Page 5 of 10 [ 146 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10  Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,686
Location: Stendec

16 May 2019, 3:32 pm

magz wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
I’ve often seen religious people marry just so they can have some God-approved sex. In my frequent observations of this (well, not of the sex :P ), it doesn’t tend to lead to long term, marital bliss.
I was quite religious when we were getting married and this point was important for me. I was also aware that there is no "and they lived happily ever after" -- life is full of challenges both before and after marriage. But, honestly, all the ideology had melted with the experience of finding each other a few years before the ceremony. It was just about making things clear before God and the society.
"Happily Ever After" ... what a concept! Some quotes by comedian/philosopher Rita Rudner:

"I love being married. It’s so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life."

"I was asking a friend who has children, 'What if I have a baby and I dedicate my life to it and it grows up to hate me, and it blames everything wrong with its life on me?' And she said, 'If?'”

"I know I want to have children while my parents are still young enough to take care of them."

"If your husband has difficulty in getting to sleep, the words, 'We need to talk about our relationship' may help."

"If you never want to see a man again say, 'I love you, I want to marry you, I want to have your children'. Sometimes they leave skid marks."

... and my favorite:

"When I date a guy, I think, 'Is this the man I want my children to spend every-other weekend with?"


_________________
"I would rather be hated for who I am than loved for who I am not."
-- Kurt Cobain (1967 – 1994)


breaks0
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

Joined: 8 Jul 2018
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 426
Location: New York

16 May 2019, 5:15 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
Having been in a submissive marriage as a Christian wife, I have had the opposite experience. It was degrading, demeaning, offensive, and...I’m running out of negative adjectives. I need to drink more coffee!

I wouldn’t be against a marriage based on equality, but I don’t think that a piece of paper necessarily has a whole lot to do with love.

The Bible is a misogynistic handbook. There’s no reason why women can’t achieve the same things men have (unless it’s being able to hit targets with their pee).

I thought you said you were Christian or something. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, otherwise totally agreed. This is a part of why feminism is not the problem. Why would you oppose a belief system that simply believes in gender equality anyway? It baffles me when I see people on the spectrum (one marginalized community) have an issue w/feminism or gender equality, racial equality, etc. It isn't hard to figure out that you'll be the next target (as people on the spectrum and disabled people already are) if you open the doors to opponents of gender, racial and other forms of equality between people.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,919

16 May 2019, 5:30 pm

breaks0 wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Having been in a submissive marriage as a Christian wife, I have had the opposite experience. It was degrading, demeaning, offensive, and...I’m running out of negative adjectives. I need to drink more coffee!

I wouldn’t be against a marriage based on equality, but I don’t think that a piece of paper necessarily has a whole lot to do with love.

The Bible is a misogynistic handbook. There’s no reason why women can’t achieve the same things men have (unless it’s being able to hit targets with their pee).

I thought you said you were Christian or something. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, otherwise totally agreed. This is a part of why feminism is not the problem. Why would you oppose a belief system that simply believes in gender equality anyway? It baffles me when I see people on the spectrum (one marginalized community) have an issue w/feminism or gender equality, racial equality, etc. It isn't hard to figure out that you'll be the next target (as people on the spectrum and disabled people already are) if you open the doors to opponents of gender, racial and other forms of equality between people.


Im not a Christian, but I used to be and know the Bible very well and have fun sparring with it sometimes.

I think that in one of my posts it may have looked like I was but I was really just being sarcastic.



Twilightprincess
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Sep 2016
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,919

16 May 2019, 5:33 pm

Fnord wrote:
magz wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
I’ve often seen religious people marry just so they can have some God-approved sex. In my frequent observations of this (well, not of the sex :P ), it doesn’t tend to lead to long term, marital bliss.
I was quite religious when we were getting married and this point was important for me. I was also aware that there is no "and they lived happily ever after" -- life is full of challenges both before and after marriage. But, honestly, all the ideology had melted with the experience of finding each other a few years before the ceremony. It was just about making things clear before God and the society.
"Happily Ever After" ... what a concept! Some quotes by comedian/philosopher Rita Rudner:

"I love being married. It’s so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life."

"I was asking a friend who has children, 'What if I have a baby and I dedicate my life to it and it grows up to hate me, and it blames everything wrong with its life on me?' And she said, 'If?'”

"I know I want to have children while my parents are still young enough to take care of them."

"If your husband has difficulty in getting to sleep, the words, 'We need to talk about our relationship' may help."

"If you never want to see a man again say, 'I love you, I want to marry you, I want to have your children'. Sometimes they leave skid marks."

... and my favorite:

"When I date a guy, I think, 'Is this the man I want my children to spend every-other weekend with?"


Yeah. I think of marital bliss as loving someone even though that person drives you nuts sometimes.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,671
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 May 2019, 6:15 pm

BlueIris24 wrote:
Having read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, I have formed my own conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 tells us that a woman is to be stoned to death if she doesn’t scream while being raped.

The problem is...WHAT, exactly? Is it that a woman is put to death for something? They put men to death for crimes against women, too.

Actually...if you look in the greater context of the OT, our concept of due process is outright suspended in favor of women when it comes to crimes against them. For instance, there is a distinction between a woman being violated where she can call out for help and where she cannot get help, where she might be vulnerable. The "standard" comparing it to modern justice is pretty low. A woman only really has to accuse a man of violating her and he's toast. He actually has to prove his innocence, which is unthinkable in the modern west. He would have to have witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts in order to dismantle a false accusation, after which she would be punished the same way a rapist would.

Also, I think if you take a close look at actual OT laws, a lot of the sexual stuff is tongue-in-cheek. The penalty for rape of an engaged woman is pretty steep. However, as I've already shown, it was technically possible to accuse pretty much any guy of rape. If you wanted to marry for love and a father refused to allow a marriage as per custom of the time, a young man only need have sex with his lover one time. One or the other could come forward with a "rape" confession, even it was perfectly consensual, he would be charged a fine, and he could have her as his wife. Her family couldn't do a thing about it. THOSE laws are there to protect the innocent primarily, but at the same time they were given at a time when women were especially vulnerable and, in some cultures, traded like chattel. So making a "rape" claim, even if it wasn't "rape" as we define rape, could be a legal means to an end that I imagine ancient society winked at. Further, if you read a bit more closely, premarital sex isn't STRICTLY forbidden, either. Someone would have to come forward and actually run their mouth about it for anything to happen, and inasmuch as people wanted to have sex, hopefully, relatively few people were stupid enough to blab about something that is genuinely harmless. Virginity, for instance, served as evidence that a man's bloodline continued through the children he claimed as his. If a man truly loves a woman, virginity isn't really going to matter that much. So if they can't provide evidence of virginity and decide to keep their mouths shut about it, all it means is he forfeits his right to a divorce on those grounds.

My objections to litigation of sex abuse cases in the United States is the inconsistency by which justice is applied. I actually do support suspending due process for sex abuse. Men should be more careful to stay visible so false claims don't happen (I actually do believe most "me too" claims are authentic), but more importantly that operating in crowds men protect each other from falling into bad situations, making poor decisions. Last year I went to a conference on sexual abuse prevention. The keynote speaker made a distinction between adults who are sexually attracted to children versus adults who act on those impulses. Someone in the audience asked what we do about adults who feel an attraction to children but never act on it. She said, "Nothing." Lots of people are predisposed to behaviors but can control themselves well enough to not act on their own predispositions. There's no point in going after adults who FEEL something but never actually commit a crime. However, there are those who might commit a crime if they are presented with the opportunity. What we do as educators is intervene in those situations when we see suspicious behavior. We don't have to report them to administrators. We just walk in the room, get the would-be abuser away from the child, and calmly explain "We don't do that here." That person knows he's (or she's) on notice and might rethink going after a child again. You accomplish two things with this: You stop abuse before it happens; you turn someone's behavior around before an otherwise valuable and talented teacher gets sent to prison. In the context of men committing crimes against women, the same applies. If men stay visible, they CAN'T commit a crime, and if they even THINK about it, they already know they are being watched closely. And if it happened that someone made a false accusation, it would be known to everyone as soon as the accusation was made that it was untrue.

I'm ok with suspending due process EXACTLY for the same reason as "if a woman is alone in a field..." If a man goes out to a field where he knows a woman is alone, is there really any question as to his intentions? If a woman walks into a dark alley and accuses a man of attacking her, I'd want to know what he was doing in the dark alley in the first place. You don't need due process to know he's guilty. But if everyone saw him at the party when the alleged attack took place, then you know she's lying. I'm sure there are other cases that illustrate this same Biblical principle, but for the most part an accuser must show evidence, or at least witnesses, in order to prove he or she is a victim of a crime. Taking care to not ever appear anywhere alone is a good first step to not only proving you didn't commit a crime, but also to help make sure you're not in a position to commit a crime in the first place.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God increased Eve’s birth pains for eating a piece of fruit (I hope it was delicious)

Does it actually say "God increased Eve's birth pains"? Or is it a prophecy that God will multiply pain in child birth? One is an active, ongoing punishment. The other is the result of cause and effect. The wording of that verse is "I will..." indicating something that will happen in the future. The paradise God created on earth has been broken by rebellion. Therefore, pain is a consequence of a fallen creation. I think it's something God allowed to happen rather than something God MADE happen. I don't disagree that God isn't responsible for it, but there is a sharp difference between something happening as a consequence as opposed to something God caused through direct action. Eve wasn't pregnant when she was cast out of Eden.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Woman are told to be silent in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

In context it's a matter of keeping order in a church meeting. Prophetesses and deaconesses are not unheard of in the NT. I suspect this has something to do with problems relating to a specific 1st century congregation and serves as a warning to other churches that may have the same problems.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

So Christian marriage should reflect the love of God for humanity. Got it. That's actually a good thing. Glad we agree.

BlueIris24 wrote:
“Wives be in subjection to your husbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Context, please?

BlueIris24 wrote:
None of Christ’s apostles were women

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb and was instructed to "go forth and tell." So between the empty tomb and meeting up with the guys, Mary Magdalene WAS the church. Claims that women are insignificant in the church runs contrary to scripture.

Further, that men bear all the weight for congregational care and advancing the gospel is pretty impressive. Intimidating, actually. That men are expected to lay their lives on the line for the cause of Christ, that men have to uphold a higher standard...that's a pretty big responsibility. We are expected to be on the front lines not in just witnessing to others, but also to care for widows and orphans. We are held to that standard of moral perfection. That's not to say women aren't held to high moral standards. But it's most often in the Bible that men are held up as the examples, as the leaders, as the models. A moral failing has a greater, more direct impact on men most immediately, with secondary impact on women who depend on them.

Also, we can't confuse the modern world with the ancient world. Of course men are on the front lines, of course women are vulnerable when men fail. We don't really have that in our society right now. But with men bearing the responsibility of spiritual leadership, it does in a way let women off the hook. I do think that's self-evident with single-mother families. I'm amazed at these women and the excellent work they do raising their children. But I do think with a strong male presence to lighten the load these wonderful moms could be even more effective.

That's exactly where complementarianism is vital...if women are better suited to raising families, especially how we see single moms in our day and age, and if women aren't burdened with the dangers of discipleship, spreading the gospel is much easier. I know plenty women missionaries. But being a missionary does require giving a lot of yourself and even family-related goals in order to succeed. I mean, good grief, if Christianity gives you an out, why not take it? Men exclusively as apostles, who are in the best position to even be apostles to begin with, is not a bad thing for women.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God impregnating Mary against her consent could be viewed as rape

Except it wasn't against her will. Mary agreed that what she wanted was God's will. Becoming pregnant under the Holy Spirit was something God knew Mary was willing to do. Sure, it probably caught her by surprise. But come on, lots of pregnancies are surprises. One of my children was born after the condom broke. Does my broken condom count as rape?

BlueIris24 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus speak out about the deplorable conditions women are living under,

Actually...Jesus talks about EVERYONE who lives in poverty or under oppression. That counts men AND women. Jesus promises better for ALL who believe. Not all women who SUBMIT, but all who BELIEVE. Jesus wasn't concerned about the male condition, or the female condition, but rather the HUMAN condition. He was concerned about the battle for the human soul, not the battle between the sexes.

Answer this for me, please: Where in the gospels does Jesus teach that men should oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
so it apparently doesn’t bother them a whole lot which isn’t a surprise considering there are scriptures encouraging parents to beat their kids with rods. (Proverbs 23:13)

ROFL!! ! That's one's hilarious!

Look...the passage in Proverbs actually refers back to laws regarding the discipline of children. If a teenager commits a crime, or if a child grows up to commit a crime, he is at risk of being put to death for committing a crime. Murder, specifically, is the main crime for which death is the ONLY remedy under lex talionis. Or if a small child runs wild and does something and gets killed as a matter of consequence, it doesn't matter. There's always a risk that one's progeny ends up dead from wrongdoing in some form another, whether through self-harm from willful risk-taking or through deliberate action in violation of the legal rights of others. Physical punishment is a means of deterrence. One could make the argument that physical punishment is a method of last resort to get a young person's attention while they remain in the care of their parents. You could also interpret "the rod" as being "any means necessary" to correct a child's behavior. A child, whether a small child or one's adult children, benefits from correction when their behavior changes.

I have no problem with physical punishment. When I studied educational psychology, I noticed that physical punishment was frowned upon, and I've worked in schools where paddling was encouraged and in schools where it was outright forbidden. But it's a fascinating topic. We were slow to use corporal punishment as parents, but we noticed some interesting things as our children grew.

Our oldest child was always prone to temper tantrums and is still overly sensitive. I have no problems calming an angry child without physical force. It was just the nature of HOW my oldest son used to act out that we found alarming. He would do stuff, break things, empty out garbage cans, head-butt his mother, and all kinds of things. She'd look him in the eye and say "No," explain that what he was doing was hurting her, etc. He'd show absolutely no emotion whatsoever when he was corrected. It took no time at all before he was doing something else destructive.

After much disagreement with my wife, I took matters into my own hands, literally. That changed EVERYTHING. My wife realized I was right about something, that our son didn't FEEL remorse for having done something hurtful and destructive. He had no concept of sympathy, or empathy, or any regard for anyone else. It seemed almost sociopathic. Until I punished him. He QUICKLY associated the things he was doing with pain and guilt. He actually started to FEEL remorse from things he was told were wrong, especially when it was obvious someone was hurting from what he did. For about two years, his mother and I could just give him "the look," and pure FEAR over what might happen if he misbehaved would instantly cause him to reverse course. If you were to ask him or any of his siblings NOW why we do certain things and not others, he would matter-of-fact explain that those things are right or wrong; he might even be able to tell you WHY they are right/wrong. But at 3 years, you'd have thought he was a demon child. That phase didn't last too many weeks and he was a perfect angel again. Make no mistake, physical punishment is EFFECTIVE.

Where you run into trouble is that even a 3-year old can ADAPT to physical punishment to the point they are unaffected by it. We don't practice physical punishment as an automatic response, but rather a means of correction where other methods have been exhausted. And because of the consistency we've practiced with them at such a young age, we don't really ever spank our kids. My oldest son is about to be in 7th grade, middle child in 5th grade, and youngest in 2nd grade. My oldest two have aged out, plus they don't really DO anything they'd get in trouble over. The youngest has grown up standing on the shoulders of his older siblings, so doing the right thing is more about peer pressure than personal experience. Doesn't matter; good habits are good habits. I never question where they come from. But I do firmly believe in doing what it takes to keep kids from harm, especially when they're adults. If that means "the rod," then that means "the rod." If it means taking away privileges, that counts as correction, too. My formula is minimum correction necessary for maximum effectiveness. If my children get to college and we give them a car for transportation only to find out they are wasting OUR money on lifestyle and bad decisions, we have no qualms about taking the car away. We have no qualms about not paying for their college and letting them get kicked out--not because we can force them to live a certain way, but because it would be wrong on principle to support their wrongdoing. There's no 100% guarantee of ANY method getting results at any stage as long as children have agency. But where they are under our care, no matter what age, we are determined to control their circumstances.

I feel like we have a unique relationship, though. We're pretty close. My oldest has perfect pitch, loves old James
Bond movies, and is really into science and robots. He's playing "Live And Let Die" on the piano right behind me as I'm typing this. I'm also teaching him to play the clarinet. He goes to a Catholic school, and completely ON HIS OWN came to us and said Marianist dogma made him feel weird. To be as young as he is, and with all we've lived through that he has such a huge imagination and can make up his own mind is a little intimidating to me. I'm proud of him. It's not because we punished him the way we did, but rather as a cumulative effect of our overall philosophy and faith. All three of our kids love Thursday nights because they get to watch their favorite TV shows: Father Brown and Doctor Blake. I believe "the rod" is just as figurative as it is literal. Not merely a means of correcting misbehavior, but also of attaining focus, wisdom, and a strong work ethic among other things as habits that will secure their success later in life.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The list could go on and on.

Riiiiiiiight

BlueIris24 wrote:
Apart from all the inherent misogyny in the Bible, I still couldn’t be a Christian. It’s just too far-fetched and not founded on any real evidence.

What inherent misogyny?

BlueIris24 wrote:
As someone who is a lesbian and doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, I agree there is a LOT of blatant misogyny in the Bible.

Where in the gospels does Jesus command His followers to oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity because if people were to take the Bible 100% literally and with no room for differing interpretations, we'd live in one terrible society.

I disagree. I think we're living in a terrible society because we DON'T take the Bible 100% literally. Part of the problem is there are too many people, supposedly Christian or, as I like to say, NOMINAL Christians who pick and choose what they're going to take literally and how they are going to apply that. And usually when they do that they're picking and choosing to suit their own purpose rather than to carry out the real purpose of the passage to begin with. One commandment is translated as "Do not kill," which in turn is interpreted as being against all killing. Actually, if you read all of the OT, it never gives a directive to "NEVER kill." The OT clarifies that more along the lines of modern-day definitions of murder, which is a very specific form of killing. It's a deliberate, unjustified homicide. Killing is allowed in the Bible where killing is NECESSARY. I'm pro-death penalty for murderers. And if you ask where I stand on abortion, same thing. Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to keep the mother alive? Then it's killing as a form of self-defense. But if the life of the mother is not at risk, then it's senseless, purposeful killing and therefore immoral. In truth, all homicide is immoral. But also immoral is the fact that it is sometimes made necessary. So even though two wrongs don't make a right, I do believe it is the right of people to protect themselves and each other. Killing is an unfortunate consequence of the desire of some to hurt or kill others, and it's even more immoral to deny someone the right to defend themselves. And no, that doesn't conflict with my views on abortion. It can be reasonably determined whether a baby is an imminent threat on the life of the mother and reasonable action be taken, often saving the lives of both; otherwise, the taking of an unborn baby's life as a matter of justice should be matched by taking the life of the one who caused the baby to be there in the first place. But until we execute rapists for being rapists, there's not much a of a logically consistent case for aborting babies that are the consequence of rape or incest. Once could ALMOST make a case for abortion as accidental death; however, there's nothing accidental about it.

Dealing with homicide (generally) or murder through a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-brainer, and that's only ONE violent crime example that I've treated fairly thoroughly in this post. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible reveals a system of equivalency for dispensing justice. A person who loses eyesight as a matter of retaliation is pretty useless to society; however, a person who LITERALLY repays his debt to those who he's caused harm, whether through accident or deliberate action, can remain useful to society, can keep his freedom, AND can support his victim. The law of retaliation is profoundly merciful and compassionate in that regard; in another culture, you might get your hand cut off for stealing. The Bible? Just give back what you took plus a little something extra to say you're sorry and you mean it. This is exactly what insurance policies are all about. Everyone is at risk of being in an accident or causing one through no fault of their own. The OT has this elegantly worked out, and it's what western societies practice most often. So...while I do believe that our society would be better if we followed a literal interpretation of the Bible, I also believe that our society being as good as it IS is due to the extent to which we DO follow Biblical teachings.

Somewhat tangential, but important, is just exactly how good/evil our society really is. I don't think our society is all bad. But I do think the problems we have are largely imaginary. I think people have funny ideas of agency and personal freedom, of achievement and of altruism and entitlement. As opposed to how many people interpret the Bible, I don't see humanity as NECESSARILY evil. I think the true evils of the world are rooted in greed, whereas most of the problems we ACTUALLY had could be cured if people came to value something. I think a slight majority of folks are really self-loathers and delusional driven by hatred of those who have much out of the produce of their effort. I believe in celebrating all that is good and affirming those that do good. However, there's a tendency towards punishing people for achievement for the sake of "fairness" and "equality." I tend to ignore negative people.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The misogyny in the Bible, along with the absurd rules and demands, are one of the reasons I'm not a Christian anymore.

What misogyny? What absurd rules and demands?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,671
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 May 2019, 6:25 pm

Fnord wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
magz wrote:
kdm1984 wrote:
@AngelRho nice thorough reply. Husband and I agreed it would be best for me not to engage Twilightprincess further because of our completely different backgrounds and ways of viewing things, so I put her on the foe list to avoid further confrontation and derailing of this thread.
Discussions are meant to show "different backgrounds and ways of viewing things".
The Bible encourages us to love our enemies. Also, Galatians 5:22, 23 tells us that love, peace, forbearance, and self control are some of the fruits of God’s Holy Spirit. Thus, personal attacks would not be reflecting the Spirit that true Christians should be annointed with or the example of Christ. It would also not be the way to be won over to the Truth in the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 9:22)
The Bible also speak out against bigamy, to wit: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other..." -- Jesus (in Matthew 6:24)

Fnord: I'd have thought you of all people at least were above quoting out of context.

The Bible doesn't explicitly ban polygamy, although the first chapters of Genesis do set the precedent of one man/one woman. The Bible more shows that polygamy happened without really commenting on it. However, if you look at how many problems polygamous relations caused, it hardly looks like anything worth doing.



BlueIris24
Raven
Raven

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 112
Location: USA

16 May 2019, 7:58 pm

AngelRho wrote:
BlueIris24 wrote:
Having read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, I have formed my own conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 tells us that a woman is to be stoned to death if she doesn’t scream while being raped.

The problem is...WHAT, exactly? Is it that a woman is put to death for something? They put men to death for crimes against women, too.

Actually...if you look in the greater context of the OT, our concept of due process is outright suspended in favor of women when it comes to crimes against them. For instance, there is a distinction between a woman being violated where she can call out for help and where she cannot get help, where she might be vulnerable. The "standard" comparing it to modern justice is pretty low. A woman only really has to accuse a man of violating her and he's toast. He actually has to prove his innocence, which is unthinkable in the modern west. He would have to have witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts in order to dismantle a false accusation, after which she would be punished the same way a rapist would.

Also, I think if you take a close look at actual OT laws, a lot of the sexual stuff is tongue-in-cheek. The penalty for rape of an engaged woman is pretty steep. However, as I've already shown, it was technically possible to accuse pretty much any guy of rape. If you wanted to marry for love and a father refused to allow a marriage as per custom of the time, a young man only need have sex with his lover one time. One or the other could come forward with a "rape" confession, even it was perfectly consensual, he would be charged a fine, and he could have her as his wife. Her family couldn't do a thing about it. THOSE laws are there to protect the innocent primarily, but at the same time they were given at a time when women were especially vulnerable and, in some cultures, traded like chattel. So making a "rape" claim, even if it wasn't "rape" as we define rape, could be a legal means to an end that I imagine ancient society winked at. Further, if you read a bit more closely, premarital sex isn't STRICTLY forbidden, either. Someone would have to come forward and actually run their mouth about it for anything to happen, and inasmuch as people wanted to have sex, hopefully, relatively few people were stupid enough to blab about something that is genuinely harmless. Virginity, for instance, served as evidence that a man's bloodline continued through the children he claimed as his. If a man truly loves a woman, virginity isn't really going to matter that much. So if they can't provide evidence of virginity and decide to keep their mouths shut about it, all it means is he forfeits his right to a divorce on those grounds.

My objections to litigation of sex abuse cases in the United States is the inconsistency by which justice is applied. I actually do support suspending due process for sex abuse. Men should be more careful to stay visible so false claims don't happen (I actually do believe most "me too" claims are authentic), but more importantly that operating in crowds men protect each other from falling into bad situations, making poor decisions. Last year I went to a conference on sexual abuse prevention. The keynote speaker made a distinction between adults who are sexually attracted to children versus adults who act on those impulses. Someone in the audience asked what we do about adults who feel an attraction to children but never act on it. She said, "Nothing." Lots of people are predisposed to behaviors but can control themselves well enough to not act on their own predispositions. There's no point in going after adults who FEEL something but never actually commit a crime. However, there are those who might commit a crime if they are presented with the opportunity. What we do as educators is intervene in those situations when we see suspicious behavior. We don't have to report them to administrators. We just walk in the room, get the would-be abuser away from the child, and calmly explain "We don't do that here." That person knows he's (or she's) on notice and might rethink going after a child again. You accomplish two things with this: You stop abuse before it happens; you turn someone's behavior around before an otherwise valuable and talented teacher gets sent to prison. In the context of men committing crimes against women, the same applies. If men stay visible, they CAN'T commit a crime, and if they even THINK about it, they already know they are being watched closely. And if it happened that someone made a false accusation, it would be known to everyone as soon as the accusation was made that it was untrue.

I'm ok with suspending due process EXACTLY for the same reason as "if a woman is alone in a field..." If a man goes out to a field where he knows a woman is alone, is there really any question as to his intentions? If a woman walks into a dark alley and accuses a man of attacking her, I'd want to know what he was doing in the dark alley in the first place. You don't need due process to know he's guilty. But if everyone saw him at the party when the alleged attack took place, then you know she's lying. I'm sure there are other cases that illustrate this same Biblical principle, but for the most part an accuser must show evidence, or at least witnesses, in order to prove he or she is a victim of a crime. Taking care to not ever appear anywhere alone is a good first step to not only proving you didn't commit a crime, but also to help make sure you're not in a position to commit a crime in the first place.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God increased Eve’s birth pains for eating a piece of fruit (I hope it was delicious)

Does it actually say "God increased Eve's birth pains"? Or is it a prophecy that God will multiply pain in child birth? One is an active, ongoing punishment. The other is the result of cause and effect. The wording of that verse is "I will..." indicating something that will happen in the future. The paradise God created on earth has been broken by rebellion. Therefore, pain is a consequence of a fallen creation. I think it's something God allowed to happen rather than something God MADE happen. I don't disagree that God isn't responsible for it, but there is a sharp difference between something happening as a consequence as opposed to something God caused through direct action. Eve wasn't pregnant when she was cast out of Eden.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Woman are told to be silent in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

In context it's a matter of keeping order in a church meeting. Prophetesses and deaconesses are not unheard of in the NT. I suspect this has something to do with problems relating to a specific 1st century congregation and serves as a warning to other churches that may have the same problems.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

So Christian marriage should reflect the love of God for humanity. Got it. That's actually a good thing. Glad we agree.

BlueIris24 wrote:
“Wives be in subjection to your husbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Context, please?

BlueIris24 wrote:
None of Christ’s apostles were women

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb and was instructed to "go forth and tell." So between the empty tomb and meeting up with the guys, Mary Magdalene WAS the church. Claims that women are insignificant in the church runs contrary to scripture.

Further, that men bear all the weight for congregational care and advancing the gospel is pretty impressive. Intimidating, actually. That men are expected to lay their lives on the line for the cause of Christ, that men have to uphold a higher standard...that's a pretty big responsibility. We are expected to be on the front lines not in just witnessing to others, but also to care for widows and orphans. We are held to that standard of moral perfection. That's not to say women aren't held to high moral standards. But it's most often in the Bible that men are held up as the examples, as the leaders, as the models. A moral failing has a greater, more direct impact on men most immediately, with secondary impact on women who depend on them.

Also, we can't confuse the modern world with the ancient world. Of course men are on the front lines, of course women are vulnerable when men fail. We don't really have that in our society right now. But with men bearing the responsibility of spiritual leadership, it does in a way let women off the hook. I do think that's self-evident with single-mother families. I'm amazed at these women and the excellent work they do raising their children. But I do think with a strong male presence to lighten the load these wonderful moms could be even more effective.

That's exactly where complementarianism is vital...if women are better suited to raising families, especially how we see single moms in our day and age, and if women aren't burdened with the dangers of discipleship, spreading the gospel is much easier. I know plenty women missionaries. But being a missionary does require giving a lot of yourself and even family-related goals in order to succeed. I mean, good grief, if Christianity gives you an out, why not take it? Men exclusively as apostles, who are in the best position to even be apostles to begin with, is not a bad thing for women.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God impregnating Mary against her consent could be viewed as rape

Except it wasn't against her will. Mary agreed that what she wanted was God's will. Becoming pregnant under the Holy Spirit was something God knew Mary was willing to do. Sure, it probably caught her by surprise. But come on, lots of pregnancies are surprises. One of my children was born after the condom broke. Does my broken condom count as rape?

BlueIris24 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus speak out about the deplorable conditions women are living under,

Actually...Jesus talks about EVERYONE who lives in poverty or under oppression. That counts men AND women. Jesus promises better for ALL who believe. Not all women who SUBMIT, but all who BELIEVE. Jesus wasn't concerned about the male condition, or the female condition, but rather the HUMAN condition. He was concerned about the battle for the human soul, not the battle between the sexes.

Answer this for me, please: Where in the gospels does Jesus teach that men should oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
so it apparently doesn’t bother them a whole lot which isn’t a surprise considering there are scriptures encouraging parents to beat their kids with rods. (Proverbs 23:13)

ROFL!! ! That's one's hilarious!

Look...the passage in Proverbs actually refers back to laws regarding the discipline of children. If a teenager commits a crime, or if a child grows up to commit a crime, he is at risk of being put to death for committing a crime. Murder, specifically, is the main crime for which death is the ONLY remedy under lex talionis. Or if a small child runs wild and does something and gets killed as a matter of consequence, it doesn't matter. There's always a risk that one's progeny ends up dead from wrongdoing in some form another, whether through self-harm from willful risk-taking or through deliberate action in violation of the legal rights of others. Physical punishment is a means of deterrence. One could make the argument that physical punishment is a method of last resort to get a young person's attention while they remain in the care of their parents. You could also interpret "the rod" as being "any means necessary" to correct a child's behavior. A child, whether a small child or one's adult children, benefits from correction when their behavior changes.

I have no problem with physical punishment. When I studied educational psychology, I noticed that physical punishment was frowned upon, and I've worked in schools where paddling was encouraged and in schools where it was outright forbidden. But it's a fascinating topic. We were slow to use corporal punishment as parents, but we noticed some interesting things as our children grew.

Our oldest child was always prone to temper tantrums and is still overly sensitive. I have no problems calming an angry child without physical force. It was just the nature of HOW my oldest son used to act out that we found alarming. He would do stuff, break things, empty out garbage cans, head-butt his mother, and all kinds of things. She'd look him in the eye and say "No," explain that what he was doing was hurting her, etc. He'd show absolutely no emotion whatsoever when he was corrected. It took no time at all before he was doing something else destructive.

After much disagreement with my wife, I took matters into my own hands, literally. That changed EVERYTHING. My wife realized I was right about something, that our son didn't FEEL remorse for having done something hurtful and destructive. He had no concept of sympathy, or empathy, or any regard for anyone else. It seemed almost sociopathic. Until I punished him. He QUICKLY associated the things he was doing with pain and guilt. He actually started to FEEL remorse from things he was told were wrong, especially when it was obvious someone was hurting from what he did. For about two years, his mother and I could just give him "the look," and pure FEAR over what might happen if he misbehaved would instantly cause him to reverse course. If you were to ask him or any of his siblings NOW why we do certain things and not others, he would matter-of-fact explain that those things are right or wrong; he might even be able to tell you WHY they are right/wrong. But at 3 years, you'd have thought he was a demon child. That phase didn't last too many weeks and he was a perfect angel again. Make no mistake, physical punishment is EFFECTIVE.

Where you run into trouble is that even a 3-year old can ADAPT to physical punishment to the point they are unaffected by it. We don't practice physical punishment as an automatic response, but rather a means of correction where other methods have been exhausted. And because of the consistency we've practiced with them at such a young age, we don't really ever spank our kids. My oldest son is about to be in 7th grade, middle child in 5th grade, and youngest in 2nd grade. My oldest two have aged out, plus they don't really DO anything they'd get in trouble over. The youngest has grown up standing on the shoulders of his older siblings, so doing the right thing is more about peer pressure than personal experience. Doesn't matter; good habits are good habits. I never question where they come from. But I do firmly believe in doing what it takes to keep kids from harm, especially when they're adults. If that means "the rod," then that means "the rod." If it means taking away privileges, that counts as correction, too. My formula is minimum correction necessary for maximum effectiveness. If my children get to college and we give them a car for transportation only to find out they are wasting OUR money on lifestyle and bad decisions, we have no qualms about taking the car away. We have no qualms about not paying for their college and letting them get kicked out--not because we can force them to live a certain way, but because it would be wrong on principle to support their wrongdoing. There's no 100% guarantee of ANY method getting results at any stage as long as children have agency. But where they are under our care, no matter what age, we are determined to control their circumstances.

I feel like we have a unique relationship, though. We're pretty close. My oldest has perfect pitch, loves old James
Bond movies, and is really into science and robots. He's playing "Live And Let Die" on the piano right behind me as I'm typing this. I'm also teaching him to play the clarinet. He goes to a Catholic school, and completely ON HIS OWN came to us and said Marianist dogma made him feel weird. To be as young as he is, and with all we've lived through that he has such a huge imagination and can make up his own mind is a little intimidating to me. I'm proud of him. It's not because we punished him the way we did, but rather as a cumulative effect of our overall philosophy and faith. All three of our kids love Thursday nights because they get to watch their favorite TV shows: Father Brown and Doctor Blake. I believe "the rod" is just as figurative as it is literal. Not merely a means of correcting misbehavior, but also of attaining focus, wisdom, and a strong work ethic among other things as habits that will secure their success later in life.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The list could go on and on.

Riiiiiiiight

BlueIris24 wrote:
Apart from all the inherent misogyny in the Bible, I still couldn’t be a Christian. It’s just too far-fetched and not founded on any real evidence.

What inherent misogyny?

BlueIris24 wrote:
As someone who is a lesbian and doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, I agree there is a LOT of blatant misogyny in the Bible.

Where in the gospels does Jesus command His followers to oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity because if people were to take the Bible 100% literally and with no room for differing interpretations, we'd live in one terrible society.

I disagree. I think we're living in a terrible society because we DON'T take the Bible 100% literally. Part of the problem is there are too many people, supposedly Christian or, as I like to say, NOMINAL Christians who pick and choose what they're going to take literally and how they are going to apply that. And usually when they do that they're picking and choosing to suit their own purpose rather than to carry out the real purpose of the passage to begin with. One commandment is translated as "Do not kill," which in turn is interpreted as being against all killing. Actually, if you read all of the OT, it never gives a to "NEVER kill." The OT clarifies that more along the lines of modern-day definitions of murder, which is a very directive specific form of killing. It's a deliberate, unjustified homicide. Killing is allowed in the Bible where killing is NECESSARY. I'm pro-death penalty for murderers. And if you ask where I stand on abortion, same thing. Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to keep the mother alive? Then it's killing as a form of self-defense. But if the life of the mother is not at risk, then it's senseless, purposeful killing and therefore immoral. In truth, all homicide is immoral. But also immoral is the fact that it is sometimes made necessary. So even though two wrongs don't make a right, I do believe it is the right of people to protect themselves and each other. Killing is an unfortunate consequence of the desire of some to hurt or kill others, and it's even more immoral to deny someone the right to defend themselves. And no, that doesn't conflict with my views on abortion. It can be reasonably determined whether a baby is an imminent threat on the life of the mother and reasonable action be taken, often saving the lives of both; otherwise, the taking of an unborn baby's life as a matter of justice should be matched by taking the life of the one who caused the baby to be there in the first place. But until we execute rapists for being rapists, there's not much a of a logically consistent case for aborting babies that are the consequence of rape or incest. Once could ALMOST make a case for abortion as accidental death; however, there's nothing accidental about it.

Dealing with homicide (generally) or murder through a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-brainer, and that's only ONE violent crime example that I've treated fairly thoroughly in this post. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible reveals a system of equivalency for dispensing justice. A person who loses eyesight as a matter of retaliation is pretty useless to society; however, a person who LITERALLY repays his debt to those who he's caused harm, whether through accident or deliberate action, can remain useful to society, can keep his freedom, AND can support his victim. The law of retaliation is profoundly merciful and compassionate in that regard; in another culture, you might get your hand cut off for stealing. The Bible? Just give back what you took plus a little something extra to say you're sorry and you mean it. This is exactly what insurance policies are all about. Everyone is at risk of being in an accident or causing one through no fault of their own. The OT has this elegantly worked out, and it's what western societies practice most often. So...while I do believe that our society would be better if we followed a literal interpretation of the Bible, I also believe that our society being as good as it IS is due to the extent to which we DO follow Biblical teachings.

Somewhat tangential, but important, is just exactly how good/evil our society really is. I don't think our society is all bad. But I do think the problems we have are largely imaginary. I think people have funny ideas of agency and personal freedom, of achievement and of altruism and entitlement. As opposed to how many people interpret the Bible, I don't see humanity as NECESSARILY evil. I think the true evils of the world are rooted in greed, whereas most of the problems we ACTUALLY had could be cured if people came to value something. I think a slight majority of folks are really self-loathers and delusional driven by hatred of those who have much out of the produce of their effort. I believe in celebrating all that is good and affirming those that do good. However, there's a tendency towards punishing people for achievement for the sake of "fairness" and "equality." I tend to ignore negative people.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The misogyny in the Bible, along with the absurd rules and demands, are one of the reasons I'm not a Christian anymore.

What misogyny? What absurd rules and demands?


You're mostly responding to the wrong person. I didn't make a lot of the statements you're replying to; I just quoted them.

So, you agree that gay people deserve to be stoned? That's what the Bible says to do (Leviticus 20:13 NLT “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.")



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,671
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 May 2019, 8:56 pm

BlueIris24 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BlueIris24 wrote:
Having read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, I have formed my own conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 tells us that a woman is to be stoned to death if she doesn’t scream while being raped.

The problem is...WHAT, exactly? Is it that a woman is put to death for something? They put men to death for crimes against women, too.

Actually...if you look in the greater context of the OT, our concept of due process is outright suspended in favor of women when it comes to crimes against them. For instance, there is a distinction between a woman being violated where she can call out for help and where she cannot get help, where she might be vulnerable. The "standard" comparing it to modern justice is pretty low. A woman only really has to accuse a man of violating her and he's toast. He actually has to prove his innocence, which is unthinkable in the modern west. He would have to have witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts in order to dismantle a false accusation, after which she would be punished the same way a rapist would.

Also, I think if you take a close look at actual OT laws, a lot of the sexual stuff is tongue-in-cheek. The penalty for rape of an engaged woman is pretty steep. However, as I've already shown, it was technically possible to accuse pretty much any guy of rape. If you wanted to marry for love and a father refused to allow a marriage as per custom of the time, a young man only need have sex with his lover one time. One or the other could come forward with a "rape" confession, even it was perfectly consensual, he would be charged a fine, and he could have her as his wife. Her family couldn't do a thing about it. THOSE laws are there to protect the innocent primarily, but at the same time they were given at a time when women were especially vulnerable and, in some cultures, traded like chattel. So making a "rape" claim, even if it wasn't "rape" as we define rape, could be a legal means to an end that I imagine ancient society winked at. Further, if you read a bit more closely, premarital sex isn't STRICTLY forbidden, either. Someone would have to come forward and actually run their mouth about it for anything to happen, and inasmuch as people wanted to have sex, hopefully, relatively few people were stupid enough to blab about something that is genuinely harmless. Virginity, for instance, served as evidence that a man's bloodline continued through the children he claimed as his. If a man truly loves a woman, virginity isn't really going to matter that much. So if they can't provide evidence of virginity and decide to keep their mouths shut about it, all it means is he forfeits his right to a divorce on those grounds.

My objections to litigation of sex abuse cases in the United States is the inconsistency by which justice is applied. I actually do support suspending due process for sex abuse. Men should be more careful to stay visible so false claims don't happen (I actually do believe most "me too" claims are authentic), but more importantly that operating in crowds men protect each other from falling into bad situations, making poor decisions. Last year I went to a conference on sexual abuse prevention. The keynote speaker made a distinction between adults who are sexually attracted to children versus adults who act on those impulses. Someone in the audience asked what we do about adults who feel an attraction to children but never act on it. She said, "Nothing." Lots of people are predisposed to behaviors but can control themselves well enough to not act on their own predispositions. There's no point in going after adults who FEEL something but never actually commit a crime. However, there are those who might commit a crime if they are presented with the opportunity. What we do as educators is intervene in those situations when we see suspicious behavior. We don't have to report them to administrators. We just walk in the room, get the would-be abuser away from the child, and calmly explain "We don't do that here." That person knows he's (or she's) on notice and might rethink going after a child again. You accomplish two things with this: You stop abuse before it happens; you turn someone's behavior around before an otherwise valuable and talented teacher gets sent to prison. In the context of men committing crimes against women, the same applies. If men stay visible, they CAN'T commit a crime, and if they even THINK about it, they already know they are being watched closely. And if it happened that someone made a false accusation, it would be known to everyone as soon as the accusation was made that it was untrue.

I'm ok with suspending due process EXACTLY for the same reason as "if a woman is alone in a field..." If a man goes out to a field where he knows a woman is alone, is there really any question as to his intentions? If a woman walks into a dark alley and accuses a man of attacking her, I'd want to know what he was doing in the dark alley in the first place. You don't need due process to know he's guilty. But if everyone saw him at the party when the alleged attack took place, then you know she's lying. I'm sure there are other cases that illustrate this same Biblical principle, but for the most part an accuser must show evidence, or at least witnesses, in order to prove he or she is a victim of a crime. Taking care to not ever appear anywhere alone is a good first step to not only proving you didn't commit a crime, but also to help make sure you're not in a position to commit a crime in the first place.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God increased Eve’s birth pains for eating a piece of fruit (I hope it was delicious)

Does it actually say "God increased Eve's birth pains"? Or is it a prophecy that God will multiply pain in child birth? One is an active, ongoing punishment. The other is the result of cause and effect. The wording of that verse is "I will..." indicating something that will happen in the future. The paradise God created on earth has been broken by rebellion. Therefore, pain is a consequence of a fallen creation. I think it's something God allowed to happen rather than something God MADE happen. I don't disagree that God isn't responsible for it, but there is a sharp difference between something happening as a consequence as opposed to something God caused through direct action. Eve wasn't pregnant when she was cast out of Eden.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Woman are told to be silent in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

In context it's a matter of keeping order in a church meeting. Prophetesses and deaconesses are not unheard of in the NT. I suspect this has something to do with problems relating to a specific 1st century congregation and serves as a warning to other churches that may have the same problems.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

So Christian marriage should reflect the love of God for humanity. Got it. That's actually a good thing. Glad we agree.

BlueIris24 wrote:
“Wives be in subjection to your husbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Context, please?

BlueIris24 wrote:
None of Christ’s apostles were women

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb and was instructed to "go forth and tell." So between the empty tomb and meeting up with the guys, Mary Magdalene WAS the church. Claims that women are insignificant in the church runs contrary to scripture.

Further, that men bear all the weight for congregational care and advancing the gospel is pretty impressive. Intimidating, actually. That men are expected to lay their lives on the line for the cause of Christ, that men have to uphold a higher standard...that's a pretty big responsibility. We are expected to be on the front lines not in just witnessing to others, but also to care for widows and orphans. We are held to that standard of moral perfection. That's not to say women aren't held to high moral standards. But it's most often in the Bible that men are held up as the examples, as the leaders, as the models. A moral failing has a greater, more direct impact on men most immediately, with secondary impact on women who depend on them.

Also, we can't confuse the modern world with the ancient world. Of course men are on the front lines, of course women are vulnerable when men fail. We don't really have that in our society right now. But with men bearing the responsibility of spiritual leadership, it does in a way let women off the hook. I do think that's self-evident with single-mother families. I'm amazed at these women and the excellent work they do raising their children. But I do think with a strong male presence to lighten the load these wonderful moms could be even more effective.

That's exactly where complementarianism is vital...if women are better suited to raising families, especially how we see single moms in our day and age, and if women aren't burdened with the dangers of discipleship, spreading the gospel is much easier. I know plenty women missionaries. But being a missionary does require giving a lot of yourself and even family-related goals in order to succeed. I mean, good grief, if Christianity gives you an out, why not take it? Men exclusively as apostles, who are in the best position to even be apostles to begin with, is not a bad thing for women.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God impregnating Mary against her consent could be viewed as rape

Except it wasn't against her will. Mary agreed that what she wanted was God's will. Becoming pregnant under the Holy Spirit was something God knew Mary was willing to do. Sure, it probably caught her by surprise. But come on, lots of pregnancies are surprises. One of my children was born after the condom broke. Does my broken condom count as rape?

BlueIris24 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus speak out about the deplorable conditions women are living under,

Actually...Jesus talks about EVERYONE who lives in poverty or under oppression. That counts men AND women. Jesus promises better for ALL who believe. Not all women who SUBMIT, but all who BELIEVE. Jesus wasn't concerned about the male condition, or the female condition, but rather the HUMAN condition. He was concerned about the battle for the human soul, not the battle between the sexes.

Answer this for me, please: Where in the gospels does Jesus teach that men should oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
so it apparently doesn’t bother them a whole lot which isn’t a surprise considering there are scriptures encouraging parents to beat their kids with rods. (Proverbs 23:13)

ROFL!! ! That's one's hilarious!

Look...the passage in Proverbs actually refers back to laws regarding the discipline of children. If a teenager commits a crime, or if a child grows up to commit a crime, he is at risk of being put to death for committing a crime. Murder, specifically, is the main crime for which death is the ONLY remedy under lex talionis. Or if a small child runs wild and does something and gets killed as a matter of consequence, it doesn't matter. There's always a risk that one's progeny ends up dead from wrongdoing in some form another, whether through self-harm from willful risk-taking or through deliberate action in violation of the legal rights of others. Physical punishment is a means of deterrence. One could make the argument that physical punishment is a method of last resort to get a young person's attention while they remain in the care of their parents. You could also interpret "the rod" as being "any means necessary" to correct a child's behavior. A child, whether a small child or one's adult children, benefits from correction when their behavior changes.

I have no problem with physical punishment. When I studied educational psychology, I noticed that physical punishment was frowned upon, and I've worked in schools where paddling was encouraged and in schools where it was outright forbidden. But it's a fascinating topic. We were slow to use corporal punishment as parents, but we noticed some interesting things as our children grew.

Our oldest child was always prone to temper tantrums and is still overly sensitive. I have no problems calming an angry child without physical force. It was just the nature of HOW my oldest son used to act out that we found alarming. He would do stuff, break things, empty out garbage cans, head-butt his mother, and all kinds of things. She'd look him in the eye and say "No," explain that what he was doing was hurting her, etc. He'd show absolutely no emotion whatsoever when he was corrected. It took no time at all before he was doing something else destructive.

After much disagreement with my wife, I took matters into my own hands, literally. That changed EVERYTHING. My wife realized I was right about something, that our son didn't FEEL remorse for having done something hurtful and destructive. He had no concept of sympathy, or empathy, or any regard for anyone else. It seemed almost sociopathic. Until I punished him. He QUICKLY associated the things he was doing with pain and guilt. He actually started to FEEL remorse from things he was told were wrong, especially when it was obvious someone was hurting from what he did. For about two years, his mother and I could just give him "the look," and pure FEAR over what might happen if he misbehaved would instantly cause him to reverse course. If you were to ask him or any of his siblings NOW why we do certain things and not others, he would matter-of-fact explain that those things are right or wrong; he might even be able to tell you WHY they are right/wrong. But at 3 years, you'd have thought he was a demon child. That phase didn't last too many weeks and he was a perfect angel again. Make no mistake, physical punishment is EFFECTIVE.

Where you run into trouble is that even a 3-year old can ADAPT to physical punishment to the point they are unaffected by it. We don't practice physical punishment as an automatic response, but rather a means of correction where other methods have been exhausted. And because of the consistency we've practiced with them at such a young age, we don't really ever spank our kids. My oldest son is about to be in 7th grade, middle child in 5th grade, and youngest in 2nd grade. My oldest two have aged out, plus they don't really DO anything they'd get in trouble over. The youngest has grown up standing on the shoulders of his older siblings, so doing the right thing is more about peer pressure than personal experience. Doesn't matter; good habits are good habits. I never question where they come from. But I do firmly believe in doing what it takes to keep kids from harm, especially when they're adults. If that means "the rod," then that means "the rod." If it means taking away privileges, that counts as correction, too. My formula is minimum correction necessary for maximum effectiveness. If my children get to college and we give them a car for transportation only to find out they are wasting OUR money on lifestyle and bad decisions, we have no qualms about taking the car away. We have no qualms about not paying for their college and letting them get kicked out--not because we can force them to live a certain way, but because it would be wrong on principle to support their wrongdoing. There's no 100% guarantee of ANY method getting results at any stage as long as children have agency. But where they are under our care, no matter what age, we are determined to control their circumstances.

I feel like we have a unique relationship, though. We're pretty close. My oldest has perfect pitch, loves old James
Bond movies, and is really into science and robots. He's playing "Live And Let Die" on the piano right behind me as I'm typing this. I'm also teaching him to play the clarinet. He goes to a Catholic school, and completely ON HIS OWN came to us and said Marianist dogma made him feel weird. To be as young as he is, and with all we've lived through that he has such a huge imagination and can make up his own mind is a little intimidating to me. I'm proud of him. It's not because we punished him the way we did, but rather as a cumulative effect of our overall philosophy and faith. All three of our kids love Thursday nights because they get to watch their favorite TV shows: Father Brown and Doctor Blake. I believe "the rod" is just as figurative as it is literal. Not merely a means of correcting misbehavior, but also of attaining focus, wisdom, and a strong work ethic among other things as habits that will secure their success later in life.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The list could go on and on.

Riiiiiiiight

BlueIris24 wrote:
Apart from all the inherent misogyny in the Bible, I still couldn’t be a Christian. It’s just too far-fetched and not founded on any real evidence.

What inherent misogyny?

BlueIris24 wrote:
As someone who is a lesbian and doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, I agree there is a LOT of blatant misogyny in the Bible.

Where in the gospels does Jesus command His followers to oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity because if people were to take the Bible 100% literally and with no room for differing interpretations, we'd live in one terrible society.

I disagree. I think we're living in a terrible society because we DON'T take the Bible 100% literally. Part of the problem is there are too many people, supposedly Christian or, as I like to say, NOMINAL Christians who pick and choose what they're going to take literally and how they are going to apply that. And usually when they do that they're picking and choosing to suit their own purpose rather than to carry out the real purpose of the passage to begin with. One commandment is translated as "Do not kill," which in turn is interpreted as being against all killing. Actually, if you read all of the OT, it never gives a to "NEVER kill." The OT clarifies that more along the lines of modern-day definitions of murder, which is a very directive specific form of killing. It's a deliberate, unjustified homicide. Killing is allowed in the Bible where killing is NECESSARY. I'm pro-death penalty for murderers. And if you ask where I stand on abortion, same thing. Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to keep the mother alive? Then it's killing as a form of self-defense. But if the life of the mother is not at risk, then it's senseless, purposeful killing and therefore immoral. In truth, all homicide is immoral. But also immoral is the fact that it is sometimes made necessary. So even though two wrongs don't make a right, I do believe it is the right of people to protect themselves and each other. Killing is an unfortunate consequence of the desire of some to hurt or kill others, and it's even more immoral to deny someone the right to defend themselves. And no, that doesn't conflict with my views on abortion. It can be reasonably determined whether a baby is an imminent threat on the life of the mother and reasonable action be taken, often saving the lives of both; otherwise, the taking of an unborn baby's life as a matter of justice should be matched by taking the life of the one who caused the baby to be there in the first place. But until we execute rapists for being rapists, there's not much a of a logically consistent case for aborting babies that are the consequence of rape or incest. Once could ALMOST make a case for abortion as accidental death; however, there's nothing accidental about it.

Dealing with homicide (generally) or murder through a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-brainer, and that's only ONE violent crime example that I've treated fairly thoroughly in this post. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible reveals a system of equivalency for dispensing justice. A person who loses eyesight as a matter of retaliation is pretty useless to society; however, a person who LITERALLY repays his debt to those who he's caused harm, whether through accident or deliberate action, can remain useful to society, can keep his freedom, AND can support his victim. The law of retaliation is profoundly merciful and compassionate in that regard; in another culture, you might get your hand cut off for stealing. The Bible? Just give back what you took plus a little something extra to say you're sorry and you mean it. This is exactly what insurance policies are all about. Everyone is at risk of being in an accident or causing one through no fault of their own. The OT has this elegantly worked out, and it's what western societies practice most often. So...while I do believe that our society would be better if we followed a literal interpretation of the Bible, I also believe that our society being as good as it IS is due to the extent to which we DO follow Biblical teachings.

Somewhat tangential, but important, is just exactly how good/evil our society really is. I don't think our society is all bad. But I do think the problems we have are largely imaginary. I think people have funny ideas of agency and personal freedom, of achievement and of altruism and entitlement. As opposed to how many people interpret the Bible, I don't see humanity as NECESSARILY evil. I think the true evils of the world are rooted in greed, whereas most of the problems we ACTUALLY had could be cured if people came to value something. I think a slight majority of folks are really self-loathers and delusional driven by hatred of those who have much out of the produce of their effort. I believe in celebrating all that is good and affirming those that do good. However, there's a tendency towards punishing people for achievement for the sake of "fairness" and "equality." I tend to ignore negative people.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The misogyny in the Bible, along with the absurd rules and demands, are one of the reasons I'm not a Christian anymore.

What misogyny? What absurd rules and demands?


You're mostly responding to the wrong person. I didn't make a lot of the statements you're replying to; I just quoted them.

So, you agree that gay people deserve to be stoned? That's what the Bible says to do (Leviticus 20:13 NLT “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.")

LGBTQ issues relate to a protected class on WP. Note I never once brought that up. Pick another topic, please. We're not allowed to discuss that.



BlueIris24
Raven
Raven

Joined: 18 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 112
Location: USA

16 May 2019, 9:02 pm

AngelRho wrote:
BlueIris24 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BlueIris24 wrote:
Having read the Bible in its entirety multiple times, I have formed my own conclusions based upon the evidence at hand.

Deuteronomy 22:23, 24 tells us that a woman is to be stoned to death if she doesn’t scream while being raped.

The problem is...WHAT, exactly? Is it that a woman is put to death for something? They put men to death for crimes against women, too.

Actually...if you look in the greater context of the OT, our concept of due process is outright suspended in favor of women when it comes to crimes against them. For instance, there is a distinction between a woman being violated where she can call out for help and where she cannot get help, where she might be vulnerable. The "standard" comparing it to modern justice is pretty low. A woman only really has to accuse a man of violating her and he's toast. He actually has to prove his innocence, which is unthinkable in the modern west. He would have to have witnesses who could attest to his whereabouts in order to dismantle a false accusation, after which she would be punished the same way a rapist would.

Also, I think if you take a close look at actual OT laws, a lot of the sexual stuff is tongue-in-cheek. The penalty for rape of an engaged woman is pretty steep. However, as I've already shown, it was technically possible to accuse pretty much any guy of rape. If you wanted to marry for love and a father refused to allow a marriage as per custom of the time, a young man only need have sex with his lover one time. One or the other could come forward with a "rape" confession, even it was perfectly consensual, he would be charged a fine, and he could have her as his wife. Her family couldn't do a thing about it. THOSE laws are there to protect the innocent primarily, but at the same time they were given at a time when women were especially vulnerable and, in some cultures, traded like chattel. So making a "rape" claim, even if it wasn't "rape" as we define rape, could be a legal means to an end that I imagine ancient society winked at. Further, if you read a bit more closely, premarital sex isn't STRICTLY forbidden, either. Someone would have to come forward and actually run their mouth about it for anything to happen, and inasmuch as people wanted to have sex, hopefully, relatively few people were stupid enough to blab about something that is genuinely harmless. Virginity, for instance, served as evidence that a man's bloodline continued through the children he claimed as his. If a man truly loves a woman, virginity isn't really going to matter that much. So if they can't provide evidence of virginity and decide to keep their mouths shut about it, all it means is he forfeits his right to a divorce on those grounds.

My objections to litigation of sex abuse cases in the United States is the inconsistency by which justice is applied. I actually do support suspending due process for sex abuse. Men should be more careful to stay visible so false claims don't happen (I actually do believe most "me too" claims are authentic), but more importantly that operating in crowds men protect each other from falling into bad situations, making poor decisions. Last year I went to a conference on sexual abuse prevention. The keynote speaker made a distinction between adults who are sexually attracted to children versus adults who act on those impulses. Someone in the audience asked what we do about adults who feel an attraction to children but never act on it. She said, "Nothing." Lots of people are predisposed to behaviors but can control themselves well enough to not act on their own predispositions. There's no point in going after adults who FEEL something but never actually commit a crime. However, there are those who might commit a crime if they are presented with the opportunity. What we do as educators is intervene in those situations when we see suspicious behavior. We don't have to report them to administrators. We just walk in the room, get the would-be abuser away from the child, and calmly explain "We don't do that here." That person knows he's (or she's) on notice and might rethink going after a child again. You accomplish two things with this: You stop abuse before it happens; you turn someone's behavior around before an otherwise valuable and talented teacher gets sent to prison. In the context of men committing crimes against women, the same applies. If men stay visible, they CAN'T commit a crime, and if they even THINK about it, they already know they are being watched closely. And if it happened that someone made a false accusation, it would be known to everyone as soon as the accusation was made that it was untrue.

I'm ok with suspending due process EXACTLY for the same reason as "if a woman is alone in a field..." If a man goes out to a field where he knows a woman is alone, is there really any question as to his intentions? If a woman walks into a dark alley and accuses a man of attacking her, I'd want to know what he was doing in the dark alley in the first place. You don't need due process to know he's guilty. But if everyone saw him at the party when the alleged attack took place, then you know she's lying. I'm sure there are other cases that illustrate this same Biblical principle, but for the most part an accuser must show evidence, or at least witnesses, in order to prove he or she is a victim of a crime. Taking care to not ever appear anywhere alone is a good first step to not only proving you didn't commit a crime, but also to help make sure you're not in a position to commit a crime in the first place.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God increased Eve’s birth pains for eating a piece of fruit (I hope it was delicious)

Does it actually say "God increased Eve's birth pains"? Or is it a prophecy that God will multiply pain in child birth? One is an active, ongoing punishment. The other is the result of cause and effect. The wording of that verse is "I will..." indicating something that will happen in the future. The paradise God created on earth has been broken by rebellion. Therefore, pain is a consequence of a fallen creation. I think it's something God allowed to happen rather than something God MADE happen. I don't disagree that God isn't responsible for it, but there is a sharp difference between something happening as a consequence as opposed to something God caused through direct action. Eve wasn't pregnant when she was cast out of Eden.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Woman are told to be silent in church. (1 Corinthians 14:34)

In context it's a matter of keeping order in a church meeting. Prophetesses and deaconesses are not unheard of in the NT. I suspect this has something to do with problems relating to a specific 1st century congregation and serves as a warning to other churches that may have the same problems.

BlueIris24 wrote:
Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman (1 Corinthians 11:3)

So Christian marriage should reflect the love of God for humanity. Got it. That's actually a good thing. Glad we agree.

BlueIris24 wrote:
“Wives be in subjection to your husbands in all things.” (Ephesians 5:22)

Context, please?

BlueIris24 wrote:
None of Christ’s apostles were women

So? What does that have to do with anything?

Actually, Mary Magdalene was the first to witness the empty tomb and was instructed to "go forth and tell." So between the empty tomb and meeting up with the guys, Mary Magdalene WAS the church. Claims that women are insignificant in the church runs contrary to scripture.

Further, that men bear all the weight for congregational care and advancing the gospel is pretty impressive. Intimidating, actually. That men are expected to lay their lives on the line for the cause of Christ, that men have to uphold a higher standard...that's a pretty big responsibility. We are expected to be on the front lines not in just witnessing to others, but also to care for widows and orphans. We are held to that standard of moral perfection. That's not to say women aren't held to high moral standards. But it's most often in the Bible that men are held up as the examples, as the leaders, as the models. A moral failing has a greater, more direct impact on men most immediately, with secondary impact on women who depend on them.

Also, we can't confuse the modern world with the ancient world. Of course men are on the front lines, of course women are vulnerable when men fail. We don't really have that in our society right now. But with men bearing the responsibility of spiritual leadership, it does in a way let women off the hook. I do think that's self-evident with single-mother families. I'm amazed at these women and the excellent work they do raising their children. But I do think with a strong male presence to lighten the load these wonderful moms could be even more effective.

That's exactly where complementarianism is vital...if women are better suited to raising families, especially how we see single moms in our day and age, and if women aren't burdened with the dangers of discipleship, spreading the gospel is much easier. I know plenty women missionaries. But being a missionary does require giving a lot of yourself and even family-related goals in order to succeed. I mean, good grief, if Christianity gives you an out, why not take it? Men exclusively as apostles, who are in the best position to even be apostles to begin with, is not a bad thing for women.

BlueIris24 wrote:
God impregnating Mary against her consent could be viewed as rape

Except it wasn't against her will. Mary agreed that what she wanted was God's will. Becoming pregnant under the Holy Spirit was something God knew Mary was willing to do. Sure, it probably caught her by surprise. But come on, lots of pregnancies are surprises. One of my children was born after the condom broke. Does my broken condom count as rape?

BlueIris24 wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does God or Jesus speak out about the deplorable conditions women are living under,

Actually...Jesus talks about EVERYONE who lives in poverty or under oppression. That counts men AND women. Jesus promises better for ALL who believe. Not all women who SUBMIT, but all who BELIEVE. Jesus wasn't concerned about the male condition, or the female condition, but rather the HUMAN condition. He was concerned about the battle for the human soul, not the battle between the sexes.

Answer this for me, please: Where in the gospels does Jesus teach that men should oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
so it apparently doesn’t bother them a whole lot which isn’t a surprise considering there are scriptures encouraging parents to beat their kids with rods. (Proverbs 23:13)

ROFL!! ! That's one's hilarious!

Look...the passage in Proverbs actually refers back to laws regarding the discipline of children. If a teenager commits a crime, or if a child grows up to commit a crime, he is at risk of being put to death for committing a crime. Murder, specifically, is the main crime for which death is the ONLY remedy under lex talionis. Or if a small child runs wild and does something and gets killed as a matter of consequence, it doesn't matter. There's always a risk that one's progeny ends up dead from wrongdoing in some form another, whether through self-harm from willful risk-taking or through deliberate action in violation of the legal rights of others. Physical punishment is a means of deterrence. One could make the argument that physical punishment is a method of last resort to get a young person's attention while they remain in the care of their parents. You could also interpret "the rod" as being "any means necessary" to correct a child's behavior. A child, whether a small child or one's adult children, benefits from correction when their behavior changes.

I have no problem with physical punishment. When I studied educational psychology, I noticed that physical punishment was frowned upon, and I've worked in schools where paddling was encouraged and in schools where it was outright forbidden. But it's a fascinating topic. We were slow to use corporal punishment as parents, but we noticed some interesting things as our children grew.

Our oldest child was always prone to temper tantrums and is still overly sensitive. I have no problems calming an angry child without physical force. It was just the nature of HOW my oldest son used to act out that we found alarming. He would do stuff, break things, empty out garbage cans, head-butt his mother, and all kinds of things. She'd look him in the eye and say "No," explain that what he was doing was hurting her, etc. He'd show absolutely no emotion whatsoever when he was corrected. It took no time at all before he was doing something else destructive.

After much disagreement with my wife, I took matters into my own hands, literally. That changed EVERYTHING. My wife realized I was right about something, that our son didn't FEEL remorse for having done something hurtful and destructive. He had no concept of sympathy, or empathy, or any regard for anyone else. It seemed almost sociopathic. Until I punished him. He QUICKLY associated the things he was doing with pain and guilt. He actually started to FEEL remorse from things he was told were wrong, especially when it was obvious someone was hurting from what he did. For about two years, his mother and I could just give him "the look," and pure FEAR over what might happen if he misbehaved would instantly cause him to reverse course. If you were to ask him or any of his siblings NOW why we do certain things and not others, he would matter-of-fact explain that those things are right or wrong; he might even be able to tell you WHY they are right/wrong. But at 3 years, you'd have thought he was a demon child. That phase didn't last too many weeks and he was a perfect angel again. Make no mistake, physical punishment is EFFECTIVE.

Where you run into trouble is that even a 3-year old can ADAPT to physical punishment to the point they are unaffected by it. We don't practice physical punishment as an automatic response, but rather a means of correction where other methods have been exhausted. And because of the consistency we've practiced with them at such a young age, we don't really ever spank our kids. My oldest son is about to be in 7th grade, middle child in 5th grade, and youngest in 2nd grade. My oldest two have aged out, plus they don't really DO anything they'd get in trouble over. The youngest has grown up standing on the shoulders of his older siblings, so doing the right thing is more about peer pressure than personal experience. Doesn't matter; good habits are good habits. I never question where they come from. But I do firmly believe in doing what it takes to keep kids from harm, especially when they're adults. If that means "the rod," then that means "the rod." If it means taking away privileges, that counts as correction, too. My formula is minimum correction necessary for maximum effectiveness. If my children get to college and we give them a car for transportation only to find out they are wasting OUR money on lifestyle and bad decisions, we have no qualms about taking the car away. We have no qualms about not paying for their college and letting them get kicked out--not because we can force them to live a certain way, but because it would be wrong on principle to support their wrongdoing. There's no 100% guarantee of ANY method getting results at any stage as long as children have agency. But where they are under our care, no matter what age, we are determined to control their circumstances.

I feel like we have a unique relationship, though. We're pretty close. My oldest has perfect pitch, loves old James
Bond movies, and is really into science and robots. He's playing "Live And Let Die" on the piano right behind me as I'm typing this. I'm also teaching him to play the clarinet. He goes to a Catholic school, and completely ON HIS OWN came to us and said Marianist dogma made him feel weird. To be as young as he is, and with all we've lived through that he has such a huge imagination and can make up his own mind is a little intimidating to me. I'm proud of him. It's not because we punished him the way we did, but rather as a cumulative effect of our overall philosophy and faith. All three of our kids love Thursday nights because they get to watch their favorite TV shows: Father Brown and Doctor Blake. I believe "the rod" is just as figurative as it is literal. Not merely a means of correcting misbehavior, but also of attaining focus, wisdom, and a strong work ethic among other things as habits that will secure their success later in life.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The list could go on and on.

Riiiiiiiight

BlueIris24 wrote:
Apart from all the inherent misogyny in the Bible, I still couldn’t be a Christian. It’s just too far-fetched and not founded on any real evidence.

What inherent misogyny?

BlueIris24 wrote:
As someone who is a lesbian and doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, I agree there is a LOT of blatant misogyny in the Bible.

Where in the gospels does Jesus command His followers to oppress women?

BlueIris24 wrote:
That's why there are so many different denominations of Christianity because if people were to take the Bible 100% literally and with no room for differing interpretations, we'd live in one terrible society.

I disagree. I think we're living in a terrible society because we DON'T take the Bible 100% literally. Part of the problem is there are too many people, supposedly Christian or, as I like to say, NOMINAL Christians who pick and choose what they're going to take literally and how they are going to apply that. And usually when they do that they're picking and choosing to suit their own purpose rather than to carry out the real purpose of the passage to begin with. One commandment is translated as "Do not kill," which in turn is interpreted as being against all killing. Actually, if you read all of the OT, it never gives a to "NEVER kill." The OT clarifies that more along the lines of modern-day definitions of murder, which is a very directive specific form of killing. It's a deliberate, unjustified homicide. Killing is allowed in the Bible where killing is NECESSARY. I'm pro-death penalty for murderers. And if you ask where I stand on abortion, same thing. Is it ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to keep the mother alive? Then it's killing as a form of self-defense. But if the life of the mother is not at risk, then it's senseless, purposeful killing and therefore immoral. In truth, all homicide is immoral. But also immoral is the fact that it is sometimes made necessary. So even though two wrongs don't make a right, I do believe it is the right of people to protect themselves and each other. Killing is an unfortunate consequence of the desire of some to hurt or kill others, and it's even more immoral to deny someone the right to defend themselves. And no, that doesn't conflict with my views on abortion. It can be reasonably determined whether a baby is an imminent threat on the life of the mother and reasonable action be taken, often saving the lives of both; otherwise, the taking of an unborn baby's life as a matter of justice should be matched by taking the life of the one who caused the baby to be there in the first place. But until we execute rapists for being rapists, there's not much a of a logically consistent case for aborting babies that are the consequence of rape or incest. Once could ALMOST make a case for abortion as accidental death; however, there's nothing accidental about it.

Dealing with homicide (generally) or murder through a 100% literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-brainer, and that's only ONE violent crime example that I've treated fairly thoroughly in this post. A LITERAL interpretation of the Bible reveals a system of equivalency for dispensing justice. A person who loses eyesight as a matter of retaliation is pretty useless to society; however, a person who LITERALLY repays his debt to those who he's caused harm, whether through accident or deliberate action, can remain useful to society, can keep his freedom, AND can support his victim. The law of retaliation is profoundly merciful and compassionate in that regard; in another culture, you might get your hand cut off for stealing. The Bible? Just give back what you took plus a little something extra to say you're sorry and you mean it. This is exactly what insurance policies are all about. Everyone is at risk of being in an accident or causing one through no fault of their own. The OT has this elegantly worked out, and it's what western societies practice most often. So...while I do believe that our society would be better if we followed a literal interpretation of the Bible, I also believe that our society being as good as it IS is due to the extent to which we DO follow Biblical teachings.

Somewhat tangential, but important, is just exactly how good/evil our society really is. I don't think our society is all bad. But I do think the problems we have are largely imaginary. I think people have funny ideas of agency and personal freedom, of achievement and of altruism and entitlement. As opposed to how many people interpret the Bible, I don't see humanity as NECESSARILY evil. I think the true evils of the world are rooted in greed, whereas most of the problems we ACTUALLY had could be cured if people came to value something. I think a slight majority of folks are really self-loathers and delusional driven by hatred of those who have much out of the produce of their effort. I believe in celebrating all that is good and affirming those that do good. However, there's a tendency towards punishing people for achievement for the sake of "fairness" and "equality." I tend to ignore negative people.

BlueIris24 wrote:
The misogyny in the Bible, along with the absurd rules and demands, are one of the reasons I'm not a Christian anymore.

What misogyny? What absurd rules and demands?


You're mostly responding to the wrong person. I didn't make a lot of the statements you're replying to; I just quoted them.

So, you agree that gay people deserve to be stoned? That's what the Bible says to do (Leviticus 20:13 NLT “If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.")

LGBTQ issues relate to a protected class on WP. Note I never once brought that up. Pick another topic, please. We're not allowed to discuss that.


Well, you're saying society is terrible because it doesn't follow the Bible 100% literally.

Verses like that are WHY the Bible leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and why religion needs to be separate from government.



kdm1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 406
Location: SW MO, USA

16 May 2019, 9:12 pm

I posted this on another autism forum, and it also got moved to the religion sub-forum in time. Good discussion, but ultimately the main point has gotten side-tracked. Just want to remind everyone that as much as my own belief system informs my defense of marriage here, the defense of marriage was the primary topic, and not religion. Again, my spouse is not theistic, and he nonetheless supports marriage for the right reasons as well. We have a good marriage. A couple of atheists on the other autism forum also defended marriage. I understand not everyone is designed to be married, and the Apostle Paul esteemed singleness as the highest calling (for those who can accept it). Still, in the day and age where people would want to tear down this institution, despite the benefits offered across numerous cultures and religions, I've found it very beneficial for me and mine, hence a defense of it.

That is all.


_________________
34 yr old female; dx age 29. Level 2 Aspie.


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,671
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

16 May 2019, 11:12 pm

BlueIris24 wrote:
Well, you're saying society is terrible because it doesn't follow the Bible 100% literally.

Verses like that are WHY the Bible leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and why religion needs to be separate from government.

I'll explain it this way: I got into this same discussion over in PPR once and got "official warnings" from mods, even though all I did was point out exactly what the Bible had to say on the topic. That was the first time I'd been exposed to protected class rhetoric, something I now recognize as being victim class rhetoric, which is also a form of the kind of negativity I generally steer clear of. I learned quickly how fair and equal WP rules really are. While I do detect a hint of bias on here in favor of victimhood, I know firsthand that mods really do look into both sides. Once I started reporting posts attacking me by trying to lure me into taboo subjects, things radically changed for the better. I understand that identifying as you do that you take issue with what the Bible says. However, it's bad form to call someone out on a sincerely held belief if they are unable to defend their position without getting banned. Victim class persons can say what they want and attack who they want, yet someone who identifies, say, conservative evangelical Christian is simply supposed either take it, cave, or get banned. If it were YOUR views that were in question, you wouldn't easily tolerate it, either. So how do we have a meaningful discussion without politicizing everything? Famous Christians in the media seem to have a difficult time with this.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,349
Location: US

16 May 2019, 11:26 pm

breaks0 wrote:
Twilightprincess wrote:
Having been in a submissive marriage as a Christian wife, I have had the opposite experience. It was degrading, demeaning, offensive, and...I’m running out of negative adjectives. I need to drink more coffee!

I wouldn’t be against a marriage based on equality, but I don’t think that a piece of paper necessarily has a whole lot to do with love.

The Bible is a misogynistic handbook. There’s no reason why women can’t achieve the same things men have (unless it’s being able to hit targets with their pee).

I thought you said you were Christian or something. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, otherwise totally agreed. This is a part of why feminism is not the problem. Why would you oppose a belief system that simply believes in gender equality anyway? It baffles me when I see people on the spectrum (one marginalized community) have an issue w/feminism or gender equality, racial equality, etc. It isn't hard to figure out that you'll be the next target (as people on the spectrum and disabled people already are) if you open the doors to opponents of gender, racial and other forms of equality between people.

Because modern feminism isn’t about equality for Everyone it is and has Lewis been about empowerment for women, now it’s about making women more powerful then men as revenge for when it was other way around. Similar to how some black people want all whites to be salves to them.
If you want equality for all support equalitianism. It’s a movement for equality for all people regardless of our differences. It’s all including rather then just about women. It doesn’t bother itself with making air conditioning out the be a attwcknon all women, or men who have their legs spread apart.
Would you support meninism?


_________________
TRUMP 2020!!


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,017
Location: Poland

17 May 2019, 1:13 am

Twilightprincess wrote:
Yeah. I think of marital bliss as loving someone even though that person drives you nuts sometimes.

:heart:


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


magz
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,017
Location: Poland

17 May 2019, 1:19 am

kdm1984 wrote:
I posted this on another autism forum, and it also got moved to the religion sub-forum in time. Good discussion, but ultimately the main point has gotten side-tracked. Just want to remind everyone that as much as my own belief system informs my defense of marriage here, the defense of marriage was the primary topic, and not religion. Again, my spouse is not theistic, and he nonetheless supports marriage for the right reasons as well. We have a good marriage. A couple of atheists on the other autism forum also defended marriage. I understand not everyone is designed to be married, and the Apostle Paul esteemed singleness as the highest calling (for those who can accept it). Still, in the day and age where people would want to tear down this institution, despite the benefits offered across numerous cultures and religions, I've found it very beneficial for me and mine, hence a defense of it.

That is all.

But defense against what?


_________________
Ailurophrenia. Meow.
Giving up my attempts to become a proper human.


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,626
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

17 May 2019, 8:19 am

kdm1984 wrote:
I posted this on another autism forum, and it also got moved to the religion sub-forum in time. Good discussion, but ultimately the main point has gotten side-tracked. Just want to remind everyone that as much as my own belief system informs my defense of marriage here, the defense of marriage was the primary topic, and not religion. Again, my spouse is not theistic, and he nonetheless supports marriage for the right reasons as well. We have a good marriage. A couple of atheists on the other autism forum also defended marriage. I understand not everyone is designed to be married, and the Apostle Paul esteemed singleness as the highest calling (for those who can accept it). Still, in the day and age where people would want to tear down this institution, despite the benefits offered across numerous cultures and religions, I've found it very beneficial for me and mine, hence a defense of it.

That is all.


You brought religion into it though. It was the basis of your argument.

I'm a Christian, but I really think a good Christian man would do housework.

I know I'm too hung up on the housework, but I think it's a big indication of what kind of a man he is if he refuses to lift a finger to do anything.

I don't think our gender roles are meant to be as rigid as they became over time. Like angelrho says, some things just happened. God didn't make the man "dominate" the woman, it's how society grew over time when they ignored his guidance.

Yes, I know there's the part about being submissive, but the man is meant to be good and caring like Christ and fight off tendencies to domineer and not treat some things as only woman's work. Jesus washed people's feet after all.

Yes, I would have liked to read a discussion on how people feel about their marriages. As an unmarried person it would have been interesting.

I was always cautious. I had a sort of thing with a man when I was in my late teens. He was a bit arrogant. I felt it very important to say no to him in little things so that if anything big came up at a later date he would know he couldn't push me around. Eventually he lost interest in me. Which is great. He would have been horrible to live with.

I would be much more agreeable with a more agreeable man. It's a two way street.


_________________
I'll do graffiti if you sing to me in French
What are we doing here if romance isn't dead.


Last edited by hurtloam on 17 May 2019, 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.