Why do some atheists "blame it on religion"?

Post Reply New Topic

It is unreasonable to say that it is not open to interpretation. In this case, we're talking about a letter to a specific place at a specific time, whose exact context we can only guess at. That particular couple of sentences is more open than usual to interpretation.


Even read the way you want it to be, it doesn't justify misogyny in general, it specifies behavior during learning and teaching. You really do have to twist the meaning to get 'shut up and go make me a sammich, woman' out of it. Not to mention ignoring other parts of the book.


The point of that religion is more what is right and wrong in general. And the good book does say so.

The same reason that I blame it on the Devil.

I am an atheist, but I see religion as more of a symptom of social pathologies rather than the cause.

What a strange debate. The religious claim the the atheists are moral relativists and that the moral absolutism of religion is far superior but when asked about the teachings of their own holy book resort to to cries of interpretation and context.




Rubbish.

1 Timothy 2:11 'A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.' Refers to hoe a woman should learn, granted but,
1 Timothy 2:12 'I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.' is not and if you read the rest of Timothy to put this in 'context', it is clear that the letter is not solely about education.



More relativism again?

Can you point to where exactly the good book says so? Chapter, verse and version?

I can point to 1 Timothy 2:12 to demonstrate unequal treatment of women.

Or we can look at Genesis 2:18 'The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."' So god specifically created women to be men's assistants.

Moving on, Genesis 3:16 'Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.' - Or am I taking it out of 'context' again?

Perhaps you prefer the more progressive New Testament?

1 Corinthians 11:3 - 'But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife'

Colossians 3:18 - 'Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord'

Ephesians 5:21 - 'Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church,'


Pretty much every time the issue of men and women comes up in the bible it is made absolutely clear that women are subservient to men. Perhaps I am 'misinterpreting' these 'absolute' statements? Perhaps we are reading a different bible because I can't actually find where the bible approves of gender equality?

But a funny thing happened, I just happened to be reading The Universal Deceleration of Human Rights. It seems pretty good from a moral point of view, even with my atheist's 'broken moral compass', it also seems fairly absolute, not relative. For example when Article 2 states



It is clear and absolute enough to imprison dictators when they commit ethnic cleansing. Are you sure you have things the right way round when religious texts boast of genocides and must be taken in context and 'interpreted so they mean the exact opposite of what is written but a nice moral document that even an atheist can understand makes absolute statements?

Thanks. ^_^

Hmmmm, I seriously doubt that this one specific religion does that. In fact, it's quite the opposite, this one has humanitarian efforts around the world. There will always be a potential to misuse power in any situation of authority, but this type of authority never commits any violence. I don't know how else to say that without referencing to what religion I ma talking about and then getting smashed because nobody likes that religion.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- Voltaire

Since you obviously misunderstood what I wrote, I'll try to explain more clearly. The context I'm talking about is what, specifically, was happening in the church at Ephesus. It may be that the injunction was specifically directed at a specific problem that the recipients had. (From what background I do have in what we do know, this seems likely.)

1 Timothy was originally a letter from Paul to Timothy in Ephesus. Paul and Timothy were both people who knew each other and knew about the Ephesian church, and most of this information is not available to us.


I never made that claim.


Why do you think interpretation and context are not important? Why do you think interpreting things in context is not compatible with moral absolutism?


I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw here.

To make my original comment clearer, the teaching/learning/authority referred to here is apparently related to behavior during worship services. This restriction, even if it is not culture-specific (which it likely is), is not a general restriction on women at all times and in all places.


I made no such claim.

There are 2 contexts, the historical context, which we mostly don't have, and the textual context, which includes the whole Bible at its broadest. Textual context, at a minimum, includes the nearest sentences.


What? I have no idea why you are asking this, or why you highlighted the one part of my sentence that was unimportant and disposable.


Galatians 3:28


You are ignoring context again. I'll give you a hint, though; I bolded a bit that was relevant and ignored. I could also make an even better argument based on how Christianity views servants, but I think it's a bit too subtle to survive our apparent difficulties in communication.


You are. Go ahead and read the section that's in, and you will almost certainly catch your own mistake. The context here is not subtle.


Even under your interpretation, this is not misogyny, it is assignment of a leader whithin a marriage. Your original claim was that religion 'quite clearly demands misogyny'.

My own interpretation would not even go that far. I would take into account the other passages on obedience to earthly authority (including several paragraphs that immediately follow the verses you quoted in Colossians and Ephesians), and the fact that the custom at the time was for a wife to submit to her husband. With this in mind, it makes a lot of sense to assume that this would not apply in a culture (like the one I live in) which does not demand that a wife submit to her husband.

1 Peter 3:1-2 Supports my interpretation as well.


Stop assuming that I have specific views that I have not expressed.


I am not sure why you keep harping on this.


Compare with Galatians 3:28, which I also pointed out above. Though the documents have different purposes, there is a clear resemblance here.

Oooops.

Crossed threads.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postx162907-45-0.html

That is why, same subject, most of the same posters, wrong thread...