up as the authority for your own arguments.
Your husband is probably a pussy whipped cuckold who needs a woman of your girth and stature to dominate him.
LikeLike
Your husband is probably a pussy whipped cuckold who needs a woman of your girth and stature to dominate him.
Again with the crudeness. How rude! How did you know I’m 6 feet tall and weigh 300 pounds?
Your comparison of marriage with “any institution” is ridiculous. My marriage is not like that of a company with a CEO. Why? Because he who has the biggest salary doesn’t get to dictate. Because the CEO of a company gets to tell employees how they are to conduct their work and if the employee does not comply can be fired. Marriage doesn’t work that way. If yours does I’m sorry.
Yes, my husband and I are the best people to decide what works for us. We don’t need an ancient book to tell us to be nice to each other or that we need to look out for each others’ best interests or that we need to work together for our common good.
He leads at the things he’s better at and I lead at the things I’m better at.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Since you give yourself and your husband the privilege of working things out amongst the both of you, why don’t you allow Christian couples to do the same thing?
Feminist Bible haters bleat equality like a flock of sheep and then proceed to lord it over Christian men and women who choose to revel in their respective masculinity and femininity.
Real women revel in the masculine power of their man.
LikeLike
Yes, I rather enjoy the masculinity of my husband. Hence male.
I’ve read back through my comments to this post and I’m pretty sure if you read my comments you’d see that I’m saying exactly that. There are couples who are not Christians who enjoy the man being “head of the house”. What works for one couple might not work for another – religion notwithstanding. It should be up to the couple to sort that out.
I have no issue whatsoever with a woman submitting to her husband if that is what she and her husband have agreed on. I just don’t think it should be something that is demanded. If more couples figured these things out before they got married there would likely be less dispute over it after the fact.
My issue is with telling women in general that they must submit to a man. Some women don’t fit well into that role and, frankly, some men don’t fit well into the leadership role either. Telling a man he should be in charge when he knows he isn’t a good leader is setting him up for failure and placing an undue burden on his shoulders.
LikeLike
Reminds me a bit of the sadist and the masochist who got married. On their wedding night, the masochist pleaded, “Hurt me! Hurt me!” With a slow shake of the head and a wicked grin, the sadist said, “No.” And they lived happily ever after.
LikeLike
Yeah, something like that.
LikeLike
Please point out to VW that I crafted the entire story to be gender-free, lest I be accused of deciding which gender should be sadistic, and which masochistic.
LikeLike
Heh! Violet can read. Or were you implying that women have trouble with reading comprehension?
LikeLike
Naaah, just VW. [dry humo(u)r]
LikeLike
Yeah, I think mine[dry humor] was completely just lost on you. hahahaha
LikeLike
[I think most humour is lost on him, poor dirty bird …]
LikeLike
😀
LikeLike
“[I think most humour is lost on him, poor dirty bird …]</em"
I don't have to stay here and be insulted, I can be insulted anywhere!
LikeLike
“Likewise marriage. The marriage needs a leader.”
Hogwash. A marriage is not a corporation. And tell that to my mother and stepfather who have been happily married (are best friends) for 42 years. No, he does not rule the roost. Tell that to my sister and brother-in-law who have been happily married for 30 years. They still hold hands. My mom and step-dad kiss all the time, even in public. My parents, who are retired, play cards and dice games together every day, and still go out on dates once a week. He’s never had the rule over her. No one plays follow the leader in either family. They each have their strengths and weakness and compliment one another. Not all men make good leaders, and it’s wrong to put that kind of responsibility on them. To assign leadership to a man just because he has a penis and upper body strength is nonsense, or because a culture or male-dominant religion says that’s the way things roll.
LikeLike
Neuron,
I didn’t say marriage was a corporation. I said it was an institution. And all successful institutions have strong leadership.
Feminism denatures women and emasculates men.
Men are natural leaders because of their masculine strength.
In today’s world, however, where modern technology allows women to be as free as men have always been, there is even more need to observe the natural complementarity of man and woman.
And this is particularly true in marriage where male children need to learn how to be strong, able, respectful men, gentlemen in a word; and where young girls need to learn how to be ladies.
LikeLike
“Men are natural leaders because of their masculine strength.”
Are you kidding Silliness? I know men who can’t punch their way out of a wet paper bag, and women who can knock you on your ass – you should really get out more and visit the real world. You create stereotypes in your mind, and any who don’t fit them are exceptions.
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
Who you know or don’t know is meaningless as any kind of standard.
But you have unwittingly swerved into something profound.
Because modern technology has allowed weak men to live and breed and keeps overly strong women from getting their brains beaten out by jealous man-bullies, understanding appropriate gender roles is ever more important.
Thank God for the Bible!
LikeLike
“…male children need to learn how to be strong, able, respectful men, gentlemen in a word; and where young girls need to learn how to be ladies.”
“Because modern technology has allowed weak men to live and breed and keeps overly strong women from getting their brains beaten out by jealous man-bullies, understanding appropriate gender roles is ever more important.”
To both of these, Silliness, I ask – why?
Is it because that’s the way it always was, or the way it’s “s’pozed” to be? Step into the 20th century, Silliness, it’s practically painless.
(Yes, VW, I realize it’s currently the 21st, but were talking baby-steps here, and it’s Silliness –)
Or did someone make you Comander-in-Chief of the Gender Police?
What’s wrong with strong men AND strong women? I’ve had submissive women, and I’ve found them needy and clingy and bored of them easily. When I ask a woman, “What do you want to do?” I don’t want to hear, “I dunno, whatever you want to do –” I want an opinion. If a woman doesn’t have a mind of her own, why would I need her to piggy-back off of mine? I want input, viewpoints, ideas – if I just want to hear my own, echoed, I can just go talk to myself in the shower.
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
My comments concern human nature, male and female.
Therefore your concept of “modern” has no meaning.
LikeLike
Silliness, are you truly so ignorant (devoid of information), that you don’t know that while some of human nature is innate and inherited, a significant portion is cultural – people conforming to the expectations of their respective cultures? And that cultures, like organisms, evolve with time? That what is true today, might not be tomorrow?
Can you, in your infinite wisdom (chuckle, snort!), tell us where the line is drawn?
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
It’s difficult to respond to your comments because they come from the fetid swamp that in other people would be called a human mind.
Again, your taste in women is useless and irrelevant.
And if you have to ask “why?” any further comment would also be useless because you don’t live in the real world.
LikeLike
So, translated, you’re saying you don’t have a valid answer – that doesn’t surprise me.
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
There is no rational answer to not having a clue.
Sorry but even robust intellects such as mine have their limits.
LikeLike
What we mean by equality is that partners discuss things and come to mutual decisions. Certainly if either party is only making decisions in their best interest all the time it would probably be best if they remained single. Some people know that and do.
LikeLike
Correction: the ones who would have been the primary teachers and nurturers of the whole species.
LikeLike
@insanitybytes22, it seems you never were “a very good feminist”, since you do not seem to have understood the basic point of feminism. Feminism is not the rule of women over men. I am a man and I am a feminist, like my father before me (and neither of us have submitted to our wives, nor do we expect them to submit to us).
Definition of FEMINISM:
“The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”.
Biology may make us a bit different, but it does not set any hierarchy between us. Unless we choose a hierarchy of violence in which by mere chance I am more likely to have more muscle than you. But neither of us wants a society built on the hierarchy of violence, do we? My ideas are not better because I am stronger than you, are they?
Equality does not mean equal amount of violence between any parties, but equal respect. Throwing stuff at your partner hardly has anything to do whith appliance of equal respect, unless your hubbie happened to use violence against you. It is not about counting a score between two parties. That is silly. Why should equal partners have to take count on whose idea gets to be applied? Equality means equal opportunity. That the ideas of one party are not thwarted at outsed, because of their gender, or genitals. Equality between the sexes is the same as any equality between any other different partners, who still provide each other whith equal respect and appreciation. Equality is the search for harmony.
This demand for women to submit to their husbands in the Bible is a remnant from more barbaric times and an outdated pathriarchal culture, that never was ethical, but relied upon the might makes right morals of authority from an imaginary supreme source. Infantile behaviour model for people who rather submit to a higher authority, than take personal responsibility for the choises they make, like adults should. A perfect example why authoritarianism causes misery.
LikeLike
“Biology may make us a bit different, but it does not set any hierarchy between us. Unless we choose a hierarchy of violence in which by mere chance I am more likely to have more muscle than you.”
Exactly. I don’t want to go all analytical, because Victoria’s the expert, but perhaps that’s just what she means. The “I used to be a feminist and throw stuff at men” doesn’t quite make sense. It sounds like she used to be angry and resentful, and has discovered peace through submission.
LikeLike
Feminism has nothing at all to do with hating men or throwing things at our husbands. Yikes!
LikeLike
And who are these ‘godly’ men accountable to? An invisible guy in the sky that requires faith in its existence? If men were so into their god and not the power it gives them them over women, then why are they the lessor of the two to attend church? Women are the majority in 21 of 25 Christian denominations, according to a U.S. Religious Landscape Survey of 35,000 people by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Mark Estep, senior pastor at Spring Baptist Church near Houston, said:
“A man is far more apt to come to a church event if another man asks him. If his wife asks him, he’ll interpret that as nagging.”
Now, if these men actually loved their wives as Christ loved the church, then why are they not listening to and loving their wives by attending church? Why are they the minority attending? Isn’t it commanded of them to not forsake the assembling together? Hebrews 10:25
Btw, Violet — gorgeous picture. I love the contrast of orange hues against the blue sky.
LikeLike
Of course, dudes happen to be the ones who get to interpret and share god’s views with the flock. It is such a mystery why most of the monotheistic religions are so chock full of misogyny.
You do not reconcile with this toxic religious bullshite; it is to be torn down with the rest patriarchal structures in society.
LikeLike
“You do not reconcile with this toxic religious bullshite;”
Arb, I hope my comment didn’t come across as reconciling the Christian message. That wasn’t my point at all. The point was that these guys make the rules and tend not to follow them with exception to dominating others, i.e., women. Christianity highlights the insecurity of males who need someone beneath them in order to feel important — to achieve alpha male status simply by saying they are Christians and naming it and claiming it — “head of household”.
LikeLike
Heck no. 🙂
Your message is laden with nuance and observations backed by empirical fact.
Me gusta! 🙂
Being the dour feminist that I am, I was compelled to point out the rotten superstructure that religion hangs its hat on.
I’m cranky between my 1st and 2nd cup of coffee in the morning and nothing twinges my whiskers more than reading about the ‘benefits’ to women via submission to another (thank you very much insanity bites).
LikeLike
” nothing twinges my whiskers more than reading about the ‘benefits’ to women via submission to another (thank you very much insanity bites).”
LOL — I was in the middle of a big gulp of coffee when I read that. I almost choked.
LikeLike
I do genuinely feel the ‘sense’ with the gender reversal, which makes me think if I’d been born male in this patriarchal society, I’d have fitted in quite well. I think the call to loving the other as oneself is especially useful for keeping these kind of attitudes alive. One group is clearly ear-marked to lead to the other group, but giving everyone a sense of equality makes it all the more palatable for both. It’s clever toxic religious bullshite, giving slaves and women a sense of worth in an abstract sense, while keeping them firmly in their place.
LikeLike
“Btw, Violet — gorgeous picture. I love the contrast of orange hues against the blue sky.” Honestly, no-one deserves the title more than you. 😀
I find it odd that so many women are drawn into such a male-dominated, male-centred religion. I might start a Pachamama recruitment drive. If they need to fulfil they’re invisible deity quota, they should look for a more interesting one.
LikeLike
I find it odd that so many women are drawn into such a male-dominated, male-centred religion.
It all goes back to being convinced you are born flawed – a sinner. The fact that a woman doesn’t like being ruled over by her man is proof, since it’s required of her to submit, that she is flawed. To correct her flaw she accepts Jesus and begins to submit, submit, submit. When she can do it and not mind doing it she is cured.
LikeLike
How profoundly brilliant!
Fide is not normal.
LikeLike
I agree with you on both counts
LikeLike
Mate, I just heard there were some bombs in your city. Trust you and yours are all fine?
LikeLike
We are all well. I heard about it after several hours, blame it on my apathy to things television or news.
LikeLike
Oh, I know that feeling well. We have elections here this year, and with the World Cup about to start the airwaves are chockers with patriotic green and gold, full-teeth smiling bullshit.
LikeLike
Our TV programming is so hopeless I don’t understand how people stand it. They start with news, then have Mexican soaps, then a local drama, news and if you have watched news once you have watched them all. It revolves around what a politician has done, who has died and how or who has stolen money. If there is anything else interesting, it is how stocks are doing at the NSE! I do have better things to do.
I am looking forward to the official opening of the football extravaganza though 😛
LikeLike
Rest assured, the show will be great. Brazilians know how to do that, and its always good…. Guaranteed. You know why? Because it doesn’t involve a single politician 😉
LikeLike
It is the only major thing I wait for both for the Olympics and world cup. It is a time to showcase the best you got and keeping idiots sorry meant politicians out
LikeLike
Aw, I don’t agree. I can see how people can filter these verses to make them something palatable. The treating someone as you treat yourself message is universal, and that’s what ‘nice’ Christians take out of it. Unfortunately, they refuse to admit the submissive part is out of order. Maybe if they were ordered to submit to their wives they might see it in a different light, but Insanitybytes is living proof it appeals to some women as well …
LikeLike
Insanitybytes has done a post on an Alice theme, I knew you’d want to enjoy it:
LikeLike
Oh, it’ll have to keep, but that could be fun
LikeLike
I need filters, maybe we are reading it wrong.
For these verses to make sense, submission must be a virtue.
LikeLike
You’ll need to ask Insanitybytes for clarification on that interpretation. 🙂
LikeLike
If you haven’t realized, that is when I get impatient. Anyone who can with a straight face tell me their god was loving even when he drowned ants because only a pair was needed in the ark, is one I don’t engage
LikeLike
In reading through the comments I have some observations:
Equality does not mean sameness. No one is suggesting that. Four quarters equals one dollar but they are not the same. People are different. To say that men are always this or that women are always that is missing that point entirely. To say that the same set of rules works for every relationship is asinine. Some women are quite content to submit to their husbands, some husbands are quite content to submit to their wives, and some relationships work best when both partners have an equal say. This isn’t a one size fits all dressing gown. Some men absolutely wreak at financial matters. It makes sense for them to relinquish the finances to their partner. Some women are terrible at home repairs. It makes sense for them to relinquish that responsibility to their partner.
This idea of submissiveness misses the point entirely that our areas of strengths and weaknesses do not make us more or less valuable than our partners. Equality does not demand keeping score. It demands maturity on the parts of both partners – not infantilizing either one.
LikeLike
Very well said Ruth. The point is that no one should preach that all women (wives) should submit to men (husbands), just like no one should preach that all men (husbands) should submit to women (wives). InsanityB’s views appear to be a projection when she says that “women have a tendency to never yield and a biological imperative that makes it difficult for us to relinquish control.”
Translation: InsanityB has a tendency to never yield and a biological imperative that makes it difficult for her to relinquish control unless a god tells her to. She apparently can’t do this on her own. She needs some deity in the sky to make her behave like a decent human being. In the process she insults the integrity of prosocial behavior in both men and women who don’t need a deity to help them to not be controlling over others.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with InsanityB’s assessment, but let’s look at where she’s getting it – the Bible. Her position is not an unreasonable one if it works for her family. Were her husband selfish, immature, abusive, an addict, or mentally ill she would likely have a differing opinion.
She mentioned throwing teacups at him(I’m not sure if she actually did or was exaggerating for effect). Apparently at some point they were at odds over decisions in the past. She’s found that relinquishing herself to his decisions is more peaceful for her. Peace in her household is of more value than her right to render decisions. It’s not an unreasonable position. However, one would think that two mature adults could discuss things rationally and come to mutual decisions that both parties agree on in most situations.
Throwing teacups does not conjure images of maturity. Perhaps maturity for her comes in the realization that she needs to let someone else be in the driver’s seat. That’s cool since it works for her and her husband.
I just don’t agree that it’s a one size fits all prescription nor should it be mandated.
LikeLike
“I just don’t agree that it’s a one size fits all prescription nor should it be mandated.”
Agreed.
LikeLike
“People are different. To say that men are always this or that women are always that is missing that point entirely. To say that the same set of rules works for every relationship is asinine.”
Completely agree with you Ruth. Going back to analysing Insanity, I got the idea that she’s not the same relationship where she was throwing teacups. Her submission strategy (it’s a game she plays to manipulate the current partner, as she admitted on a previous post) works for her in her current relationship, and I think I can see why. It’s odd she feels she can project that on to every other relationship based on gender.
LikeLike
It’s odd she feels she can project that on to every other relationship based on gender.
It’s an odd concept for certain, but she gets it from her Bible which she believes is the word of God. She says she submits because she wants to, but that it comes hard for her, which is what’s preached from the pulpit of many a church on any given Sunday. If it’s hard for her, does she really want to?
The projection thing: that comes from the Bible saying that every relationship should work that way; even if it doesn’t. If doing it that way doesn’t yield a positive result then the participants are left thinking they’re doing something wrong. The woman isn’t submitting enough, the man isn’t leading enough; the woman is rebelling, the man is forcing her submission; the woman is weak, the man is shirking his responsibilities. It completely takes the individuality out of the equation. Rarely is anybody always or never anything.
LikeLike
@ SOM
I don’t care whether you are ‘for real’ or just here to piss about. These two comments below, addressed to Ruth go beyond the boundaries.
If this were my blog you would be chucked off immediately.
You are nothing but a disgusting piece of trash.
That the man is the leader does not mean the woman sits there with one thumb up her butt and the other up her vagina.
Your husband is probably a pussy whipped cuckold who needs a woman of your girth and stature to dominate him.
LikeLike
Nate,
Who appointed you Commander-in-Chief of the Thought Police?
I’ll say what I want to say how I want to say it, any time, any day.
Or is this an attempt to appear manly as you defend the poor, powerless, witless female?
LikeLike
And this is particularly true in marriage where male children need to learn how to be strong, able, respectful men, gentlemen in a word…
Oh good Lord, what happened to you, then Silence of Mind? You have been far less than a gentleman.
LikeLike
Ruth,
A gentleman among barbarians is dog meat.
LikeLike
No, silenceofmind, a gentleman is always a gentleman. All you have managed to do is show yourself to be the barbarian.
LikeLike
Ruth,
You’ve obviously never been to jail or a locker room full of varsity football players.
But that’s understandable since you are a lady.
LikeLike
silenceofmind,
Yes, it would do you well to keep that in mind. You are not in a jail or a locker room full of football players.
LikeLike
My good lady,
But I have been and that is why I know what I know.
A gentleman among the barbarian is dog meat, as I said.
LikeLike
You may use whatever excuse you like but you had no business speaking to me that way. I haven’t, nor has anyone else here, been as crude or tactless as that.
Perhaps I spoke out of turn. Maybe they let the inmates blog from jail?
LikeLike
Ruth,
I’ll speak to you any way I want.
I’m not your pussy whipped husband.
LikeLike
No, you are also not a gentleman.
LikeLike
Among the barbarian woman that is true lest I be whipped by word and pussy.
LikeLike
I’m glad you’ve got the good sense to know that you’ve been whipped by word.
I’m just disappointed that you have resorted to such disgusting language. I guess there’s nothing in the Bible about being a sore loser.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Political correctness is but one tool in the tool box of tyranny that atheists, feminists and gay rights activists to silence the opposition.
You need to become tolerant enough to accept people from where they are from.
That means accepting language and ideas that fall outside your very narrow range of preference.
LikeLike
So what did they do, Silliness? Point and laugh?
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
Since you know exactly what happened to you, why don’t you spill the beans and tell us all about it.
LikeLike
So, you’re reluctant to shower in front of other men – is that for fear of feeling short-changed, or for fear of arousal?
LikeLike
If you’d ever been raped by another man you wouldn’t be so stupid and utterly clueless.
LikeLike
“If you’d ever been raped by another man you wouldn’t be so stupid and utterly clueless.”
So are you saying you have been, or you just throwing that out there in the hope that we’ll make that assumption and feel sorry for you?
You’re right, I’ve never been raped by another man, because I would never allow another man to rape me, I drive his nose up into his brainpan first, with the heel of my hand. Maybe all of this talk about robust, masculine men, is because that’s what you wish you were.
LikeLike
Right SOM, I think you know you’ve taken it too far on a number of occasions on this post. Stop drinking and trolling, and try and keep your comments to the rambling nonsense about ‘something coming out of nothing’ that you do best. I’ve never banned anyone and I generally enjoy your banter, but if you continue in this kind of direction I will make an exception for you.
LikeLike
SOM, hey as a fellow Christian, I think you have taken things to far in conversation with Ruth. Crudeness and pretentious accusations are not Christlike. Shouldn’t you want to have an amicable discussion and share your views with Ruth because you love her? If not that, then at the very least go for amicable discussion as a means of effective communication? For the sake of Jesus, you should reconsider your behavior and consider an apology.
LikeLike
Naïve,
Under normal circumstances you would be making a good point.
But atheism is a most virulent form of barbarism and trying to be civil is actually a form of enabling.
The atheist is trained to be uncivil, demeaning, and abusive. Mocking Christians, Christian culture and ideas is part of the way they are trained, also.
It says a lot that when someone like me acts exactly like them and they get so upset and demand apologies.
My advice for you is the same as for them, and the same for me:
Stick to the ideas and let the petty stuff go.
If these atheist mocking birds can’t stand the heat they should Christianize and learn how to be cool.
LikeLike
SOM,
Ruth is not “trained to be uncivil, demeaning, and abusive.” She has been respectful, so the offensiveness is from you. Of course there are atheists who embody your caricature, but even to them, are you justified to treat them this way? Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as yourself. Have mercy!
You are not enabling anyone by respectfully presenting your ideas, you are modeling a respectful and amicable conversation. And, when they attack you, absorb it by the power of God, don’t think you have to defend the honor of God or of yourself. It’s not that you are above them, it’s that you must seek the inner strength to make all of your conversation a sacrifice to God for the sake of love.
I know you are capable of this, and you will be surprised how much your engagement will improve from vitriol to letting ideas do the fighting.
People accuse you of being a troll, are you? I don’t know you well enough to give you that label, but if you are a serious Christian, I think you should reconsider your approach and repent.
-Brandon
LikeLike
Naïve,
For the hearing impaired:
I would like to call attention to the fact that I have already apologized to Ruth.
The problem with Christians like you is that you are as judgmental as atheists like Neuron.
Please do me a favor and leave me alone.
LikeLike
SOM,
This is not about excessive judgment, but a legitimate rebuke of someone who self-identifies as a follower of Jesus. And, the insult you just flung at Violet. . . this is not flowing from Christian ethics.
You are inciting a Crusades against the atheists to defend your honor or your religion’s honor and this legitimates violent words. Just stop what you are doing, just stop and reconsider.
Victoria, Violet, Ruth, Arch, Ark, etc. They are all people and Jesus called you to treat them well. I will not leave you alone because this would mean I’m giving up on you, but I think you are capable of repentance.
Don’t write a pithy reply to me, I know you’ll be tempted to. Just think about it. Go back to the drawing board and think about it.
LikeLike
Naïve,
I asked you to leave me alone.
You did not.
I will ask you again. Leave me alone.
LikeLike
Brandon, I simply have no idea what part of my latest post people aren’t understanding. SOM’s a troll. Ooops, sorry mis-typed, don’t know what my fingers are doing these days …
Do you really mistake that garbled nonsense for genuine Christianity? I mean it’s bad enough when atheists take him seriously …
LikeLike
Wisp,
Calling me a troll can’t compensate you for you being empty headed and completely ill equipped to carry on a civil, rational conversation with people who hold ideas different from yours.
You’re an intolerant stupid elitist snob.
LikeLike
I don’t know SOM well, but I figured I should give him the benefit of the doubt until I do know him. . . No worries, I understood your latest post. 🙂
LikeLike
“For the sake of Jesus, you should reconsider your behavior and consider an apology.”
Yeah, Silliness – do it for the dead guy —
LikeLike
Dirty Bird,
I’ll do it for the dead guy.
And you just continue doing it to the dead guy.
And use a condemn, will you?
LikeLike
I thought maybe you’d spent the last 24 sobering up, but I can see that you’re hitting the sauce again. Sad.
LikeLike
This is not the first time I’ve seen this “Christian gentleman” be less than gentlemanly. Not just toward me, either.
LikeLike
Just thought I’d mention it. Someone ought to.
John dumped Sabio down the privvy last week and I reckon SOM’s time has arrived to get flushed as well.
LikeLike
Sabio’s not a troll. What post was that on?
LikeLike
I did not say he was a Troll. John axed him. And it was a long time coming.
LikeLike
But I don’t really understand the comparison. They are completely different. What post? I’d like to have a lurk.
LikeLike
I can’t remember offhand. The last one, I think. I am not sure if he has axed all the comments too. He was just being a complete arsehole and I was actually surprised John tolerated him for so long.
Ask John yourself if it’s bugging you. 😉
LikeLike
I will. I think you’re a bad influence. John would never ban someone for being an arsehole. He’s never banned you. Were you cheering on on the sidelines for a ban, by any chance? You’ve got a bee in your bonnet about Sabio.
LikeLike
Ooh, and its that Time of The Month Nastiness once again.
Good grief!
No, I had nothing to do with it.
LikeLike
I’ve just checked the last two posts and there’s nothing, so he must have deleted it all. I’ll be having words with the Great Censor.
Oh, and it’s Sexist Comments about Women because They won’t be Nice to ME nastiness once again.
Good grief! You’re a touchy old git. Go lick your wounds with Arch.
LikeLike
Old! Sheesh…Sorry, I should make extra allowances for estrogen surges?
Why would John ban me? You can if you like? I’ll add it to my list and write sexist posts about manky pigeons and crappy Scottish weather.
LikeLike
Go chop some wood, you silly man.
LikeLike
“Go lick your wounds with Arch”
Wound? You call a catscratch a wound– I get worse wounds than that from shaving!
LikeLike
“Ooh, and its that Time of The Month Nastiness once again.”
Oh no, you di’n’t! Are you SUICIDAL? You really want to stick your head in a hornet’s nest?
Any man who wants to try his luck at playing the, “on the rag” card on THIS website, brimming as it is with estrogen, had better be ready to duck and cover, and run zig-zag a lot!
“Alas, poor Arkenaten – I knew him, Horatio —“
LikeLike
See? You can be funny. 😀
LikeLike
Really, ANYone can do it – you should try it sometime when you’re feeling up to the challenge!
LikeLike
That was funny too! You’re getting good at this. I’m glad you’re picking up some tips from me. 😛
LikeLike
Really? John is usually quite patient, too. He entertains all sorts on his blog. Sabio comments on mine from time to time but he’s never gotten out of line. Though I have seen his pedantry go overboard elsewhere. He wants to define the terms and expects everyone else to use his definitions.
SOM, well, I think yesterday speaks volumes there.
LikeLike
You are correct, Ruth. He tries to dictate.
His modus is similar on every blog he visits.
Then when people start to either give him grief or take him down a peg or two intellectually, he usually responds by writing something asinine about the blog its host and visitors and then writes something along the lines of I’m out of here…
He has done this on several occasions on Nate’s blog.
He gets like an Atheist version of Debillis.
LikeLike
I had only encountered him a few times and he seemed quite pleasant until I saw some exchanges over on John’s, Nate’s, and there’s another who goes by Takis. When he writes a post Sabio comes along and tells him what he really meant to say. Strange. OCD? A/R? Who knows? I don’t think Sabio’s a troll though. I think he really has some sort of social awkwardness that when he “corrects” people he cannot, for the life of him, understand why others don’t see things the same as he does.
LikeLike
I know he is not a Troll. But his presence is usually destructive. It seems he has this in mind when he enters a discussion.
Odd fellow.
LikeLike
Ah.,I gotcha. He intentionally attempts to dismantle arguments just for the sake of argument? Odd indeed. But then, some people just like to argue, they like the drama. I am the antithesis of drama.
LikeLike
(Ark doesn’t like him because he consistently loses arguments to him. There’s a pattern of this with people that Ark consistently loses arguments to – he puffs up, rants and gets personal. But I do love Ark – all men are flawed.)
LikeLike
Must be an alpha male thing. 😉
LikeLike
Choke. Beta male thing.
LikeLike
Oh, did I make you throw up in your mouth a little?
LikeLike
Let’s call it a Saturday night treat. 😀
LikeLike
Yummeee! 😀
LikeLike
It would be a strange woman who would prefer an Omega Male.
LikeLike
He would, indeed, have to be the last of his kind.
LikeLike
But I will say if JohnZ got fed up it must have gone beyond that. He’s pretty patient with that sort of thing.
LikeLike
I’ve run across him a number of times on Mak’s site, and while I’ve never been entirely sure where he’s coming from, I can honestly say I’ve never had a problem with him. I’d converse with him over “NaiveThinker” – VW and Neuron’s teddy bear – anyday —
LikeLike
I think the main thing with Sabio is that, while he’s left Christianity, he doesn’t abhor religion per se. When he sees arguments that say “all religion is bad” he digs in, starts defining/re-defining words, and it causes discord. He’s pretty adamant about his own definitions. If someone else has a different definition, he’ll call it [fill-in-the-blank]-religion(i.e. dirty bird – religion). 🙂
LikeLike
Nate?
Are you mentally ill?
LikeLike
Arke ‘nate’ n
LikeLike
I’ll say what I want to say how I want to say it, any time, any day.
yes….for now..
LikeLike
Luckily my hubby also doesn’t believe anything the bible says. He is also too scared of me. 😛
LikeLike
LOL Sonel. Maybe I could turn you on to CIA remote viewing techniques, and you could go haunt SOM. 😈
LikeLike
I rather suspect that he and his “robust intellect,” are more than sufficiently haunted as it is.
LikeLike
Ooh! Ooh! YES! Now that sounds like lots of fun! 😈
LikeLike
This is initially going to sound as though it’s off-topic, but stick with me. Neuro turned me on to a video earlier in the week, that I just found time to finish watching this morning, that featured Dr. Daniel Dennett, American philosopher, author and cognitive scientist. Dr. Dennett made a fascinating statement, discussing symbiosis, he said, “How fortunate for sheep to have found a shepherd, they’ve turned over all of their problems to him.”
I was immediately reminded of the wives who submit, or turn over all of their problems to their husbands, of the Christians and Jews and Muslims who turn over their problems to their invisible magic man. I was even reminded of the pathetic little guy I call, Jew-in-a-bag, who, faced with an airline flight, encased himself in the plastic equivalent of a full-body condom, lest the plane should inadvertently fly over a cemetery and he should get any resultant evil on him – why bother to live at all, if that is to be the quality of your life?
Dr. Dennett went on to point out that the brains of sheep in the wild are much larger than those of domestic sheep, primarily because they haven’t chosen to submit to a shepherd.
LikeLike
Arch, I’m so glad you watched the video. My synapses were going off like fireworks when I watched it. Howie turned me on to it a while back. Your comment brings to light the problem with domestication. I am not the least bit against marriage, and I think that when we bring children into the world, they should be our priority — to ensure a good environment for them to be raised in. But we can look at tribes (and progressive countries) from around the world, where the children are happy and healthy and the whole “village” looks after then, allowing for the mother to have more free time for herself and her career. In America, a woman is penalized for staying home with her children. Working mother’s are too. http://moneyning.com/money-management/the-financial-price-of-being-a-stay-at-home-mom/
The burden on women to look after 5 to 8 kids on average, throughout history, is hard for me to imagine, and then having to be submissive, to boot. I raised one child, and it was the hardest job I had, and she was easy going, played well by herself, and wasn’t demanding. I also consider myself fortunate that I wasn’t under the thumb of a man during her most vulnerable brain development years — a Christian man who expected me to submit, that is. I did eventually remarry after my husband’s death, and to a Christian man. I had no idea what this submission stuff entailed, and did I ever have a rude awakening.
Having always been an independent woman (meaning, I always handed my problems, and provided for myself, financially), giving up my voice was a huge sacrifice, and at the time, I did it because I thought that was what god wanted me to do. It was the most unhappiest time of my life. I eventually divorced him. I love being me. When I was married, I had to be him. His interests, his dreams, were top priority — as he’d been indoctrinated by Christianity (me too) that the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman. 1 Corinthians 11:9 Thanks Paul — or who ever wrote that inhumane piece of crap.
I will never remarry again if a man expects me to give up me.
LikeLike
Correction: handled my problems
LikeLike
I read/view everything you suggest – you haven’t steered me wrong yet, it’s just that sometimes I have to do it in segments, due to time issues.
BTW, NING websites not only allow for uploading images, they allow for bold, italics and underlining as well as quotations, without having to learn HTML, and allow the commenter a 15-minute window to make corrections before the comment becomes final, and even after that, one can still delete their comment and rewrite it, if they miss that window. Boo, WordPress —
LikeLike
@archaeopteryx1
How many waaambulances will you need for your blog hosting commentary? 🙂
LikeLike
What’s a “waaambulance“? I don’t speak Canadian.
LikeLike
@archaeopteryx1
I’m sorry, it is long-hand for someone who is whining about a particular topic.
Perhaps if written differently ‘waaaa’-bulance, for example, the idiomatic expression in question would be easier to understand.
Just an observation across several threads, one could make the assumption that your hatred of all things WP runs wide and deep. 🙂
LikeLike
(snigger)
LikeLike
“(snigger)”
Expressed to the best of your ability.
LikeLike
LikeLike
I used to wish I was a lesbian. I’ve never had any bad experiences with men or relationships, but they’re just so … lacking in so many ways. The idea of submitting to one is absurd. I thank my lucky stars I wasn’t born in any intensely religious area of the world. It’s amazing that people like you manage to escape, I know I certainly couldn’t have done in the wrong prevailing wind.
LikeLike
I will never remarry again if a man expects me to give up me.
Exactly! There might be places, like the workplace, where we have to put on a facade. Our home should not be one of them. Our homes should be our havens and we ought to be able to be our authentic selves there, if nowhere else.
LikeLike
Can you not all move to saner part of the USA? Sounds really weird and unhealthy down south …
LikeLike
Heh! Or just find a nice Brit to marry? lol
LikeLike
@Ruth
Or a nice Canadian? We’re very polite and talk much less funny an accent than the British. :>
LikeLike
Too late! I already found my Brit. There are others here who could go Canadian, though. 🙂
LikeLike
When they first tried to secede, back in 1861, I said, “Let ’em! The collective IQ of the US of A will overnight leap exponentially, and just think of the inbreds that will have to apply for a Green Card, just to look for work, I mean, they’ll hang out in the parking lots of Home Depot for hours, just hoping someone will hire them for the day!”
But would they listen to me? Nooooooooooo!
LikeLike
Really? In that case you’re a couple of years older than I thought.
LikeLike
Violet, I don’t think this is an embarrassing passage. If you were an ancient living under the paterfamilia system, you would think this was perfectly ethical. But, as an ancient you might find the verse that just prior to be curious: “Submit to one another out of reverence to Christ.” (Ephesians 5:21).
This passage is not saying that husbands or men ought to have arbitrary authority over wives or women. It’s saying to go along with the contemporary ethics but has this curious egalitarian signal. “Submit to one another. . .” Also, consider the egalitarian signals I’ve talked about before that were emerging in patriarchy.
I think if we look at these things in historical context, a lot of our problems are diminished if not resolved. 🙂
LikeLike
Well, I think it’s interesting that the female Christian who responded in support of it actively does submission and doesn’t see it as egalitarian, yet all the Christian men (mainly on the other post) see it as a statement of equality. Everyone else thinks it’s an embarrassing Bible verse the highlights the ongoing discriminatory attitude to women. It’s all a matter of interpretation I guess. But did the gender role flip make you feel comfortable as a statement of equality?
LikeLike
Violet, Brandon has his own brand of Christianity. But all we have to do is look at the two largest Christian denominations in the U.S. and we can clearly see where women stand in the grand scheme of things. Women are not “allowed” to hold any leadership positions, i.e., pastor/priest. I really tire of the same BS that these guys continue to conjure up — that 99.9999999999% of male Christians are misinterpreting the scriptures.
Again — BS. What part of Genesis 3:16 do they not get? They get it alright. “…and your husband shall have the rule over you.”
What part of “and man was not made for the woman, but the woman for the man” do they not get? How condescending can they be?
Excerpts from the Southern Baptist Convention article:
“Husbands, Wives, Headship, and Submission”
“The evidence is overwhelming contextually, linguistically, and theologically that the only proper meaning of kephale (head) in Ephesians 5:23 as well as in I Corinthians 11:3 is “authority over” or “superior rank.”
“Thus, the wife is instructed to graciously and voluntarily line up under the authority and leadership of her husband. It is important to note that submission is not yielding to the needs of another, rather it is yielding to the authority of another. The wife is to submit voluntarily to the authority of her husband as the church is to submit voluntarily to Christ’s authority.”
“In the Christian family, the husband is in the position of authority, and the wife is to submit to him in everything (Eph. 22-33).”
“Finally, some claim that Galatians 3:28 cancels out the role relationship of headship and submission. This passage states: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.” A close examination of this text in its context reveals that the apostle Paul is not dealing with role relationships of men and women, but justification by faith which makes all believers one (spiritually) in Christ giving them equal access to God. The passage addresses our spiritual status before God. This is clearly emphasized in the larger context of chapter 3 which teaches all the redeemed are equally children of God, they are all equally clothed with Christ, and they are all equally heirs of the promise. This passage has nothing to say about role relationships in the church or the home.”
http://www.sbclife.net/articles/1999/04/sla5
LikeLike
Thanks, that’s an excellent find. I was lost in finding a generic Baptist source but I see that these guys are “the world’s largest Baptist denomination and the largest Protestant body in the United States, with nearly 16 million members as of 2012”. I’m still having discussions on Fide’s post where I’m being told that the sexist view is not the majority Christian view and I’m stereotyping based on a minority. Between this and the Catholic Church, they have no case.
LikeLike
“Between this and the Catholic Church, they have no case.”
Precisely.
LikeLike
Wisp,
The Catholic Church models its ministry after Jesus and the Apostles who were all men.
Aside from the priesthood, women practically run the place.
Also, the Catholic Church reveres Jesus’ mother Mary and the New Testament shows Jesus with a virtually modern attitude toward women.
He saved an adulterous woman from getting stoned by the Jews if you will remember.
LikeLike
Victoria, the SBC is probably run by GOBSAT fundamentalists who don’t take historical context or the egalitarianism of the New Testament seriously. That is a bit harsh, I understand.
In Paul’s writing there’s a tension between the message that we are free and equal and we should have some respect for the customs of the land so we don’t look like crazies to the outsiders. And though we are free and equal, we should not just forget about our gender or legal status in society. Christianity is not a political movement, it merely espouses ethics that can be translated into politics. Christianity was not meant to revolutionize society in a fail swoop but subvert it from the inside primarily by the ethic of love.
Victoria, you have a reason to hate scripture and modern day Christianity, but I’m wondering if you couldn’t be more generous to it’s historical context and it’s egalitarian signal that emerged not when feminism was a “thing” but rather when patriarchy was assumed. In other words, it emerged within a more indoctrinated background than today, yet it emerged all the same. Would you be willing to consider a more generous approach and targeted criticism of entities like SBC?
LikeLike
Hug? What part of Genesis 3:16 do you not understand? There is do doubt that the Bible has played a major role in the oppression of women. Sigh — if only you were a woman. But you are not. Stop making excuses for a male-dominated religion full of insecure men.
LikeLike
Hug? Yes please. 🙂
Genesis 3:16 is a perfect example of what I am asking you to consider. Notice in the myth that the husband should rule over the wife as punishment for the sin of eating the fruit. In other words, just taking the myth seriously shows you that God’s ideal plan was not that the husband rules over the wife. Now, if you take the text even more seriously you’ll ask the question, what does this have to do with modern day morality?
Now, I could show you the egalitarian thread the Gospels and Paul again if you like (in response to your second comment). But, I don’t think that would be helpful at this point. I agree with the contention that the text or the belief system can be used to justify evil, and that’s a travesty. But, I could say the same about almost anything else. The world we live in is evil and we are capable of twisting anything into working evil.
LikeLike
Myth? So that’s myth, but the resurrection of Jesus is not. Are we cherry picking? 😉
LikeLike
Wow, that’s a stunning bit of thinking there. It’s not the god God’s perfect plan that men rule over their wives but it’s presented in his guidebook about how to be a Christian in the form of a myth that’s tells us something different about modern day morality. How many loops round your head do Bible stories have to take before you can settle on it being *your* interpretation?
LikeLike
The creation story can be placed in the genre of myth. All I am saying is that if you really really take it seriously, it’s more ideal that husbands do not rule over their wives and for them to be equal.
My question about what the creation myth/story should mean to Christians or society is a serious question. There is no looping, I’m just asking you to take the text seriously, all of it, from the intricacies of the narratives to the egalitarian thread that break out against all odds in a patriarchal culture.
Think about the benefits of doing this. If you do this, you will have firepower to argue against the fundamentalist from within their text! You will outwit them and subvert their message from within! 🙂
LikeLike
Just imagine Brandon — had those scriptures been reversed and it was women who had the rule over your maleness. How would you feel? Just imagine scripture telling you that you were made for your wife but your wife was not made for you.
But — it is quite clear that neither Jesus the supposed divine or Paul — had any backbone when it came to women. All Jesus had to do is rebuke the culture for oppressing women. But he did not. If it was such a problem — and it was — how about a commandment? Instead we have Jesus’ daddy listing women along with livestock, property and male and female servants.
No excuses.
LikeLike
What steaming load of horseshit.
Christianity has promoted almost nothing but divisive ingroup/outgroup thinking that has led to the dumbing down of American society. Unreason cloaked in religious garb is still unreason and it is toxic for rational secular society.
Egalitarian if you happen to be male. What the frak are you going on about? Christianity has shed no egalitarian light with regards to the oppression of women. In fact, rather the opposite, as the application of christianity is inherently patriarchal in nature.
You are attempting to argue that a inherently patriarchal structure, one that replicates and enhances female oppression, has been good for women.
Next up, arguing that Night is in fact, Day.
LikeLike
Arbourist, you raise valid concerns, but you are not addressing my arguments. It’s like answering a math question with a fairy tale.
LikeLike
LOL — I wasn’t giving you a hug. That was suppose to be –> Huh?
LikeLike
I understand why Victoria wrote the flip statement. She was involved in an extreme misogynist church and has every right to be angry and hate the verses used to justify this. On the other hand the flip statement assumes an essential inequality in the statement without considering the cultural context this statement came out of and the fact that it almost doesn’t make sense given the immediately proceeding verse, Ephesians 5:21 (everyone should submit to each other).
I think Paul knew that the Ephesians were steeped in the paterfamilia system and this was sort of conciliatory towards that. It was not meant to be an ethic of essential inequality of power to be kept for all time.
So, the problematic part of the verse is at least diminished if not solved by simply taking its historical context seriously and the surrounded egalitarian verses seriously. Too bad there’s no atheist literature from the first century that I could offer the same criticism. But, modern atheism is more of an anti-Christian movement than having a history of positive statements to tear apart out of context.
LikeLike
Brandon said: “I understand why Victoria wrote the flip statement. She was involved in an extreme misogynist church”
NO! I was involved in the Catholic church growing up and was a member of most mainstream denominations who believed and taught that women should submit. You, however, have your own brand of Christianity. I wager that you are pretty much clueless about what goes on in most mainstream religions, with exception to the denomination you were raised in which was fundamental.
LikeLike
@Neural Notes
Isn’t it pleasant having someone discount your experiences, not that happens to women much or anything.
Just let the Brandon mansplain to you how and why you’re wrong about religion and really if you don’t mind curb stomping logic and reality into a bloody pulp, it will all begin to make sense despite your lady like sensibilities…..
*gaaah*
LikeLike
I mean to tell you, Arb. He goes on about me being angry? It’s like saying ‘m being emotional rather than using logic. But he still doesn’t get it. What man would want to be told that they were made for women, but the women were not made for men. What man, in his right mind would accept the BS that a woman shall have the rule over him, as commanded by God. Yet, they keep wanting to tell me and other women that we just don’t get it. That the scriptures have been misinterpreted. Unfreakingbelivable.
LikeLike
10th Commandment:
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Exodus 20:17
Neighbor = married man
Property = married woman
“Nuff said.
LikeLike
Neuron,
The reason wife is listed separately from property is because they are different.
Wife =/ property
If you subjected your analysis of the 10th Commandment to a middle school English teacher he’d say you were being redundant.
But dumbing down ideas and language is what atheists need to do in order to make their shoddy ideas work out.
LikeLike
Shut the eff up until you apologize to Ruth.
LikeLike
Neuron,
I know whenever I hit pay dirt with the atheist because they can’t wait to change the subject.
Your ideas about scripture, religion, politics, feminism, whatever, are always dead wrong and oh so easy to debunk.
LikeLike
Are you supporting Argentina in the World Cup?
LikeLike
Wisp,
I say it, you and your atheist comrades prove me right.
LikeLike
Well, maybe you weren’t involved in extreme misogyny although some of your stories are frightening even in the fundamentalism I was involved in as a child. Nonetheless, misogyny is misogyny.
I guess “my brand” of Christianity, more specifically my views are often not the majority. But, I look at Anglicanism, nondenominationalism at least in Texas, and people like Nadia Bolz-Weber, Rachel Held Evans, etc. and think that my views are taking a foothold among the traditionalists.
And even then sometimes my views are different from them. The only thing that unifies mere Christianity is Jesus. There are liberals and conservatives, rich and poor, educated and uneducated, young and old, people with all problems, CEOs, doctors, scientists, POTUS, gay and straight, the disenfranchised and the successful, and many many more who believe in Jesus.
LikeLike
You see, Brandon. Humanist don’t need Jesus or the bible to behave. But you can best best that when the majority of men read the bible they are going to see themselves as an authority over women. History speaks for itself. The bible did nothing to help free women from the shackles of insecure men.
LikeLike
Neuron,
Men who think they are authorities over women are bullies who also lord it over other men if they are allowed.
Bullying is a personality problem not a result of the Christian religion.
LikeLike
“But, modern atheism is more of an anti-Christian movement than having a history of positive statements to tear apart out of context.”
You seem to be confused about atheism. Even if people who don’t accept it’s likely that any gods exist could be lumped together as a ‘movement’, if 100 or 1000 years time something some atheists say is deemed to be morally unacceptable, no other atheists will jump to defend it, twist the meaning to make it suit the contemporary moral framework. Christianity is clear through its book the Bible that the god God wants men to be in charge of women, and as Victoria says, a benevolent being wouldn’t have minced his words about inequality on such a grand scale.
LikeLike
Oh, Violet….
You forgot that the culture was already in place. The god God was backing into this situation – not setting it up. Those ridiculous Israelites had already screwed it up, the god God had to fix it a little at the time. *sigh*
LikeLike
Ruth, I really appreciate that you remember something about our conversation despite the tension. I hope you don’t mind if I tweak what you said a bit and hopefully Violet will see as well.
I do think that God granted humans significant freedom and we constructed our societies to include patriarchy and slavery from the beginning. We did this. Yes, it was already in place and reflected often in scripture.
However, I do not think scripture shows God progressively fixing the world as you have suggested. God could do this with the twinkle of an eye, it would be easy. What God does is very selective actions to produce the good news, with the expectation that it will transform us so that we partner with God to fix the world.
So, your life matters very much in the eyes of God, how you treat the earth, animals, society, strangers, family, friends, it all matters very much despite the darkness that we live in and the death of the universe that is inevitable. The good news says justice will be served, life really does have meaning, God can forgive and have mercy, that love and humility and mercy and justice and equality are all really important. And it’s difficult for such a grand message to be expressed in a society so acculturated by patriarchy, for example, but it’s there! Despite the improbability, despite the troubles and persecutions it faced it survived. There’s a fantastic argument out there that in Christianity “most early converts were women or marginalized Jews” (from an Amazon review of Rodney Stark’s The Rise of Christianity).
In Rodney Stark’s argument, without having read his book, an important feature of Christianity’s success is the valuation of women. So, we see this egalitarian signal in the New Testament and kind of brush it over because patriarchy seems to be condoned, but it was likely essential to it’s success.
LikeLike
I see what you mean. When a benevolent god is writing 10 vital rules for society, most of them should be about how he’s jealous and possessive, a dash of obvious human morality (like not killing or stealing), and a flourish of … nothing useful at all. Yes, ‘significant freedom with more laws about how to kill animals for sacrifice than about how to treat half the population with respect.
LikeLike
If this egalitarian approach is so true to scripture, why is it not mainstream? And why is it just starting to take any real shape?
Are you endorsing a book you haven’t read because it seems to agree with your interpretation? Why do you think your interpretation is the correct interpretation and not those who have a more patriarchal interpretation? I’m fairly certain that the RCC has tradition on it’s side as well. Are you saying tradition has no place in the church? Are you saying that the Church Fathers had it wrong but you have it right?
I still don’t see this great egalitarian movement you see. When I think of the scripture where Paul is telling women whose husbands are “harsh” with them to “put their big girl panties on and deal with it” that’s not what I’m seeing. I’m seeing him tell them to submit themselves to their husband like a slave.
Frankly, I’m glad you see these egalitarian signals. I hope it catches on. I don’t disbelieve in Christianity because of patriarchy. So egalitarianism won’t change my mind about it, but if people going to believe that a man was dead, got up and walked around a few days, and then whooshed his way to paradise then I’d rather they believed a nicer version of it.
LikeLike
Ruth, historically there were probably waxing and waning amounts of patriarchy. I think the very earliest Christians were highly egalitarian. Check into Wikipedia’s page on “Women in Church History” for example.
The fact that egalitarianism is not mainstream at the moment is likely due to the same reason as always: men want to be in power, so they justify their position and must do so by turning a blind eye to 1) historical context or 2) the egalitarian thread. There are intellectuals who can construct an argument for it, so everyone beneath them will simply parrot the argument, “Look at this verse, it plainly means X”. Large swaths of people have been tricked into thinking certain things this way, but it starts with either careless or evil readings.
The reason I referred to Stark’s book is because it is very popular and lauded as providing a strong argument from the perspective of social sciences as to how Christianity succeeding in the Roman Empire. I didn’t mean to just point out biased material. Stark is supposed to give a very factual social science-based account.
I’m pleased to see that you don’t reject Christianity because of this problem! I’m guessing that you reject Christianity primarily on intellectual ground, and I respect this.
LikeLike
No. I ardently reject this patriarchal idea and have been exposed to it and even submitted to it, but that is not the reason I don’t subscribe to Christianity.
I think this idea does great harm to girls and women and, frankly, ultimately men. But it’s a side note. It’s something I take issue with, but not something that would have driven me out of Christianity on it’s own. In fact, it didn’t. It was only after I left Christianity that I saw how harmful this is.
LikeLike
Do you mind if I ask you what is your top reason for rejecting Christianity? Or, if there are many, the top three? Not so I can argue with you, but just out of curiosity since we know each other here. I won’t argue.
LikeLike
1) The lack of inspiration, authority of scripture
2) I disbelieve the resurrection
3) While I believe a real person named Jesus probably existed I believe his birth and miracles have largely been mythicized.
The only authority we have to attest to the resurrection are the scriptures, themselves. Once I studied how those scriptures were actually compiled, canonized, and the extra-biblical texts that are out there I quickly realized that those that are included are no more authoritative than those that did not. The gospels, themselves, are from unknown origins.
LikeLike
Those are all difficult issues, especially 1). When I reconverted I had trouble determining a good test to indicate inspiration and what that meant and so on. Also, 3) I wasn’t entirely sure what to believe about miracles.
Well, that makes sense, thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Since we aren’t…ahem…arguing here:
What is your test to indicate inspiration? What does that mean?
I’ve asked this question before, maybe not to you – I can’t remember, what is your method to determine which parts are inspired and which parts are not? Inspired by whom? In what way?
LikeLike
Ruth, my reply turned out a bit long so I put it as a “new comment” at the bottom. Just scroll down to find it!
LikeLike
“It was only after I left Christianity that I saw how harmful this is.”
Exactly Ruth. This is usually the case with most women. Because Christianity uses mind control techniques, it took me a couple of years after I left Christianity, during stages of my deprogramming, before the full impact hit me. I am often accused of leaving Christianity because of the status of women or my personal experiences. Nope, and I can’t seem to get that through some Christians thick skulls. Anyone who reads the Gospels horizontally, can see how out of kilter it is. But anyone who’s reads and studied the Bible in its entirety, and doesn’t leave Christianity, is surely indoctrinated to the point that neural circuity has deactivated in areas of the prefrontal cortex.
LikeLike
I ran across an interesting article this morning, that ties in with a number of the comments made in reference to this post, most particularly Neuro’s, and thought some of you might want to pop over there and read it. It’s called, Does the ‘F’ Word Scare You?, and the “F” word isn’t quite what some of you might think it is.
LikeLike
I ran across this comment from Neuro, quoting and commenting on Silliness of Mind:
Silliness: “Likewise marriage. The marriage needs a leader.”
Neuro: “Hogwash. A marriage is not a corporation.”
In order to live life to the fullest, I’ve held a number of different positions in a variety of occupations, but I’ll be the first to admit I’ve never washed a hog. As frightening as the prospect may be, of in any sense agreeing with SOM, I don’t find that he’s entirely wrong, but if in any sense right, at least right for reasons other than those he intended. Yet neither is Neuro mistaken.
Within any close relationship, there are going to be a variety of categories, in which one member’s skills exceed those of the other, and the stronger skill set will take the lead. Though not a corporation, every activity needs a leader, and that position should go to the one with the greater skill-set for that activity – whether it’s balancing the checkbook, or cake baking, gender should not be a factor.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go wash my hog.
LikeLike
I think that’s what we’ve been saying, dirty bird. 😀
Gender should not be the deciding factor of who is in charge. In fact, the same person will likely not be “in charge” all the time. Because, like you said, some of us are good a some things while others of us are good at other things. Most likely we take charge of that thing we are good at. Our…em….equipment…typically has little to do with what we’re good at. Some men are excellent cooks while their wives burn tea. Some women are good at fixing things while their husbands are confused with which wire is the hot one and which wire is the neutral one. It’s not a competition, nor should it be, for who is in charge. But the Babble makes it seem as if the man should always be in charge and the women should submit to his authority. Why does he need this authority?
LikeLike
Ruth,
Just as gender, female, determines that only women can give birth to babies, gender, male determines that men are the optimal family leader.
LikeLike
Hello, silenceofmind.
LikeLike
Ruth,
Also, while the gathering-hunter female was tending the hearth, what was the hunter-gathering male doing?
He was off making war, creating technology and art, and exploring.
If woman were leader of the family, mankind would still be a long extinct, artless chimpanzee still not having wandered far from the tree.
LikeLike
Hello again, silenceofmind.
LikeLike
SOM — apologize to Ruth.
LikeLike
Sorry Ruth,
Now Neuron, show us what the sound of silence sounds like.
LikeLike
Apologize to Ruth.
LikeLike
Neuron,
I say, “Sorry, Ruth.”
And you reply, “Apologize to Ruth.”
Are you blonde by any chance?
Just checking. Stereo types like myths and legends often contain a grain of truth.
LikeLike
Why are you sorry, SOM? Say why you are sorry.
LikeLike
Neuron,
You are the typical feminist.
You demand that a man apologize or else…
…THE SILENT TREATMENT!!!
The man apologizes and you then demand that he crawl on his belly like a reptile.
I say, “Screw you and the dildo you rode in on.”
LikeLike
Just what I thought — you were not sincere. You want to know why I know this? Because someone had to ask you to apologize to Ruth before you’d do it. No real conscience.
LikeLike
Neuron,
If I deliver an apology in plain, simple English, who are you to judge me?
Just because someone abhors feminism and believes that like atheism, it sucks the life out of the uniquely human ability to reason, doesn’t mean that person isn’t sincere when they deliver an apology.
LikeLike
So tell me SOM — why didn’t you apologize after several people, including Ruth and Violet, all atheists, made you aware of your inappropriate behavior a couple of days ago? This is why I questioned your sincerity. Then you follow up by using more insults by telling me I was riding in on a dildo. You contribute nothing worth while to these conversations. You go for shock value. And nothing you say can be trusted as being sincere or truthful.
LikeLike
Neuron,
No matter what answers, proofs or evidence I give, or how complete my compliance with your demands, you will continue to move the goal post.
That is because you really aren’t interested in answers, proofs or evidence.
You are a feminist atheist after all.
LikeLike
Your whole premise is to cause discord and disrupt dialog. You have clearly established a pattern. Women and children have been profoundly harmed by the Abrahamic religions, and most male-dominated religions, and you continue to defend it. That shows just how removed from reality you are. Just go away so people can heal. You are a scab picker.
LikeLike
Neuron,
Tweeking feminists with political incorrectness is a means of getting you folks to demonstrate the extreme rigidness of your thought form.
You should have seen my history professor go through the ceiling when I referred to illegal aliens as “wet backs.”
(That term used to be harmless and a bit funny until the fascist left made it a politically incorrect term).
That, coupled with reasoned thought that makes the complex, simple and easy to understand sends you folks into a rage of panic.
LikeLike
Don’t be ridiculous SOM. Next you’ll be telling us that something can come out of nothing. You Christians will never be able explain where the god God came from and that’s why you’re all so angry all the time.
LikeLike
Wisp,
I’ve explained the eternal nature of God to you many times.
You just don’t get it.
You can’t get it because you’re an atheist.
An atheist has already made up her mind that God does not exist so how can your mind be open to the rational arguments that prove the existence of God?
LikeLike
Stop moving the goal posts SOM. It’s almost like you have no answers for my questions. Face the delusion like it’s your last meal.
LikeLike
Wisp,
I was just explaining to Naïve about how atheists use mockery as a tool of discussion.
I say it. You, the atheist, prove me right.
LikeLike
Well, like every Christian, you are perfectly entitled to *your* interpretation of the Bible. Just don’t use it to explain the god God.
LikeLike
Wisp,
You know full well that I’ve never, ever used the Bible to explain the existence of God to you.
Why do you continue to play the part of a stupid idiot.
Can’t you even fake some sort of intelligence?
LikeLike
Sincerely.
LikeLike
We already know what the Sound of Silliness is like, don’t we?
LikeLike
Hi Violet,
I’ve only had time to read about 20% of the comments here and you’ve got quite a social dynamic going on. 🙂 Perhaps one of my favorite quotes from My Big Fat Greek Wedding will help add some comic relief:
I’d also like to add a serious anecdote of my own: my wife and I are both leaders in the workplace – I lead a team of engineers and she leads teams of teachers, so we both have leadership qualities. When it comes to our family, there may be one of us that naturally “leads” more than the other (probably her), but there is definitely no such thing as “you are the woman {or man} so you get the final word”. And frankly there are certain things I’d gladly not lead – anything with public speaking is all hers (I have to deal with enough of that crap at work). And if it’s taxes or investing decisions my wife is extremely happy to not think about it. We’ve known each other for 16 years, been married for 13 and it works damn well. Our personalities fit together like puzzle pieces. No need for a “head” or a “neck” of the house. Most of our big decisions are made together with compromise. And luckily there have never been teacups (or anything) thrown at anyone in our house. 🙂
LikeLike
Haha, yes, the comments go in several weird directions on this one! Love your quote. But you’re right, I think in any healthy relationship there’s no defined leader, and it certainly isn’t defined by gender.
LikeLike
Howie,
I really like that movie line. But it does go to show how, unlike the scorekeeping some might attribute to a more egalitarian household, it actually goes on in patriarchal households except it’s more manipulative. Who wants to have to manipulate to get their needs met? If you can talk about things and come to mutual decisions no one has to feel like they “lost”. There really is no scorecard.
I’m happy to see another teacup projectile free zone! 😀
LikeLike
Couldn’t have said it better myself Ruth! My wife and I both cannot stand manipulation – it’s so unattractive.
LikeLike
Howie, your comment compliments several of the comments here regarding the fact that both men and women are leaders in their family, depending on their abilities. To expect a man to lead in everything and do it well is putting unrealistic pressures on them. They start to feel trapped and powerless, and some take out their whole family, including themselves. 80% of women who kill their children did so because of psychosis due to hormonal imbalance after giving birth. For men, it’s due to the dynamics of being head of the household. Excerpts:
“Researchers point to the fact that they are virtually all premeditated and typically executed with a chilling calmness and sense of purpose. This is particularly true in the case of ’family annihilations’ as they are referred to by psychiatrists, where the father not only kills his children but his partner and usually himself.
Family annihilation is an act of extreme aggression; a violent gesture, laden with potent rage. US research shows that family annihilators rarely have a criminal record and will often appear to others as stable, trustworthy and dedicated to their family. The psychological profile they share, however, concerns how they have constructed their sense of ‘self’. According to stereotypical gender roles, while motherhood is often seen as the denial of self by putting one’s children before one’s own needs, fatherhood is more concerned with provision for the family and being seen as the head of it – the family becomes part of the self, rather than supplanting it.
The tipping point is some catastrophic loss or impending tragedy that threatens to undermine his sense of self and amplifies his feelings of impotence and powerlessness. In individuals for whom their family is an integral part of their identity – part of themselves, rather than a separate being – murdering the family is akin to a single act of suicide. It is a way of regaining control; of obliterating the impending crisis. This explains why men will often not only kill their partner and children, but also pets and destroy their property by setting fires. It is an eradication of everything that constitutes the self. In addition to this, they are often motivated by bitterness and anger and a desire to punish the spouse; while killing the partner is an act of revenge, killing the children is an act of love as he believes he – and therefore they – will be better off dead than face the imminent loss of power.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8961851/What-drives-a-father-to-kill.html
LikeLike
😮
Victoria, I never knew that, and I can see how that would make sense. I’ve been acquainted with 2 men who have actually done that, and it left me completely stymied both times. The one guy I hardly knew, but I think the above makes sense for the other guy. That’s some really sad and intense stuff Victoria.
LikeLike
Yeah, it is, Howie. The bible promotes this psychological dynamic of a man identifying himself with his family and property. You can clearly see this in the 10th Commandment.
LikeLike
@Ruth
(Note: skip to bottom for TL;DR)
Your question is fantastic. . . I don’t have a pre-thought answer, so even I am curious to see where this one goes. I will strive to make it a coherent stream of thought! 🙂
Let me take a step back to start. I guess it’s important to ask the question, what exactly is scripture? What makes scripture different from Dante’s Inferno or Calvin’s Institutes? Ultimately I think a good answer is that scripture claims either explicitly or implicitly to somehow be “from God” from the outset and is taken seriously as such over successive generations, whereas Dante is obviously a fictional poem and Calvin’s writings are merely trying to illuminate what is already considered scripture.
In critical analysis of texts, we can apply “tests” or “criteria” to give a particular answer. One criterion that I think is interesting is when an author explicitly claims a message is from God. The best example I can think of is Paul:
“For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin; for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12, NRSV)
Now, this raises all sorts of questions. What does Paul mean by “revelation of Jesus Christ”? A dream? His alleged encounter with Jesus? Voices? Or, something even more subtle, like directly implanted knowledge? Paul by saying, “I did not receive it from a human source”, must also be excluding his own original thinking.
For the sake of discussion, let’s just take Paul to be truthful here. What does that mean about everything else he says? Does that mean the gospel (whatever that is) is the only message he got from God and everything else is just his application or pondering of it or something? Now, suppose that the answer is, yes, that everything besides the gospel was straight from Paul’s head. Does that mean it’s not divinely inspired? If it came from Paul’s head is it better than Dante’s head? You see, if there is a divine signal, it makes sense that the further away from this one gets, the more human it becomes.
But, that’s not the question we’re asking. . . (sorry I digressed a bit). So, what is a good test to determine what is the divine signal? And, how can we determine what is the limit that something is “divinely inspired”? I think the true divine signals come from when a miraculous sign vindicates a message. For example, God spoke to Moses through the burning bush, and if I believe that this is a historical event, then I believe it is a legitimate divine signal. God gave certain prophets visions. . . you get the point.
Now, from here there are two directions to go. The first it uber-skepticism by asking, “Well what if it wasn’t God speaking in the burning bush? Then, how do you know it was a divine signal?” In other words, you could accept miracles and still reject that it was from God (i.e., maybe it was demon in the bush). Of course, but I think it’s reasonable to think given my everyday experience that miracles come from a powerful being and if they claim to be God, by my judgment is that’s enough to acquiesce.
The other direction is, “Well, what if there are things in scripture which stray too far from the divine signal?” Yes! I do think some of those exist by my judgment. Let me give you two examples. There is a story in 2 Kings 2 where Elisha is made fun of for being bald by young boys and he curses them in the name of the Lord and two she-bears kill 42 of them! It just sounds ridiculous and out of place. It’s actually humorously out of place. If this story reveals something about the character of God, then it seems to contradict God’s usual character. Does God defend the honor of bald prophets by slaying 42 mockers then becomes human himself and allows people to mock him? So, the criterion I am using is that it is unusual and seems to contradict God’s character as purveyor of justice and love who will himself tolerate mocking. It seems more likely that it was simply a legend that got added in from my perspective.
The other example is in 1 Corinthians 14:34 which says that women should be silent in church. This contradicts 1 Corinthians 11 where the text condones women prophesying! That’s a direct contradiction just 3 chapters apart! What’s more about 1 Cor 14:34 is that it 1) contains an unusual reference to the Law and 2) was moved to v. 40 in several authoritative ancient manuscripts which suggests scribal tampering. I’ve decided that both 1 Corinthians 14:34 and 1 Corinthians 11 are “in scripture” but that the former is not inspired because of Christianity’s egalitarian thread and the textual considerations (i.e., a patriarchal scribe could have added it).
TL;DR
Inclusion criterion and caveat: If a message/story is associated with a miracle and I believe it was a historical event, then I believe it was a true divine signal. Things close to this primary message are divinely inspired, but not necessarily directly from God. They are still scripture-worthy usually.
Exclusion criterion and caveat: If there seems to be a contradiction in the divine signal, then I must rectify the situation by explaining what happened. Usually this ends up with me finding satisfactory reason to reject one or the other. But, it’s possible that my perspective is not optimal and nothing should be excluded, for example, I need a better historical context that may be impossible to attain.
And that’s a naive stream of thought.
LikeLike
Brandon, let us cut the chase and stop spreading bull. Scripture is what the church says is and that is it.
Why would a seemingly intelligent person as you keep repeating such bs.
LikeLike
Mak, even if you are talking historically, this is not correct. They did not arbitrarily pick the New Testament canon for example. We don’t know how the Old Testament came about, there are only theories, and not any convincing ones that I have heard. But, seriously, check into New Testament canonization.
LikeLike
Brandon, the church decided arbitrarily the canon of the new testament. Are you telling me if I wad to check the new testament canonization, that there is a point I will find your god saying this is scripture and this isn’t?
LikeLike
Mak, no, I’m not saying the process of canonization can tell you anything of that sort! I am just saying that it was not arbitrary. I need to reread about this subject since it’s been too many years. But, if I remember correctly they used rational criteria to exclude works such as the gnostic gospels. For example, the gnostic gospels were written too late to reasonably reflect eyewitness testimony.
LikeLike
Oh yeah, but 35-40 years isn’t too late at all, is it?
LikeLike
“the gnostic gospels were written too late to reasonably reflect eyewitness testimony.”
You guys are never gonna guess what I read – some reporter named Mark just wrote it, and you’re never gonna believe it! John F. Kennedy was killed! I know! There were eyewitnesses and everything!
When? 1963, what difference does that make? Sure, most of the eyewitnesses are dead, and the rest are scattered all over the country and between 70 and 90, but I can’t see how that has any bearing on anything.
LikeLike
I can synopsize your “naive stream of thought” in two words: cherry picking.
LikeLike
Arch, refer to the reply I just wrote to Ruth down below. It’s for you too.
LikeLike
Brandon,
For the record, I have checked into NT canonization and that is one thing that led me to the conclusion that it’s all so much hooey! Some scriptures made it in by a narrow vote while others were left out just as narrowly. Have you read any of the extra-biblical early writings?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Now, as to the rest of what you’re saying: In summary, you are using your own best judgement as to which scriptures to take seriously and which ones not to. You take the ones you like and discount the rest as “cultural nuance of the times.” While I do think that it was cultural nuance of the times I think all of it is, not just the parts I don’t like so much. It’s all human convention of the times. Yes, much of it is contradictory. That doesn’t mean you just get to discount the half of the contradiction you find distasteful.
You may believe what you wish about scripture’s “egalitarian thread” but that isn’t what the majority of people get from scripture. Even insanitybytes, who believes every word of it, doesn’t read it that way. She happily submits to her husband because the Bible tells her so. I’m not picking on her, I’m just showing you that the “egalitarian thread” you seem to see isn’t quite as obvious as you think it is.
What I see throughout your reply to me is “you’ve decided” what is inspired and what is not by using your own ethical lens to filter out the parts that seem quite unethical. Why do you need a Bible to do that?
LikeLike
It is merely a continuation of frightened human beings making stuff up so they can feel better about their place in the world.
Because cosmic insignificance sucks, because mortality sucks, because not being sky daddies special snowflake sucks.
So many funhouse mirrors just to avoid realistically looking at ones place in the universe.
LikeLike
Well, I think if the God of the Bible does exist he doesn’t just blow kisses. He throws daggers, too.
LikeLike
Excellent analogy!
LikeLike
@NaiveThinker,
It occurs to me that my response may have come across a bit snarky. I didn’t mean it that way at all. It’s just that I was hoping for a bit more than “everybody has to use their best judgement”, which is essentially what you said. People compare scripture to scripture all the time. In the SBC, which I was a member, they were huge on harmonizing scripture. While they felt that all scripture was God-breathed and all scripture was indeed inspired and inerrant they realized that some scriptures seemed contradictory. They, of course, gave greater weight to the submission verses because that seems to be the tone of both the Old and New Testaments. This egalitarian thread, as you see it, was the contradiction. So they found ways for that to be prophetic or cultural rather than the other way around. Of course, you can see the problem with your method. It’s the same problem with every method. It’s subject to interpretation.
LikeLike
Hey Ruth, I didn’t perceive any snarkiness! 🙂 After writing my response it’s starting to sound like I am arguing. . . bleh. I’m really not. I mean I’m having fun just writing and thinking. Seriously though, if any conversation we have ever becomes not about mutual edification in the marketplace of ideas, then let me know!
Your main criticism is that adopting and applying criteria is subjective. But, how else should one approach historical claims? Is there any objective way to reconstruct history? I’m just going to go ahead and say, no. Or a more important question in our discussion is, is there any objective way to reconstruct first century history? No.
That’s why most skeptics will not criticize subjectivity rather they criticize the level of evidence. But, even with the quality of evidence we can capture today, some people would find a way to reject miraculous claims. Video footage, eyewitness testimony, whatever, there is always a way to form an explanation compatible with one’s preexisting worldview.
Think about unusual examples. I have a friend who believes Jesus rose as a ghost but that God did not necessarily intend Christianity to start because of this event. Or, here’s one that provides a good segue: One could affirm that the resurrection definitely happened by the criteria of history and still reject it as an actual event because the particular evidence (eyewitness testimony) is judged to be insufficient for believing in such otherworldly things! Well, who are they to arbitrate what level of evidence is sufficient to justify believing?
What level of evidence is sufficient to justify a belief? At least we can say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But, what determines the line between extraordinary and ordinary evidence? Who is qualified to arbitrate this?
Therefore, what we have reached in this postmodern-esque analysis is a bit terrifying. Humans make several judgments on their way to reach their worldview. The human capacity to construct a worldview is astonishing. This is why we have such a variety of philosophies, religions, denominations in religions, sects, doctrine, religious dogma, scientific dogma, political beliefs, and so on. It’s disconcerting to think about. . .
With that, have you somehow been able to escape making subjective judgments in constructing your worldview? If yes, how could you condemn me for adopting criteria to determine what is divine based on subjectivity?
You also said: “You take the [interpretations] you like and discount the rest. . .”
Making a judgment does not mean that it’s based on desire. Let me give you two perfect examples. There are two things in the bible that I think are true that I don’t want to be true. 1) the conquest of the Canaanites and 2) the immorality of gay sex. I would love to jettison these, but I cannot do this and be intellectually honest. If my desire starts to dictate what is true or false, my conscience will condemn me.
My point is that interpretation is not necessarily based on desire.
You also said: “Why do you need a Bible to [decide what is ethical]?”
It’s more complicated than that. Even the bible claims that we have a conscience! But, there are some grey areas that I can use biblical stories and principles to help make a reasonable judgment. Besides, you ask this question with such ease in a post-Christian culture. You would be begging for biblical principles in a pre-Christian culture. Let’s take for example paganism. There’s a good chance you would be dead because the pagans practiced female infanticide.
So it can never as simple as “we don’t need the bible for morality” or “we totally rely on the bible for morality.”
LikeLike
Hey Brandon,
You make some points here Brandon that spurred some thoughts for me. Worldviews do seem easy to construct and we all seem to feel we are justified in the worldview we espouse. Perhaps a little more grace would be an appropriate thing in judging others’ worldviews. But I’m no idealist – I know there’s a limit to this, because most of us seem to feel that there are aspects of some worldviews which can be harmful (myself included), and frankly I don’t see you giving Parsurrey a lot of grace when it comes to his worldview. I know you can give your 5 reasons why his view is “substantially different”, but this is a technique and phrase that all of us could surely employ to bolster our own worldview against another.
But we all have to at least give our best effort at forming our own woldview because we have to live life. I like to make distinctions of certainty levels of all of my beliefs. For example, I teach my children not to touch fire because I am very certain they will have pain if they do that. On the other end of the spectrum there are questions which are metaphysical in nature – like “do gods exist?”, and any questions which might be related to that. I like to throw those kind of questions in a box and slap a label on it called “really tough sh-t to figure out”. Sometimes I want to mail that box away but I never do.
But here’s the thing about many (not all) religions, especially Christianity and Islam. They ask their followers to change that label on that box and not only that, they suggest that if people get the answers to some of those questions in that box wrong then there will be dire consequences. And Brandon, even though you don’t personally believe in an eternal conscious hell, your belief still says that the answers to some of the questions in that box are the most important answers for people to obtain. While this isn’t the only problem I have with these religions, it very well may be one of the toughest hurdles I have with them.
LikeLike
Hey Howie,
Can you direct me to where Brandon says he doesn’t believe in an eternal conscious hell? I got the distinct impression somewhere that he does believe in this concept. I realize that wasn’t the thrust of your reply. It’s just a curiosity, more or less.
LikeLike
http://anaivethinker.wordpress.com/2014/02/13/5/comment-page-1/#comment-67
LikeLike
Thanks!
There’s so much discussion going on it’s hard to follow it all. There was somewhere here on Violet’s blog that he appeared to be arguing for a literal hell. Maybe I misunderstood.
LikeLike
Howie, you raise a great point about talking with people of different worldview. Actually in postmodernism is it considered militant in many settings. I’ve always debated with myself about how much to push a certain point or differentiate out. For Paarsurrey I think my reasoning was more about possibly introducing him/her to new information. When someone seems so certain that all religions are basically the same, pluralism, I wonder how much they have studied each. Not in an insulting way, like they are intellectually lazy, but from my consideration that missing out on certain bits of information is a conceivable way to generate the pluralist view.
I very much affirm your approach as a spectrum of certainty. And, I love the fact that you “want to mail that box away” but somehow keep in around. One interesting point to make is that religious belief tends to be held with certainty. I’m certain that fire will burn, so I avoid it. I’m not certain that Christian theism is true, but I live as if it were. That seems to be the nature of faith. And, it’s different than believing that a teapot is orbiting Jupiter. Why should I care if that is true?
So, the idea of certainty is confounded by the willingness to take intellectual risk and/or certain judgments in the journey to one’s worldview.
I do understand what you said about religions re-labeling the box and claiming dire consequences for failure to comply. It is true, unfortunately. My only criticism would be that I don’t see Christianity as inherently doing this. It’s just a particular interpretation of scripture, and I would debate that it’s not the best one. The bible is pretty clear about faith, it’s not certain as in we are certain that fire burns. The box cannot be re-labeled in that sense, so metaphysics is still metaphysics. And, as for the consequences, it’s very relatable to our knowledge. Fire burns the skin, nefarious actions will lead to punishment via vengeful humans or the justice of the law, and God will judge you for what you do. It’s highly analogous to things we already know about life. It’s more about saying that your life really does matter. The new atheist response is that if this is the only life, then it gives our actions even more significance. But, nihilists argue that this is false, that if this is our only life, it is meaningless. The discovery of Dark Energy is firepower to nihilism.
I’m inclined to think that in rational-valuing worldviews, afterlife belief is a very weak factor for affecting our morality. That includes both nonbelief and affirmation of the afterlife. It’s just too removed from our certainty and experience.
Returning from multiple digressions, my criticism to Christian’s preaching hell fire and brimstone has less to do with content and more to do with their level of certainty and their failure to acknowledge the differences in interpretation of hell.
Sorry, this kind of went multiple directions, my friend. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m glad you didn’t perceive any snarkiness. One never knows how these comments come across since there’s no voice inflection or body language. There are times I’m certain that others can hear the sigh and see the eye roll just the same. 😉
I realize that we are all looking at these historical accounts subjectively. I’m glad to know that you do, too. There are many Christians who don’t see these accounts as subjective at all and I think you might fall into a minority on that count.
You said:
“Making a judgment does not mean that it’s based on desire. Let me give you two perfect examples. There are two things in the bible that I think are true that I don’t want to be true. 1) the conquest of the Canaanites and 2) the immorality of gay sex. I would love to jettison these, but I cannot do this and be intellectually honest.”
Are you aware that archaeology suggests that the Israelites were the Canaanites? And that the supposed conquest of the Canaanites never happened?
http://apxaioc.com/article/were-ancient-israelites-only-canaanites
Of course you knew that! I’m sure Arch has directed you to this research.
I don’t object to you subjectively picking and choosing. That’s what we’re saying here, right? What I object to is using that picking and choosing to declare divine truth to others.
LikeLike
Ruth, OK I’m starting to see a commonality between you and Arch. Actually, it seems to be a strong Western cultural value as well. But, before I go there, I’ll just mention that I have considered the archeological dogma of the day. The fact that I call it dogma should say everything you need to know.
So, it seems that you are saying, “I don’t care what you believe or how you got there, just please don’t talk about it.” Well, why not? Are people not free to say what they want and make judgment for themselves? I suppose I can educate the community about PAP smears, but when I talk about God, it’s taboo.
Evangelism is taboo.
I don’t know why, it just is. And, it’s definitely a cultural thing. I have an Indian friend who came to the US and was working at a hospital and she would print out psalms and give them to patients. The hospital pulled her aside and forced to stop. She was dumbfounded because she always did this in India.
So, why is it taboo? This is a serious question, and I’ll be thinking about it along with you. . .
LikeLike
@Brandon
Oh you mean you intend to ignore inconvenient facts about your delusion of choice?
Quelle suprise!
As illustrated on this thread, and elsewhere you are certainly very familiar with dogmatic thought.
Because religion and religious belief is toxic to progressive modern society. The faster we can rid ourselves of irrational beliefs the better off we will be.
Well taboo and little discomforting. It’s like listening to child enthusiastically tell her parents about Santa. Fortunately most children grow out of belief in mythology.
As a secular society were trying hard to get past the religious sectarian infighting and the warped morality imposed by religions. It has taken a lot of effort to push the bullshit this far back and the resurgence as of late in the US is disheartening to rational people the world over.
Proselytizing to the weak and injured is not ethical medical behaviour. Good on the hospital for stopping such a practice.
We live in a secular society with the idea that decisions should be made on evidence, not belief. We don’t take Santa seriously, yet large sections of society seem to think that we should make an exception for their special santa.
Taboo isn’t enough. It should be embarrassing.
LikeLike
Brandon,
You said:
OK I’m starting to see a commonality between you and Arch. Actually, it seems to be a strong Western cultural value as well.
I’m not sure what this means. Is looking at actual evidence a strong Western cultural value? I certainly hope so! Also, you are here on an atheist blog where most of the participants were Christians who have de-converted because of said evidence. I would think that a commonality in this regard would be expected. If I went to a Christian blog and they presented a commonality of ideas I wouldn’t be shocked. I wouldn’t even think to point it out. I’d expect that.
You also said:
The fact that I call it dogma should say everything you need to know.
Are you suggesting that the archaeology isn’t valid? That it’s made up? That it’s unimportant? That it’s easily discounted? That I personally should discount it because you personally consider it dogma and not actual evidence?
Then you said:
So, it seems that you are saying, “I don’t care what you believe or how you got there, just please don’t talk about it.” Well, why not? Are people not free to say what they want and make judgment for themselves? I suppose I can educate the community about PAP smears, but when I talk about God, it’s taboo.
I’m not sure where you got that. I never said I didn’t care what you believe or how you got there. I believed at one time, too. I also never even suggested that people aren’t free to say what they want and make judgements for themselves (see my convo with SOM).
What I did say is that presenting your judgements as absolute or divine truth is a bit…well…dishonest. Not because I think you’re lying and not because I don’t think you’re telling your truth. I know you believe it. But believing doesn’t make it true. It’s one thing to talk about religion and/or the possibility of a god or gods and another to declare that you know which god this is and which version of this god another person should follow.
You are comparing actual knowledge with scientific data about PAP smears to fuzzy feelings about a god? I would think that you could see where it would be easier to educate the masses about an actual scientific process than one where they need a divining rod or a secret decoder ring to make a judgement.
So just talking about your beliefs or about God isn’t so much taboo as is presenting your beliefs as actual knowledge.
If one is sharing platitudes from the Psalms to make patients feel better that’s all well and good. It’s completely another thing to present God, Himself, as factual.
LikeLike
“I’m not sure what this means.”
Clearly, he’s complimenting you Ruth – just say, “Thank you!”
LikeLike
Actually, I did have that in there but decided against it as I wasn’t sure how well a dirty bird could fly with an enlarged head. 😈
LikeLike
Interesting that you’ve chosen to join with SOM in the use of that term. I hope the two of you will be very happy together, I’m sure he’s a peach once you get to know him.
LikeLike
Hahaha! I was wondering when you would say something, Arch. I thought it was a term of endearment. It’s not?!? 😕
LikeLike
Ruth, I think you’re perceiving this conversation as being more contrarian than it actually is. Even evangelism that goes like “This is what I believe and this is why” is taboo. But, why? I’m honestly thinking about this as if I were a disinterested party, not like I need to justify anything or defend the honor of religion or deconverts or agnosticism or any -ism.
As for archeology, I’m not condemning the field. In my job I use forensic evidence in a very similar way. What is wrong with the current dogma is that the historical reconstructions rely very heavily on invalidated arguments from silence. That is a very intentional phrase because arguments from silence can be validated, indeed, we use them in medicine and law courts. So, yes, academia has been sucked into a dogmatic narrative of Israel. And, the degree of intellectual arrogance that spearheads this is astonishing. I’m awaiting the tides to turn, not by any new evidence being unearthed, rather some intellectual sobriety. Sober up after a drunk night.
Back to PAP smears versus evangelism, the point here is not to compare the content in terms of certainty or whatever, it’s the fact that one is welcomed and the other is frankly taboo. It’s does not make sense to think that “actual knowledge” versus “fuzzy feelings” really differentiates acceptable versus taboo. So, what is it really?
I think there is something deep seeded in our culture. Something very much post-Enlightenment and post-Christian that fuels certain sentiments about monotheistic religions making evangelism taboo. That’s just a first pass guess. Still thinking.
LikeLike
“I think there is something deep seeded in our culture. Something very much post-Enlightenment and post-Christian that fuels certain sentiments about monotheistic religions making evangelism taboo.”
Something deep seeded in our culture? How about history for one thing. A very bloody history. Also, If such a person claiming to be the god God or Jesus were going around today telling everyone they were god and you better obey or you’re condemned, they be deemed mentally ill. As many as 60% of those with schizophrenia have religious grandiose delusions consisting of believing they are a saint, God, the devil, a prophet, Jesus, or some other important person. That’s just one form of mental illness/neurological disorder where people claim to either be God, a prophet, or believe they are on a mission for the god God.
How about religious people’s incessant need to tell others how they should live their lives based on their own interpretation of their religion and books.
Keep your rosaries off my ovaries
Keep your theology off my biology.
Everyone has the right to love who they want to love.
Everyone should have the right to marry who they want to marry.
How’s that for starters.
😉
LikeLike
Victoria. . .
This is part of the problem. Hatred and certainty. Short pithy statements. And, complete lack of understanding of how Christianity and atheism shaped Western civilization.
We have forgotten and now we live in a polarized world where everyone gets high on moral outrage with the most superficial thinking.
LikeLike
“This is part of the problem. Hatred and certainty. Short pithy statements. And, complete lack of understanding of how Christianity and atheism shaped Western civilization.”
Huh? What part of my comment did you not get? The problem is, Brandon, that it’s taboo because you guys can’t keep your mouths shut. Nono, you need to tell the world about your god and your interpretation of your guide book. You need to indoctrinate children. Then your religious organizations, claiming to be non-profit) get filthy rich and use that money to influence our laws which affect other peoples rights.
Do you get it now?
LikeLike
“It’s does not make sense to think that ‘actual knowledge’ versus ‘fuzzy feelings’ really differentiates acceptable versus taboo.”
REALLY?! So on your planet, ‘actual knowledge‘ and ‘fuzzy feelings‘ carry equal weight – I hate to break it to you, but things are a little different here on Earth.
LikeLike
Please reread what I wrote.
LikeLike
“It’s (sic) does not make sense to think that ‘actual knowledge’ versus ‘fuzzy feelings’ really differentiates acceptable versus taboo.”
I’m quoting it verbatim – YOU reread it. and yes, it’s does.
LikeLike
Ok, let me spell it out for you. Nothing I said suggested that “actual knowledge” versus “fuzzy feelings” were somehow “equal weight”. Not to mention that “equal weight” is as vague as to be completely meaningless. It’s as if you read that into my statement just to produce a short offensive response. This is a pattern in our engagements slash your responses to me which is why I wonder if you just flat out dislike me.
It’s ok though. I don’t expect everyone to like me. I put my ideas on the table in blogs that have very very strong anti-Christian sentiment, so I should expect anger and dislike.
Anyway I think there’s more to it than “Because it’s intellectually inferior and obviously false.” Not everyone is that arrogant for starters. Do you have any thoughts as to why evangelism is taboo? Or is it not taboo? Or do you just not care to engage this question?
LikeLike
“Nothing I said suggested that ‘actual knowledge’ versus ‘fuzzy feelings’ were somehow ‘equal weight’. Not to mention that ‘equal weight’ is as vague as to be completely meaningless.”
You implied that ‘fuzzy feelings’ should be as acceptable as ‘actual knowledge’ – whether or not you choose to call that, “equal weight,” I suppose is a matter of personal preference.
RE: “…which is why I wonder if you just flat out dislike me.” I do not know you, thus I cannot dislike you. I am familiar with your behavior however, most of which I dislike. Some would say that that which is “we,” is the sum total of our behavior.
RE: “Do you have any thoughts as to why evangelism is taboo?”
Is it? I can’t say, as that is a very general statement and it’s a wide world out there. I can only speak for myself, and I find that exposing myself to evangelism and responding to a majority of your comments, to be an equal waste of time.
LikeLike
Brandon,
I’m really not viewing it as contrarian. We’re having a discussion and I went point by point it all.
It’s been taboo for so long to be atheist or agnostic that it’s hard to believe that a Christian can even form the words “taboo to talk about God.” It seems, from this side, as if because people(and by people I mean atheists/agnostics) have tired of being proselytized and are standing up for their right not to be that Christians are taking offense to this and have a false sense of persecution. It isn’t taboo to talk about God but there’s a time and place for it, just like there’s a time and a place to talk about PAP smears.
In a country(the U.S.) which is predominately Christian it is certainly not taboo to share your religion. I can see why the hospital didn’t want it’s employee passing out Psalms. While your friend probably was just using them as pithy platitudes to try to make patients feel better, that didn’t take into consideration whether the patient was Christian or even receptive to Christian scriptures. Hospitals and corporations do things like that to protect the patients and, frankly, to cover their own ass. A patient in a hospital bed is a captive audience to their attendants, so the appearance of proselytizing by hospital employees would be highly inappropriate.
I think I get what you’re saying when you say “It’s does not make sense to think that “actual knowledge” versus “fuzzy feelings” really differentiates acceptable versus taboo. So, what is it really?”
The difference is when you try to impose those “fuzzy feelings” as “actual knowledge”. For the most part I find Christianity and religion in general interesting subjects that I could just knock around in a lively conversation. I’ve examined it and found it lacking, so no, I don’t want to be proselytized. It appears that if anyone doesn’t want to be evangelized they’re guilt tripped for squashing free speech. Where does one person’s rights begin and and another’s end?
LikeLike
“Where does one person’s rights begin and and another’s end?”
It’s simple, Ruth – they have a right to proselytize to their little hearts’ content, but I have the right to decide if they’ll do it TO ME or mine.
BTW – while I’ve called you all together here like this, has everyone heard of the “ACTS Seminar” that has been carried on for the past ten years (http://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-findings-of-the-acts-seminar/), that analyzed the book of Acts from start to finish, and came to the following conclusions:
http://www.westarinstitute.org/…seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/
What’s that the NT says about a house built on sand? There might be something to this prophecy thing after all.
LikeLike
“It’s simple, Ruth – they have a right to proselytize to their little hearts’ content, but I have the right to decide if they’ll do it TO ME or mine.”
That was exactly my point. I quite agree with you, but I think that’s where all this taboo talk is coming from. If anyone doesn’t want to hear the evangelism and has the gumption to say so Christians seem to get all butthurt like we’re infringing on their rights.
No, I’m just exercising mine.
I think I saw that John Zande commented and posted a link the other day to that, but I haven’t had a chance to read it. Thanks for bringing it back to my remembrance.
LikeLike
Ruth, when you said “people. . . have tired of being proselytized and are standing up for their right” I understand this. But, I don’t think any thoughtful Christian would continue pressing anything if someone displayed signs of annoyance or flat out said “I don’t want to hear about it”. Christians are just people too. We don’t want to annoy people to the detriment of Christ.
Hospitals recognize patient autonomy and we ask if the patient would like to see a chaplain. We provide chaplains or religious people from any religion. So, it’s not that hospitals and corporations are saying that religion is bad and we need to cover ourselves, it’s that individual autonomy is highly valued in Western culture.
Let me give you a few examples of taboo. When I was a teenager, my youth group wanted to go door knocking and singing Christmas songs and stuff, and I just thought this was ludicrous. This did not feel OK to me. It was taboo. And, placing flyers on people’s doors or inviting kids to a youth group for pizza then forcing them to listen to something. Felt taboo.
I’m starting to think that the taboo part of evangelism is when it coerces people to hear the message. For example, by cornering them or pressuring them. This does not respect their individual autonomy to hear what they want.
We live in a highly commercialized world, with entities constantly trying to influence us. Advertisements on Facebook, billboards, political this’s and that’s. They’re all promising a better product, a better life for only $19.99, but we just want to turn off the TV. I want to hear what I want to hear, and I am suspicious that religion is just another sell.
Those are just some more thoughts to add on. . .
LikeLike
“We don’t want to annoy people to the detriment of Christ.”
It doesn’t seem to bother YOU any —
Interestingly, on Brandon’s site, Howie asked Brandon why he doesn’t spend more time on fellow Christian websites, and he said he feels more comfortable with us. I have a slightly different theory – that is that with his Messiah complex, he views us as his “sinners and publicans”
Ah ain’t no ‘Publican, Ah’m a Demercrat!
LikeLike
Your first statement is where the tension lies with me. It’s not you have some problem and I am here to fix it. I’m not here to offer any revelation, at least not yet.
It’s that I really am strangely connected to you all. At first I thought it was something to do with my time as an agnostic/atheist. Then, I realized given my interactions at church that this might not be it at all. Somehow I feel drawn to the freethinkers and the humanists. I just don’t know dude.
LikeLike
“I just don’t know dude.”
I find you so manipulative, it’s difficult to know with you which is sincerity and which affect. I suspect that if I marked, “affect” after every question on the test, I’d wind up with at least a score of 80%. I’ve suggested you get counseling, and I didn’t mean ministerial.
At least I found some degree of honesty in this:
“I’m not here to offer any revelation, at least not yet.“
LikeLike
If I am manipulative, what do you figure is my goal?
LikeLike
No matter what you may have deluded yourself into believing, at root, it’s self-aggrandizement.
LikeLike
That’s not an answer to the question though. Why accuse someone of manipulating if you don’t have some idea of their goal? A baseless accusation suggests hatred, but an accusation based on something might not be hatred. So, what say you?
LikeLike
I’ve answered your question – if you’re not pleased with the image my answer paints of you, that’s a personal problem. As it is, I’ve wasted far too much time on you.
LikeLike
Well, I don’t understand your answer, but I guess attempting to explain would be more of a waste of time on top of “far too much”. Then again, if someone pointed out a log in my eye that I couldn’t see, I would have a better chance of removing it.
LikeLike
A number of knowledgeable people have been holding up mirrors for you for weeks now, on at least three separate websites, which you have carefully ignored – being blind or oblivious are two handicaps with which none of us can help you.
LikeLike
Mine, Violet’s and Matt’s blogs?
Also, would you like me to disengage this atheist community?
LikeLike
Actually, I wasn’t thinking of Matt’s, but rather Neuro’s – you know, the one you were banned from? I just don’t want to see you limit yourself to these few people, who post on all of these blogs, when you could spread yourself around. For example, you could go to http://www.thinkatheist.com, and begin your own topic, and expound on your views to your little heart’s content. In fact, feel free to tell Unseen and Gallup’s Mirror that I sent you – I’m sure they’ll welcome you with open arms!
LikeLike
Arch, Brandon and I have already discussed this, and I feel it has been resolved, so no need in bring it back up. He has a better understanding as to why I banned him, and I have a better understanding as to why he has defended his faith to the extent that he has.
LikeLike
Yes, I know, I’ve been following. He maintains (in order to suck me back into his sandbox), that he needs my opinion of his behavior in order to better see the “beam” in his eye, and I’m contending that he has had multiple mirrors held up to him, and that yours was one of those.
LikeLike
Especially Gallup and Emperor Milos, he shall receive a warm welcome. I might just welcome him too
LikeLike
Hey Brandon,
You said:
But, I don’t think any thoughtful Christian would continue pressing anything if someone displayed signs of annoyance or flat out said “I don’t want to hear about it”.
Just out of curiosity, where do you live? What state? Because down here in South Georgia that isn’t the case. I’m glad you feel that way. But that certainly isn’t the way all Christians approach the topic.
As for your examples of evangelism being taboo:
You mentioned that you feel okay knocking doors to sing songs and you didn’t feel good about enticing teenagers with pizza. Clearly you felt uncomfortable about it, but the organizers did not. That said, I don’t think that what you’re calling taboo actually is. That is a normal way of evangelizing. I like the fact that you didn’t feel comfortable with it. Coercion of any kind should be taboo. It isn’t and that’s a problem, IMHO.
Coercion is taboo to you. That’s encouraging. There’s something about that whole pizza party thing that’s a bit like a time-share sales pitch. It’s…tacky.
So, in conclusion, what you seem to be calling taboo are tactics you find distasteful. While I agree with your assessment of them, they’re not really all that taboo. They’re pretty commonplace.
Taboo is living in the Bible Belt and saying you’re an atheist. That’s taboo. If I say it too loudly people are liable to show up at my house to anoint my doorposts with oil and try to lay hands on me.
LikeLike
Hey Ruth, believe it or not I live in Texas. And, the church I go to is not into coercive evangelism. Based on our interaction with the community we probably look more like humanists than Christians.
I think you make a good point that maybe my perception of taboo is more of how I find coercion distasteful and tacky. But, I also feel awkward to bring up the subject of God with my friends and even my wife sometimes. It just feels taboo.
Anyhow it’s interesting that you brought up living in the Bible belt as an atheist being taboo because I’ve been thinking about your plight. There was a recent article on CNN about this. It’s not easy for yall (read in a Southern accent). I realize more and more that part of the reason for being on the internet is to seek community with like-minded atheists. It’s a natural human urge to seek community like this. None of this thinking is earth-shattering, but it makes me wonder if and how I should interact with atheist communities. I wonder if an atheist community would care about this or want this or not want it. If I was putting out tired old apologetics and getting crushed, no one would care. But, my situation is different, at least from my perspective.
LikeLike
“…it makes me wonder if and how I should interact with atheist communities”
Ignoring us springs to mind – ignoring is good.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Of course we’re seeking community. Those of us who have lost our faith, at least, lost our communities when we de-converted. I thought that was pretty apparent. What did you think we were doing? We share information, research, and friendship.
I guess it’s a bit elementary, but I think we’re defining taboo differently. You’re apparently defining it as subjects that seem distasteful to yourself and I think of it in wider societal sense. Many of the thing you’ve mentioned being taboo are quite widely acceptable to talk about in society at large.
No, it’s not easy to be godless in an area where there’s a church on every corner. I drove three miles down a stretch of highway the other day and counted eight churches and stopped. There were more.
About wondering if/how you should engage atheist communities: a suggestion would be that if you really are interested in why atheists disbelieve just ask questions. Most atheists have pretty good reasons for being so. Those of us who lost our faith are not just mad at god. We really don’t think she/he/it exists and have fairly well reasoned out arguments as to why. At the risk of sounding rude, because I certainly don’t mean it that way, we’ve heard pretty much all the apologetics. These are not new to us. In fact, most of us used them and believed them at one time. You may need a defense for your faith for your own purposes, but you don’t need to try to defend your faith to us. We do tend to band together when religion enters the political arena and where children are involved but we do believe in individual autonomy. If your faith means that much to you no one here wants to take it away from you.
You said:
If I was putting out tired old apologetics and getting crushed, no one would care. But, my situation is different, at least from my perspective.
May I ask how your situation is different? Do you perceive your arguments for belief as new or unique? Or am I misunderstanding your statement? I definitely could be.
LikeLike
Ruth,
You said: “Of course we’re seeking community. . . I thought that was pretty apparent.”
Yes, but the question I am interested in is, how should this consideration direct engagement from the outside?
I understand that it depends on the preferences of the community and the outsider. This particular community at large (over several blogs) is not first and foremost rationalist, it’s atheist and anti-theist. Discussion is not valued as much as sharing atheist ideas. I’ve wording these carefully because I’m not saying that rationality or discussion is not valued. I’m saying this is not a “rationalist community”, it is an “atheist community” composed of many deconverts. So, what does this community want and what do I want?
A fascinating little nugget is that on Violet’s blog she has a policy which permits freedom of expression specifically for Christians. Why would you NEED an explicit policy for this? It’s because this is an atheist community, not an idea community.
You said: “. . . a suggestion would be that if you really are interested in why atheists disbelieve just ask questions.”
I’m not interested in that because I know all the arguments just like you. 🙂
You said: “May I ask how your situation is different?”
At least from my perspective I’m different on a few levels. For one, I’m a reconvert. Two, I try to avoid argumentation if at all possible because it can be poisonous by bringing out arrogance, biases, and anger. That means I try to offer ideas based on my own thinking and judgment.
LikeLike
“Discussion is not valued”
Totally untrue! We welcome discussion when it’s accompanied by evidence, it’s just that we don’t see very much of that.
LikeLike
BTW – how’s it going over on http://www.thinkatheist.com? Making any new friends yet?
What? You didn’t go? I am SO surprised!
LikeLike
Arch, I wish we could just shake hands. *puts hand out*
LikeLike
Sorry, I just washed my hands and I can’t do a thing with ’em —
LikeLike
Brandon,
You quoted me as saying:
“. . . a suggestion would be that if you really are interested in why atheists disbelieve just ask questions.”
And then followed that up with:
I’m not interested in that because I know all the arguments just like you. 🙂
Yes, Brandon, you made me aware that you know all the arguments. I quoted you on that bit.
So, I’m wondering, Brandon, since we’re not a “rationality” based community in your opinion, is that what you feel you’re bringing to the table here? Rational discussion?
Are we being irrational not to believe that a man was born of a virgin? Not to believe that he raised from the dead and walked around a while? While you may feel that your interpretation of Holy Scripture is taking the rational approach, the approach that seems to make sense for this day and age, and I can appreciate that, I’m not at all convinced that you are being true to the scriptures as they were written.
You dismiss everything I’ve said because you know all the arguments already and then accuse me of irrationality and not valuing discussion because I don’t agree with your conclusions. Who is it that doesn’t value discussion when you’ve basically just admitted that you’re not considering what’s said? Pot meet kettle.
LikeLike
Brandon,
I think that I’ve demonstrated an interest in what you have to say. I’ve asked you numerous questions. Just because I may think I know all the arguments doesn’t mean that I actually do know all the arguments. So when you come back and say that you’re not interested in asking questions, what you’re telling me is you’re not interested in knowing me as an individual, or discussion with me. You’re telling me you’re only interested in putting your “…ideas based on my own thinking and judgment” forward without even considering my ideas based on my own thinking and judgement. This is not discussion. Discussion is listening to the other person’s points. Considering them, and discussing them. Your formula sounds like you find yourself having “the answer” so you don’t need to consider counter-arguments. If you just want to put your ideas forth and have someone agree with you, or more to the point, not have someone counter you, you should find a lecture hall somewhere.
I realize that may sound like I’m irritated or angry. I’m not at all. We just aren’t going to have meaningful discussion because it doesn’t sound as if discussion is what you’re after here.
LikeLike
I concur, Ruth. What I find interesting is that most people who go deep with religion (after their frontal lobes have fully developed) have usually experienced trauma (past or present) or pain, poverty, etc. This is why religions like Christianity prey on the vulnerable. They are given a false sense of hope — the placebo effect. So many, if not most Christians on these discussion boards, are not interested in discussion — they are interested in keeping the placebo effect effective. If they can recruit you to their ideologies — that reinforces the effectiveness of the sugar pill.
LikeLike
I’m just completely baffled by this. I don’t want to violate Violet’s policy about being nice to Christians. It’s not even my intent to be mean or rude. I just find it odd that he goes on about the arrogance of atheists’ so-called unsubstantiated claims when he’s offered up nothing but his own conjecture for his claims.
I apologize in advance for sounding rude with my next comment. I wish voice inflection and body language could be heard and seen on here. I just found that last statement by Brandon to me to be the height of the very arrogance he gets frustrated with in others.
He all but said, “I’m not interested in your opinions but you should be interested in mine.”
I’ll admit I’ve seen him admit to this tendency and, apparently, thinks his Christianity has helped him with it, but wow. Just…I don’t even know what to say to that.
LikeLike
Ruth, I read his comment last night and I was without words. But his comment was telling. I know Arch is standing on the side-lines saying “See, I told you so”, about his character. But what I see is a man desperate to believe.
Desperate!
LikeLike
Regardless of his *motivations* the end result is the same. De’Nile; it’s not just a river in Africa.
LikeLike
Yep!
LikeLike
Further, I’m glad he chose his words carefully. I’m afraid to know what he might have said had he not.
LikeLike
“You’re telling me you’re only interested in putting your ‘…ideas based on my own thinking and judgment’”
Sounds like you’re finally coming to know Brandon as I have from the onset.
“I just found that last statement by Brandon to me to be the height of the very arrogance he gets frustrated with in others.”
— which brings us back to self-aggrandizement.
@Neuro: “I know Arch is standing on the side-lines saying ‘See, I told you so’, about his character.”
Moi? Fair Lady, you wound me to the quick!
LikeLike
Right, I saw you make that comment to him and he questioned it because he didn’t understand what you meant by self-aggrandizement. He views this as humbling himself to talk to us.
LikeLike
Surely you don’t believe that he’s unaware of what “self-aggrandizement” means. That’s one of his ploys – he wants to know what it means to the person he’s addressing, he then proceeds to dissect it until it’s meaningless, and I refuse to allow him to play that game.
I also see that he’s spending an inordinate amount of time addressing you – predators search for what they perceive to be the weakest member of a herd – word to the wise.
LikeLike
No, I believe he knows what it means. I just thought maybe he didn’t understand how it might apply to him in his situation.
Yes, he does have a tendency to dissect things. He said he’s a doctor. Is he a biologist? He sliced and diced my reply pretty well to try to say he didn’t say exactly what he said. sigh…
“I also see that he’s spending an inordinate amount of time addressing you – predators search for what they perceive to be the weakest member of a herd – word to the wise.”
Perception is not reality. Don’t mistake kindness for weakness.
LikeLike
Ruth, I must not be communicating effectively because you, Arch, and Victoria did not understand what I was getting at and interpreted everything I said negatively.
I didn’t mean to say arrogantly that I know all arguments, rather, that I’ve been on both sides and have been studying this intensely for a very long time. Just like you! That’s why I said, just like you. You said the same thing and questioned if I brought anything unique to the table.
You asked: “. . . since we’re not a ‘rationality’ based community in your opinion, is that what you feel you’re bringing to the table here?”
That’s not what I meant at all! I said that the community primarily identifies with atheism rather than rationality. I said that it, as a whole, values atheism over rationality. That does not mean that it devalues rationality any more than, say, a community that primarily identifies with gardening.
Please don’t think I’m accusing you of being irrational or devaluing discussion. I’m not. I have really enjoyed our discussions. Maybe because you’re less of an anti-theist and more sober and you don’t hate me, we’ve had good engagements from my perspective.
I’ve just been reassessing what I’m doing here on the blogosphere. And, I’m trying to think deeper about the community aspect. I’ve been wondering if maybe there is an unspoken social rule that I am breaking by engaging atheist communities, and by breaking this rule, I am doing no good. I don’t mean good as in converting anyone, I mean just having any hint of positive influence.
I guess I’m saying that because this is the atheist community, this is all the fellowship many of you have, you feel kind of squeezed and would rather not any outsiders have anything substantial to say. It’s just not the right place or time or something. The atheism aspect is more important than discussion. Kind of like with Victoria’s blog. She has a specific focus and wants to drown out certain dissention, that’s why I was blocked by her to my understanding.
LikeLike
Brandon, after extensive exchanges for a couple of months now — sharing the research at length with you, and asking very simple questions, you come back with the same lines. “Oh, I think I understand what you are saying now” or “I think I understand the question now”, and then we will have to read yet another dissertation from you when all we asked was a simple question what didn’t require a dissertation to answer.
And to be honest with you — you come across to the unlearned as knowing what you are talking about but they are mostly word salads. You are either a very poor communicator or you are trying to wear us down — a tactic that debators sometimes use when they don’t have a cohesive argument.
LikeLike
Victoria, why do you want to insult me?
I never was debating, I thought we both knew that. And, I told you that the majority of material you presented I already knew from university and medical school.
We are not competing against each other. Our views are competing. And, please don’t forget that I am at least more in agreement with you than the average evangelical. At least to my understanding.
I just don’t understand the perceived competition and the need to insult. . .
LikeLike
I am not competing with you and never have. You have, however, established a clear pattern. You can’t be that naive.
LikeLike
And I will iterate what I shared on your blog — you are the only person I have ever banned — and I’ve been active on WordPress for over 2 years with well over a 1000 people following my blogs. Before that I had a website for 7 years, and never once did I ban anyone even when they had an opposing viewpoint.
LikeLike
Do you remember what I said the day you banned me? Did I not raise legitimate questions? My theory is that you banned me because I was too blunt and it made you angry. You “needed a strong drink” as you stated on Matt’s blog.
The reason I was more blunt than usual is because you were on Violet’s blog replying to everyone your theory that I “need to believe”. It just kept going and going and I was annoyed because it appeared you never took anything I said seriously and just popped out a quick theory and with the mind that I am somehow inferior to you and everyone else. “Look, he’s just psychologically-dependent, don’t take anything he says seriously” is what it sounded like.
But, I understand from your perspective why my bluntness would make you angry and hit the ban button. I really do understand, and I’m not upset at you. I even considered sending you an email apology. I should just apologize now. . . I’m sorry for losing all my tact and not showing you the respect you deserve. Also, I’m pleasantly surprised that you engaged me after all this.
Look, if your reiteration of how special a case I am in banning is intended to insult me or show that I am inferior in some way. . . I’ll just accept it. . .
LikeLike
Nono, you’ve are not seeing the bigger picture here, and you are completely off on why I banned you which I explained in your blog already. I have defended you several times asking others to give you the benefit of the doubt — to hear you out fully. But Brandon, after hundreds of comments exchanged, sharing data by experts in their fields — lengthy discussions by multiple people who’ve been in your shoes, you are either in serious denial, as Ruth mentioned, have a neurological disorder that has made you hyper-religious, or you “need to believe” so that you can love others and not go back to what you considered “sin”, or you are seriously, seriously indoctrinated (brainwashed), or you are one of the biggest BSer’s I’ve ever met. No Christian, after being exposed to the massive information about the Bible and Christianity, would still remain a Christian unless something wasn’t right upstairs.
Now, if you want to know what being blunt is — that’s being blunt. I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings. As I shared just recently with you, most of us are totally flabbergasted with you.
LikeLike
And for the record, you were the one who gave us the impression that you needed to believe because you thought that becoming a Christian again was the reason you were able to give up what you considered vices, and that you needed to be commanded by your god to love others otherwise you struggled with it. So that’s why I have said you need to believe. But after recent revelations you shared, I got a deeper understanding of it. If that’s the case — than fine. We all have to do what we have to do to survive. I simply have issues with your need to proselytize, knowing that the bible is bunk and that Christianity is one corrupt system that has caused much harm to children and women. That you can’t see this is very disconcerting.
LikeLike
“My theory is that you banned me because I was too blunt and it made you angry. You “needed a strong drink” as you stated on Matt’s blog.”
Brandon, your “theory” was way off base and you did not raise legitimate questions? Why? Because they had been addressed so many times and we were all like WTF? The reason I said I needed a strong drink, and everyone on Matt’s blog understood and most likely could relate, was because we were all exhausted and frustrated after spending a huge amount of our time trying to get thing across to you and yet you still acted like you didn’t get it or hadn’t paid one bit of attention to what had been shared.
I’ll take that drink now.
LikeLike
Victoria, you said: “. . . you were the one who gave us the impression that you needed to believe because you thought that becoming a Christian again was the reason you were able to give up what you considered vices. . .”
That Christianity changed me is empirical fact. But, the thing I emphasized time and time again that was ignored is that this change was *unexpected*. I was neither seeking nor expecting moral improvement. To me moral improvement is simply a side effect of seeking the truth. Why can’t it just be a side effect?
. . .
Now, if you banned me because of our overall interactions, then my theory is wrong. That’s OK. I’m not trying to figure out why I was banned. I know you have reasons. Being banned is completely irrelevant to not being taken serious or being accused of not being “right upstairs.” But, I forgive you Victoria. You’ve been through hell with your husband’s passing and religion. You have very strong emotional reasons to want Christian theism to be false.
Knowing that you value rationality, one thing I will NOT do is accuse you of being blinded by your emotions. And, I will NOT use any theory of your emotions to delegitimize you.
This is because I care about you. I’ve engaged a lively person whose has a lot of frustration and pain due to Christianity and who is hungry for truth and justice. So, I do care about you and have great respect for you and your endeavor.
Heck, I’m even on board for much of your endeavor especially putting an end to exorcisms as we know more about mental illness, putting an end to patriarchy, and curbing death anxiety and not letting it coerce us. To me these are good things. We now have therapies for mental illness, we know that gender does not determine competency, and there is a healthy concern for death that should not turn pathological.
There’s more that could be said, but it’s getting longwinded. . .
LikeLike
“That Christianity changed me is empirical fact. But, the thing I emphasized time and time again that was ignored is that this change was *unexpected*.”
No Brandon, it was not ignored. You either ignored or rebutted the data I presented explaining how and why this could happen. Just like you seemed to ignore or rebutted a good bit of of other data that was shared not only by me but by others. I do not need to be forgiven for banning you because I was completely justified in doing so, and I clearly explained why and your response was that you respected my decision. So be true to your word and drop it.
“I’ve engaged a lively person whose has a lot of frustration and pain due to Christianity and who is hungry for truth and justice.”
No, I do not have a lot of pain now except that Catholics and evangelicals continue to be a pain in the ass, not only in my life but in all of society here and abroad. Frustrated? Yes, and for good reason. Superstition and organized religion continues to hinder efforts to help people with neurological disorders, brain injuries and mental illness.
“So, I do care about you and have great respect for you and your endeavor.”
Thank you.
“Heck, I’m even on board for much of your endeavor especially putting an end to exorcisms as we know more about mental illness, putting an end to patriarchy, and curbing death anxiety and not letting it coerce us.”
Good to know. Putting an end to Christianity as we know it will be a good start.
LikeLike
Victoria, you never explained “why this could happen” as far as I remember. It went from my struggles into dopamine surges. So, I can’t see how you think this is a plausible theory for why I believe in God. And, of all the theories you could generate, you generated one that makes me inferior to the atheist community AND advertised it with such vigor. Why is that? What are you gaining from wanting someone to look inferior?
It’s this posturing and competition that is wrongheaded. But, I think there are reasons for wanting this. It’s a deep tribal urge, even seen in politics and apologetics. Also, from other frustrations. Maybe you thought I did not know much about neurobiology and would have an epiphany and reject Christianity. I don’t know. Regardless of its source, this posturing is unnecessary.
Even if I flat out said, “My belief in Christianity is irrational”, why the need to advertise this knowing that it would delegitimize me? That’s what offended me.
So, yes I did need to forgive you. That was not a pleasantry, it was real.
As for banning, I’m not offended. You have the right to censor things on your blog.
LikeLike
“Why is that? What are you gaining from wanting someone to look inferior?”
Brandon, you’ve made yourself feel inferior, not me. Your filter, your perception of reality, your fundamentalist upbringing caused you to primarily perceive your reality through your right amygdala (negative emotions) makes you tend to see the negative first. You bought into the indoctrination that says you are unworthy unless you submit to Jesus and accept that he died for your ‘sins’. It turns my stomach to see people so effing brainwashed. I don’t see you as inferior. I pity you for deliberately conditioning (reinforcing neural pathways/networks) yourself to falling for such BS again.
As far as not getting and/or rejecting the data that was presented to you comprehensively, I am not surprise by your comment. What part of “I had quite similar spiritual type experiences and physical manifestations” did you not get? What part of “there are sound scientific explanations for these experiences and manifestations” did you not get? And what part of “these can be replicated via neurotechnology, meditation and interhemispheric intrution” did you not get?
The difference is, Brandon, you spent most of your time understanding these experiences via your bible. I took the scientific route and found sound explanations. The difference is that you are hell bend on believing that a god did this for you, because without your belief in god, life has no meaning for you. Nearly everyone who has spent an enormous amount of their time with you are pretty much over it. You can’t see it or most likely, you don’t want to see it. So be it.
Good day and have a nice life. It’s most likely the only life we’ll get.
LikeLike
Brandon, the game is over for you. You can never accomplish your goal of self-aggrandizement here. You can’t even play to an honorable stalemate, you have only a couple of people left who will even play with you. The wisest thing to do is lay down your king and move on, but stay as long as you like, as long as you know what the final outcome will be – you can’t win.
LikeLike
Arch, if self-aggrandizement is the goal, then I’m not playing the game. You can accuse me of this or even believe it, that’s OK. I can’t stop you.
I don’t think you know how much humble pie I’ve had to swallow during my tenure here.
Anyway, *holds hand out*, shake?
LikeLike
Brandon,
I read what you said and repeated it back to you verbatim. It needed no interpretation.
Look, you are a Christian for what you believe to be rational reasons. Those do not resonate with me. My experience is different from yours.
I don’t hate anyone. That’s not in me. And while I’m not anti-theist, I’m also not about to give up my rational, well-thought-out reasons for leaving my faith.
As a community, we indeed value rationality above atheism. We are atheists/agnostics or whatever label you want to give precisely because of reason. No, I don’t value my atheism above rationality. It is because I so highly value rationality that I am atheist.
Say what you will, you may have the last word here, but I read exactly what you wrote. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand it.
LikeLike
Ruth, I said you are not an anti-theist or hate me!
I think you are applying the idea of the community to you as an individual. Of course, you value rationality and rational argumentation was key to developing your worldview. I’m not saying that my worldview is “more rational” as if there is some objective standard of rationality out there we can measure ourselves against. I’m not saying that I can beat you over the head with arguments and force you to change your worldview. That would be silly of me! What I’m talking about has nothing to do with individuals really.
So, I’m saying the hive mind, the community, the collective, whatever we should call it values atheism over rationality. It should not be a personal affront or even an affront to the community. An apologetic community will value Christian apologetics more than rationality. So what? Well, it might be important for some reason. I guess that’s what I’m thinking about.
LikeLike
“So, I’m saying the hive mind, the community, the collective, whatever we should call it values atheism over rationality.”
Clearly the amateur move of a desperate player. Rather than turning over your king, as I suggested, you’ve obviously decided to go out with a whimper, rather than with some degree of pride and dignity remaining.
You’ve realized that Howie and Ruth are the only ones left who will even play with you, Ruth more so than Howie, and your gambit is to toss out a hook, hoping to guarantee more play. Ruth can either ignore you and accept your implication that atheism is not rational, or she can come back and try to prove that is is, which still allows you a few more moves.
Pathetic, really.
LikeLike
I don’t view engaging people as a competition or a game.
You can continue trolling my comments, but I find they are just becoming too toxic to reply to. So, please stop.
LikeLike
I think you do.
I don’t recall ever asking you to reply.
While I appreciate the generosity of your offer, I think I’ll have to pass, but thanks for thinking of me.
RE Neuro: “What are you gaining from wanting someone to look inferior?” – I don’t see that she can help how you look, I mean if YOU can’t, why would you expect more of her?
I couldn’t help noticing your preference for engaging women – would you say you find them easier to manipulate, or are there some hidden Mommy issues in there somewhere?
LikeLike
Arch, as he recently revealed to us on his blog, he was raised by a severely depressed, suicidal mother. This may help to explain why he resonates with Jesus who has more feminine type characteristics. Jesus most likely represents a mommy figure to him, like he does to so many.
“He then lying on Jesus’ breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?” John 13:25
LikeLike
Well, when you think about it, if Jesus had only one human parent – (in Jesus’ own words, “God is a spirit“) – and that a woman, then chromosomally, his DNA would have contained only Dos Equis (two X’s), which would make him/her an exact clone of his mama – unless of course, magic was involved, the existence of which Brandon seems to deny, except of course for that required to bring a cold, dead corpse back to life – now that would have taken some ju-ju! “Hi there, my brain spent three days decomposing – now I have the I.Q. of a Bill O’Reilly – ‘…tide comes in, tide goes out, you can’t explain that!'”
Oh yeah, THAT happened.
LikeLike
“God is a spirit“) – and that a woman, then chromosomally, his DNA would have contained only Dos Equis (two X’s), which would make him/her an exact clone of his mama ”
Good point.
LikeLike
And, one more quick thing. Your ideas are important to me. For example, I’ve been reconsidering how much patriarchy remained in early Christianity. Women did enjoy a higher status in Christianity versus Paganism and Christians did not commit female infanticide, but I’ve been reconsidering whether some patriarchy remained, and not as a cultural assumption as in the Old Testament, but rather as an apostolic command.
So, these engagements are helpful to me.
LikeLike
Wow, Kudos on all the conversations draw by your post.
I didn’t read the revised Ephesians passage and shudder. I’m not sure if I should have.
I don’t really run my relationship with my wife on “gender rules” of who is supposed to act like what. But, I do find that my wife responds well to care and I respond well to respect. This dichotomy is more recklessly discussed by certain Christians; but, whether it is part of our biology or is a long-standing cultural condition, men and women are different.
And, so, I read that Ephesians passage as an honest attempt to describe how husbands and wives should treat each other in a way that is different than how they themselves would like to be treated. Obviously we should all treat each other well; but I think the author here is noting that the needs of husbands and of wives are not identical.
LikeLike
“But, I do find that my wife responds well to care and I respond well to respect.”
Surely you can see how silly that is. Everyone responds equally well to both care and respect, regardless of gender, and with no particular emphasis on either dependent on gender.
“I think the author here is noting that the needs of husbands and of wives are not identical.” No person should consistently be submissive to another in any kind of partnership. And there’s no way round that fact.
LikeLike
“Surely you can see how silly that is. Everyone responds equally well to both care and respect,”
Well said, Violet. I have yet to meet a man who didn’t welcome care, or a woman who didn’t welcome respect. When I was a Christian, the ‘god fearing’ men in my life wanted to be cared for, from having their meals cooked for them, their laundry washed, folded and ironed, the house cleaned, the children tended to, and sex on demand, etc.
I worked full time outside the home. In a Christian home, women are rarely nurtured unless it’s by other women. Neither my BIL or my step-dad ever put such demands on their partners, which is why they still remain best friends. They are cultural Christians who’ve never read the bible, or got indoctrinated by the church. The only time they went to church was to attend a wedding or a funeral. Indoctrinated Christian men tend to make the worst partners, IMO, and the worst lovers. I’m not just speaking for myself. I was in this for 40+ years, and I know how other Christian women felt. I was a Christian counselor.
LikeLike
Wait a second here, that’s totally uncool – nobody told me about the sex on demand part while I was a Christian – I never would have left if they had informed me about that part.
My wife and I surely will be heading to church this Sunday.
LikeLike
Yes, yes, you did write that on a public blog! 😉
LikeLike
LOL
I laugh, but I can tell you that as a woman, it was degrading. Even the original marriage laws of our country said that married women were to give sex in exchange for housing. Legal prostitution. It also said that when women married they gave up their personhood and became on flesh. This was not the case with men. This was adopted from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1756)
“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing.”
LikeLike
I was a little nervous about writing my joke because of that Victoria – I only wrote it because I knew you would know that I think the idea is atrocious.
LikeLike
Of course, and I didn’t post this on your account, Howie, and neither was I offended. I have the utmost respect for you, and consider you my friend. I thought it was funny. I posted this because I want fundamental Christian men to know how degrading it is for women to have to submit to their husbands in this manner. I could tell you some stories.
LikeLike
RE: “sex on demand”
In the immortal words of Charles dickens:
“Could I please have some more?”
(Oliver Twist)
LikeLike
*hands you a gym sock*
LikeLike
RE: “*hands you a gym sock*”
And a used one at that – ewwww!
LikeLike
Your sock, not mine. Enjoy your dopamine fix. 😛
LikeLike
Maybe his wife only responds to care but doesn’t care about respect. Who knows?
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree Violet. I respond well to both care and respect, and not sure which one more than the other. Maybe that means I’m half woman and half man. 😉 (wait, did I just write that on a public blog?)
LikeLike
“(wait, did I just write that on a public blog?)”
*gasp* Maybe, just maybe it means you’re human. What a concept. 😉
LikeLike
Maybe we’re all super-human uni-gender beings and that’s why the Christian perspective makes no sense. Just a thought. 🙂
LikeLike
Hahah — in other words…
—> more evolved.
LikeLike
I agree, Violet. When I was a fundy and trying my arse off to save my marriage I read a book entitled Love and Respect. In it the author espouses the notion(which I tried to do) that husbands should be given respect whether they are worthy of it or not because that is what men crave the most. The position of husband is to be respected whether the person deserves it or not. So that if you are in an abusive situation, if you just give your husband the respect he desires, he will become loving. Because love is supposedly what women crave the most.
For me this wasn’t true at all. I needed respect. How can you love someone you don’t respect? I guess I’ll pull a “Howie” here. I always thought I behaved more like the man in our relationship because I had complete self-control over my emotions where my husband was prone to emotional outbursts.
At the risk of seeming self-promoting here I wrote a post about the book:
LikeLike
Please post any links, never a problem. And this is certainly relevant to the conversation. It’s really interesting that all the things written here by the Christians boil down to the teachings and propaganda in their culture. Because I didn’t grow up with this form Christianity I was unaware how ingrained the gender role expectations are in their teachings. Yuck.
LikeLike
From Ruth’s post:
“Just look at it’s title. Love and Respect: The Love She Most Desires, the Respect He Desperately Needs. Sounds good doesn’t it? The answer to all your marital woes. Easy enough. Except it’s not. Even the title makes it seem as if the husband’s love toward his wife is just a want, but her respect for him is a deep seated need. Indeed there is a difference between wants and needs, is there not? It sort of minimizes what a man should be giving and elevates what a woman should be giving.”
I must say that alarm bells went off in my head just reading the title. Men “desperately” needs respect? Wow. That says it all. I resonate with what you said at the end:
“The idea that one should simply unconditionally respect or love their partner is ludicrous. It gives license to take advantage and take for granted your partner. This book posited the idea that just one person in the the relationship could do this. One person in a relationship cannot do the hard work for two.”
This is exactly the expectations that were taught to me and other women in church, and men ate it up. To be a Christian wife was exhausting, both mentally and physically and the main complaint I got from women was that they were exhausted and felt like they were being taken for granted. That’s because they were.
LikeLike
“Everyone responds equally well to both care and respect, regardless of gender, and with no particular emphasis on either dependent on gender.”
I think it would be hard to quantify this “equality.” I would wager instead, that each of our psyches is different than one another’s. I would also wager that “in general” or “on average” men’s psyches share common differences from women’s psyches.
And, whatever those differences, they were probably much more pronounced or apparent in society 2000 years ago. That was my point. That the author was trying to build mutual understanding and unity between the sexes rather than allowing them (the audience majoritavely men) to dismiss the other as beyond understanding.
LikeLike
@ Brandon
“Discussion is not valued”
Absolutely true….
Christians have no interest in discussing simply because they have nothing to discuss.
They have plenty to proselytize. Plenty to preach.
But to discuss? Not a chance. They are largely ignorant of the history of their religion, and the history and composition of their religious text, the Bible. In fact most read it, rather relying its dissemination from ( initially) parents and those in the church.
A well- informed, critically thinking Christian is a non believer.
The rest are varying degrees of mindless sheep, sadly indoctrinated from small using fear and guilt as reinforcement of their ”worthless sinful nature.”
LikeLike
In fact most don’t read it.
LikeLike