home
RSS
Hey religion, your misogyny is showing
Kate Kelly and Meriam Ibrahim have both been found guilty of apostasy by all-male councils.
June 25th, 2014
11:29 AM ET

Hey religion, your misogyny is showing

Opinion by Randal Maurice Jelks, special to CNN

(CNN) - Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate from South Africa, called one of his books “God is Not a Christian.”

He might have added a subtitle, “God is not a man, either!”

One of the great problems in our world is patriarchy. The late James Brown, the Godfather of Soul, put best in song, “It’s a Man’s, Man’s, Man’s World.”

Patriarchy assumes that men are made to lead and women are simply cooperative and reproductive subordinates.

These assumptions come to light in all kinds of ways, but especially through religion — the various faiths that treat women as though they are not equal to men.

We read it in the Quran and the Bible. We see it in iconic imagery, and religious taboos about sexuality, particularly women’s sexuality. And we see that around the world these days, from Salt Lake City to Sudan.

Men continue to dominate religious institutions, and use them to judge whether women can be in religious leadership or change faiths.

There is a direct link between Kate Kelly, a lifelong member of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter day-Saints, who was excommunicated on charges of apostasy, and Meriam Ibrahim, a Sudanese woman sentenced to death for her supposed apostasy.

And the link is deeper than the charge of abandoning one's faith.

Patriarchy comes in all forms, but religious patriarchy seems particularly pernicious because it assumes that male rule is constituent of God or the gods.

In other words, God or the gods behave like men — wrathful, scornful, jealous, and imperious.

Released Sudanese Christian woman faces 2 new charges

However, this is not why so many people — women and men alike — are religious.

Religious faith at its best is an attempt to define the meaningfulness of life and give life ultimate nobility in facing death.

Religious faith also provide many communities moral rules and grammar for all types of relationships—marriage, neighborliness, sisterhood, brotherhood, and governance.

And religious faiths often inspire individuals and communities to transcend their limitations in acts of reconciliation and justice through human rights campaigns and acts of mercy.

Nevertheless, the goodness of religion can be mired in ideologies of exclusion that can lead to bigotry on many levels, especially toward women.

Mormon feminist excommunicated for apostasy

In one sense of the word, Kelly and Ibrahim are apostates.

One dared to say that women could exercise religious authority where men are the “elders” and keepers of the Kingdom.

The other, standing before an all-male court, refused to renounce her faith.

In both cases, men were the judges and held the keys to life and death - literally, in Ibrahim’s case.

It would be utter silliness to argue that these two faith traditions are more sexist than Roman Catholics or Protestant Evangelicals or Japanese Shintoism. The practice of male dominance of spiritual authority is not peculiar to Mormons or Muslims.

In America, the pattern of male dominance began early, with the 1692 Salem Witch Trials and Anne Hutchinson, the Puritan woman who was tried for insisting that God’s grace was freely given to everyone.

Hutchinson, a mother of 15 children, dared to challenge the male Calvinist clergy about whether they were being true to their theological convictions on questions of grace.

The case hinged on Hutchinson’s claim to spiritual authority, and this is always where the rubber meets the road.

Whenever women challenge the spiritual authority of men, whether by claiming a new faith or interpreting the orthodoxies of establish faith, their views have been seen as a political challenge to male dominance.

And the response has consistently been to either shut them up through shunning or eliminating them as enemies of the state.

For centuries, women have been stoned, burned at the stake, murdered in honor killings and more for spiritual daring.

Historically, women have displayed enormous piety and faith in all religions. Nevertheless, male religious authorities have tried to keep women’s faith expressions tame.

They note the Virgin in the Roman Catholic tradition or how there was a rough equality between the Prophet Muhammad and his first wife Khadīja al-Kubra or the great perseverance Mormon women as they trekked to Utah.

And all those examples hold some truth.

However, history demonstrates that patriarchy often rules.

What Kate Kelly and Meriam Ibrahim have done is what all religious people must do: challenge the patriarchal assumptions of institutional religion and governments alike.

Their bravery demonstrates that the province of faith does not belong to a male bishop or a political state.

The good news here is that these two brave women stand in a long tradition of women who have challenged male religious and political authority in the name of freedom.

For religious believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, the one thing we can all agree on is that the freedom to believe - or not to believe – can’t be based on gender.

After all, God is not a man.

Randal Maurice Jelks is a professor of American and African-American studies at the University of Kansas and co-editor of the blog The Black Bottom. The views expressed in this column belong to Jelks.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Africa • Belief • Bible • Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints • Culture wars • Discrimination • Faith • gender issues • Islam • Islamic law • Mormonism • Opinion • Persecution • Prejudice • Religious liberty • Sharia • Women

soundoff (1,323 Responses)
  1. greengestalt

    When Jesus was murdered by the Jews he said "It is finished!" – and an earthquake rocked the temple and sundered it. The sacred veil was ripped, the Holy of Holies laid bare for all to see. That from that day forward no people, no religion be sacred, that no man could stand between Man and God.

    It's not just Judaism, but all religion that should have ended that day. At least all religion that is anything other than a guide, certainly all authority they claim. The ultimate decision is up to only God and only man one at a time can work his destiny. "This is between you and me. Come back to me, you have only your pain to lose."

    June 25, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Didn't the Romans kill Christ?

      June 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        What have the Romans ever done for us?

        June 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          They've given us an Ogee router bit!!!

          June 25, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I always wanted a router.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?

          June 25, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          Thanks, Doc! I was waiting for that! Praying for it, even!

          June 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          ... apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
          --------------–

          Brought peace?

          June 25, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
      • kudlak

        Doc
        They killed Jesus, you mean? "Christ" is a bird of another feather entirely.

        June 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          I thought they killed Kenny.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
      • greengestalt

        The Romans pounded the nails, but only at the pathetic, cowardly begging of the Jewish leadership wanting someone to take the blame...

        I remember a church play as a kid...

        Pharises – "Jesus must be Killed!"
        Pilote – "Come, now, man! He does not preach revolt against Rome, did you not hear him say Render onto Caesar? If you did that, each gave Caesar that coin, do you know what he'd do? He'd give most of it back to your culture building bridges, roads, public stadiums... But you have them give it to YOU because you say you can absolve their sins, that's what Jesus is against and why you want have him killed."
        Pharises – "You must kill him."
        Pilote – "You know, I just heard a street performer singing this great song – du dum dum de dum – It is the Dawning of the Age of Pisces, Age of Pisces, etc. Catchy tune... That's what you are afraid of, no? Some other religion will replace yours? Rome honors its gods but we aren't ramming Jupiter down your throat, you are welcome. Really, if Rome murdered every self styled Guru of the New age with a few followers we'd be too tired to fight the Picts, Gauls, the Celts...and your kind when they rebel or try to revolt or stab us..."
        Pharises – "Rome must kill him."
        Pilote – "Rome hates but one thing, a coward. Here! Take this sword! I will show you some basic thrusting and slashing moves. Later you can show us how to stab in the BACK, that your culture can teach even us many things..."
        Pharises – "We have eyes and ears and money everywhere... If you do not kill him, soon you shall be an enemy of Caesar!"
        Pilote – Washes his hands but nods to guards – "I am Innocent the Blood of this just Man, see ye to it!"
        Pharises – "His BLOOD be upon us and our children's children's children...unto the END of TIME!"

        June 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          Why would the Romans have bent to the will of these Jews, and why would these Jews ever accept blame for killing Jesus if they thought they were killing him for blasphemy?

          June 25, 2014 at 6:14 pm |
    • tallulah131

      As there is no evidence that any gods exist, I'll just stick to reality, thanks.

      June 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        Logical fallacy.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          Hey Noah – exactly how is that a logical fallacy?

          June 25, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
        • joey3467

          NO, a logical fallacy would be looking it a tree and saying " That tree is proof that god exists"

          June 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • tallulah131

          You had a logic fail, topher.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
    • Vic

      10 4

      Romans 10:4
      "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (NASB)

      Amen.

      June 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
      • ksocreative

        "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." matt 27:52
        sorry, that's a pretty amazing event that i truly don't believe. What is the bible? a Thriller video?

        June 25, 2014 at 2:31 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          And if resurrection is a supposed sign of Jesus's supposed divinity, then are all of those folks divine as well? Kind of cheapens the whole "resurrection" thing, doesn't it?

          Hey, any Christian believers out there – want to weigh in on the mass resurrection described in your book?

          June 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm |
    • G to the T

      "sacred veil was ripped" – What's odd that 2 authors have it ripping at very different times... and for very different reasons...

      June 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
  2. mountainlady5281

    I went to a wedding once in a church that held the "husband in charge" point of view. I consider myself a tolerant person when it comes to other people's religion but the ceremony included repeatedly emphasizing the notion that a wife obeys her husband and that God wants him in charge until I had to leave or start throwing things. How any woman could buy into this is beyond me. Yet another example of why people are turning away from Christianity in droves. No intelligent woman with any spirit would accept this or condemn her daughters to it. All of Christian history is fraught with misogyny. Like anyone with a brain doesn't all ready know this.

    June 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Actually, the Bible DOES put men in a leadership role, but husbands and wives are told to be mutually submissive to one another.

      1 Peter 3:1-7 – Mutual submission in marriage
      a)Wives be submissive to their own husbands (v.1)
      b)Husbands are to be understanding and honor their wife (v.7)
      c)Husbands and Wives are fellow heirs of grace (v.7)

      Ephesians 5:21-33 – Mutual submission in marriage
      a)Both husband and wife are to be subject to one another (v.21)
      b)Wives are to be subject to their own husbands (v.22)
      c)Wives are to respect their husbands (v.33)
      d)Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church, and gave Himself up for her. (v.25)

      In this verse, we see that conflict has NO PLACE within a marriage. Contrary to modern ideas, it is neither healthy, nor is it indicative of a Christian marriage to have conflict – did you ever see Christ bickering with His church?

      e)Husbands are to love their wives as they love their own bodies. (v.28)

      June 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo

        c)Wives are to respect their husbands (v.33)

        Where does it say that husbands are to respect their wives?

        June 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I was in a lecture hall one time where a question was asked: "Would you rather be loved, but not respected, or respected, but not loved?" All the women raised their hands that they would rather be loved, and all the men would rather be respected.

          The commands are in accordance to the needs of men and women. Although since there is a dictate for husbands and wives to be submissive one to another, the context is IN EVERYTHING... Therefore where a specific command is for respect for the one, or for love for the other, the one naturally flows out of the other.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          Yes. It doesn't claim that that respect applies BOTH ways.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Well this woman would choose respect every time. Love that doesn't come with respect isn't worth having.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "Well this woman would choose respect every time. Love that doesn't come with respect isn't worth having."
          ------------------
          I agree with you. But the lecture was given by first saying that you could only choose one. Neither case would be ideal, having only love, but no respect, or having only respect, but no love. But it was to make a point about the way that we think (men and women) are just different, and we have different deeper needs. And sometimes, we have to be reminded of that.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • tallulah131

          As I stated, I would choose respect, even if was without love. I am not a lesser being and I refuse to be treated as one. That is my deeper need.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "b)Husbands are to be understanding and honor their wife (v.7)"

          Maybe something is lost in translation to many Christian males...

          Souther Christian Male "I did what you said lord, I told her to get on the bed and then I got honor..."

          June 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Thank you for proving the original poster's point, Theo.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm |
      • kudlak

        Theo
        What if the husband is an idiot, and the wife would make better decisions for their family?

        June 25, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      "All of Christian history is fraught with misogyny."

      No it is not. There are examples of in Christian history that are not misogynist at all. From Paul recognizing female leaders and teachers to the leaders and teachers of my church being a female. Most of human history is fraught with misogyny. It effects all areas. Even modern atheism is dealing with that issue in certain circles.

      Do you know what we call a female pastor in my church? Pastor.

      June 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Right, just like the Apostle Paul said "34 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35 And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." 1 Corinth 14:34,35

        June 25, 2014 at 2:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          He also said he supported women leading other churches. And said they make good teachers. And to listen to them.

          Maybe there was a specific issue in that church? Maybe in that culture women were speaking about wrong things?

          It wasn't a universal law – but a suggesting for that one group of people in that city he was addressing.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        "All of Christian history is fraught with misogyny."

        No it is not.
        ----------------------–
        OK, I concur, the initial statement is clearly inaccurate. How about "Most of Christian history is fraught with misogyny".

        In your rebuttal please confine your response to the history of the Christianity between 100 CE and 1970 CE.

        I will happily stipulate that this situation is improving and that this Op Ed by Prof. Jenks is one more step in the right direction.

        June 25, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "The United Methodist Church does ordain women. In 1880, Anna Howard Shaw was ordained by the Methodist Protestant Church; Ella Niswonger was ordained in 1889 by the United Brethren Church. Both denominations later merged into the United Methodist Church. "

          "The Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1893, Edith Livingston Peake was appointed Presbyterian Evangelist by First United Presbyterian of San Francisco.[11] Between 1907 and 1920 five more women became ministers.[12] The Presbyterian Church (USA) began ordaining women as elders in 1930, and as ministers of Word and sacrament in 1956. By 2001, the numbers of men and women holding office were almost equal.[13]"

          "The Cu.mberland Presbyterian Church. In 1888 Louisa Woosley was licensed to preach. She was ordained in 1889. She wrote Shall Woman Preach."

          June 25, 2014 at 7:45 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          An excellent response there!

          Still a minority viewpoint you must admit.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Early 1800's: A fundamental belief of the Society of Friends (Quakers) has always been the existence of an element of God's spirit in every human soul. Thus all persons are considered to have inherent and equal worth, independent of their gender. This led naturally to an opposition to se.xism, and an acceptance of female ministers. In 1660, Margaret Fell (1614 – 1702) published a famous pamphlet to justify equal roles for men and women in the denomination. It was t.itled: "Women's Speaking Justified, Proved and Allowed of by the Scriptures, All Such as Speak by the Spirit and Power of the Lord Jesus And How Women Were the First That Preached the Tidings of the Resurrection of Jesus, and Were Sent by Christ's Own Command Before He Ascended to the Father (John 20:17)." 7 In the U.S., "In contrast with almost every other organized religion, the Society of Friends (Quakers) have allowed women to serve as ministers since the early 1800s." 8

          http://www.religioustolerance.org/femclrg13.htm

          June 25, 2014 at 7:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Misogyny and se.xism exist without religion, too.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2013/08/male-atheists-and-white-knight-se xism.html

          June 25, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Dymphna was born in Ireland during the 7th century.

          St. Dymphna is the patron saint of the nervous, emotionally disturbed, mentally ill, and those who suffer neurological disorders – and, consequently, of psychologists, psychiatrists, and neurologists. She is also the patron saint of victims of inc.est.

          In 1349 a church honoring her was built in Gheel. By 1480, so many pilgrims were coming from all over Europe, seeking treatment for the mentally ill, that the church housing for them was expanded.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymphna

          June 25, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Saint Lucia is one of the few saints celebrated by the overwhelmingly Lutheran Nordic people — Danes; Swedes; Finns and Norwegians.

          The Nordic observation of St. Lucy is first attested in the Middle Ages, and continued after the Protestant Reformation in the 1520s and 1530s, although the modern celebration is only about 200 years old.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lucy%27s_Day

          June 25, 2014 at 8:01 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          Misogyny and se.xism exist without religion, too.
          ---------------
          Of course they do.

          But it is religion that enshrines misogyny and se.xism as righteous.

          BTW but I'm not really interested in patheos 'opinions' on atheism. I have to 'consider the source' there. Telling me that Richard Dawkins is a chauvinist is irrelevant. (I'm not a Dawkins disciple.)

          June 25, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Jessie Penn Lewis was involved in the 1904-1905 Welsh Revival, one of the largest Christian revivals ever to break out, although the revival was abruptly shortened with the mental and physical collapse of one of the leaders, Evan Roberts.[3] Penn-Lewis traveled internationally to take her message to audiences in Russia, Scandinavia, Canada, the U.S., and India.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessie_Penn-Lewis

          June 25, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – BTW but I'm not really interested in patheos 'opinions' on atheism.

          Se.xism and misogyny is real and has an effect on women's participation and leadership within the atheist community, too. I'm trying to show you this is not something inherent to or only present in religion. Some religions were allowing women freedoms unheard of in secular or even scientific areas.

          June 25, 2014 at 8:13 pm |
        • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

          "the atheist community"
          --------------–
          What exactly is that? I know not of this 'atheist community' of which you speak.

          You are conflating disbelief with a sectarianism there. I make no argument that people cannot be misogynistic absent religion and I think we both agree that most of the larger organized religions do enshrine some level of misogyny as normative.

          Your sect may not and that's great. It was interesting to learn about the 19th century female Presbyterian ordinations. (The Quakers I knew about.)

          The Catholic saints, not so much. The virtues of the female saints are uniformly chaste and pure while contemporaneous male saints are heralded for other attributes. It's subtle misogynism but it's there.

          June 25, 2014 at 8:22 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          There are communities of people that gather to support each other in their atheism. I've been to conventions where they gather. It is generally a bunch of privileged white males. Now there are atheist "churches" where people gather. There are atheist websites, resources and organizations. Some do things like slap "Proud Atheist" bumper stickers on their cars. Some search out religious people to ridicule. Some don't like to hear about the misogynists that exist in atheist communities.

          June 25, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • fintronics

          What a big fat lie

          June 26, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
  3. lunchbreaker

    Suppose there is a God similar to the Christian God. And that God divinely inspired men to write the Bible. The Bible says all are flawed, including those recieving divine revelation. So how does one know that if one of the authors didn't give into his sin nature, which is 100% garunteed by said Bible to happen during the authors life, and purposfully wrote down something other than what God said throught divine revalation? If we accept that the author is infalible, that contradicts the Bible. But how do we accept something as infalible when produced by a falible person?

    June 25, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      HEY! This is no place fer yer fancy-pants logic!

      June 25, 2014 at 2:02 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      John 16:12-15 – “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine; therefore I said that He takes of Mine and will disclose it to you.

      This statement, given by Jesus to His Apostles, affirms to them who would become the writers of the New Covenant that He will bring to remembrance all that Jesus said and did during His earthly ministry.

      This is affirmed by Peter in 2 Peter 3:1-2 – “Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder), that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior…”

      Here, Peter affirms only two sources of Holy Scripture:

      1)The Prophets (The Old Covenant)
      2)The Apostles (The New Covenant)

      Paul agrees in Ephesians 2:19-20 – So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…

      June 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        And Frodo and Sam travel to Mordor. And Harry Potter goes to Hogwarts. And readers of those stories can gain wisdom, and learn lessons in morality from the characters. But so what? It doesn't make those stories true. Just like the bible. It's a big book of stories.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          We have the testimony of Jesus who proved the veracity of His words to all men by raising Himself from the dead. And this is the testimony of scholars and of history.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          And Gandalf came back from darkness and death as Gandalf the White, after his battle and fall with the Balrog.

          There is no "testimony". It's just stories.

          There is no evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead.

          There are no contemporaneous accounts of his supposed resurrection. The accounts from Josephus were written decades AFTER the supposed resurrection.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
    • mostblessedwoman7

      word up dude

      June 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
    • mdivplusopinion

      Under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit, the authors of the Bible wrote what they were divinely inspired to write. God does a lot of things this way. He uses His creation to create. Do you actually believe flawed, sinful humanity could have advanced to where it is today without divine inspiration? Exactly how do we have the capacity to learn to learn? We went from learning oral tradition, to a minute percentage of people writing on vellum, clay and papyrus, to the Gutenberg press to the internet... motivated and equipped by what? Divine inspiration has motivated humanity in large and small ways throughout our history. Of course God can inspire and motivate 40 men to write 66 books in 1500 years in seamless perfection.

      June 25, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        Wow! That's so cool! A human who actually KNOWS how and why an immortal, all-powerful, omniscient being does what it does! That's like a virus claiming to KNOW how and why Obama, for example, does what he does.

        This claim that you know – isn't it just a tad arrogant?

        June 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Arrogance is one of the cornerstones of religion. That's why every true believer knows that he/she is right and all others are wrong.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:24 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          That's impossible. Obama doesn't even know why Obama does what he does! Have you ever listened to one of his speeches and counted space fillers? "ummm, aaaahhh, eeeerrrrr." He would certainly have flunked my college speech classes.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I for one respect those who think about what they are saying, even if it means that their speech is riddled with "fillers". But I get that you don't have a lot of respect for our legally elected President. I doubt that your religion allows you to respect people who are of a different political party.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          I for one respect those who think about what they are saying, even if it means that their speech is riddled with "fillers". But I get that you don't have a lot of respect for our legally elected President. I doubt that your religion allows you to respect people who are of a different political party
          -------------------–
          Don't misunderstand me, I respect the office. I'm not even a political person... Actually, I never get into politics actually...
          All I'm saying is that he's not a good public speaker... At all...

          June 25, 2014 at 3:12 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo

          "Have you ever listened to one of his speeches and counted space fillers? "ummm, aaaahhh, eeeerrrrr."

          He chooses his words carefully, unlike Bush who frequently was unable to create a proper English sentence. Bush left us HUNDREDS of idiotic statements known as Bushisms.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:29 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        "divine inspiration" more ridiculous mumbo-jumbo from the intellectually lazy... I know, lets not question ANYTHING remotely implausible sounding... unless of course it is a scientific finding that contradicts my delusions...

        June 25, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
      • joey3467

        seamless perfection? You are joking right? You can't even make it past the first chapter of the first book before you run into things that never happened.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
  4. auntiekale

    Thinking that gods are real, or that you have a soul, or that you will still be alive after you die, are 3 of the root problems that hold Humanity back from a brighter future.

    June 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • tarcil

      [citation needed]

      June 25, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
    • Alias

      How can you say that?
      Look at how well chrisitanity has held England and Ireland together over the years, and what a great job Islam is doing making the middle east play nice together.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I'm not a soulless creature.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:40 pm |
      • tallulah131

        You believe yourself to have a soul. You can't prove it. Or perhaps I mistook your intention and all you are saying is that you like James Brown.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Soulless- not having or showing any of the qualities and feelings (such as sympathy and kindness) that make people appealing

          or having no soul or no greatness or warmth of mind or feeling

          or heartless; cruel

          June 25, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • G to the T

          Dah – what you are describing I would define as a lack of "humanity". "Soul" as being referred to here, is usually associated with "the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortal essence of a person or living thing." Wiki.

          For this incorporeal essense, there is no evidence that I am aware of.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Ah. I didn't realize that you were inventing your own definition of soul, Dala. How about a warning when you do stuff like that?

          But yeah, I'd call that humanity. But if you need a special word to be a good person, Dala, you just go right ahead.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:28 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Well I think Dala is a smart, funny and wonderful supporter of all that is good! Of course to truely understand what I mean you have to understand my definitions of words like "smart" meaning slightly more intelligent than a banana and "funny" means strange or wierd and "wonderful" means better than the small stuffed unicorn from a carnival ring toss game but not as good as the medium sized stuffed panda... also when I say "good" I mean something that has goo all over it...

          June 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          When people tell me they have no soul, I imagine they are telling me they are soulless. I was partly joking – but I did give the dictionary version of the word "soulless".

          I believe we are all souls in a material body.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:55 pm |
        • joey3467

          Well I will believe that people have souls when someone somewhere proves that anyone anywhere has a soul, and not a second before that.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:13 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          A Candid Conversation between Two Species

          The Man: I am the predilect object of Creation, the centre of all that exists…
          The Tapeworm: You are exalting yourself a little. If you consider yourself the lord of Creation, what can I be, who feed upon you and am ruler in your entrails?
          The Man: You lack reason and an immortal soul.
          The Tapeworm: And since it is an established fact that the concentration and complexity of the nervous system appear in the animal scale as an uninterrupted series of graduations, where are we cut off? How many neurons must be possessed in order to have a soul and a little rationality?
          – Santiago Ramon y Cajal, Recollections of My Life

          June 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm |
        • fintronics

          @never... "...meaning slightly more intelligent than a banana .."

          LOL

          June 25, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
      • blessed137

        Most people on this blog are so rude. Just because someone doest agree with them they attack like hornets.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They are a small, but vocal minority.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
        • gulliblenomore

          Blessed...it is extremely difficult to not be rude to crazy.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You are demonstrating arrogance.

          If you actually believe someone is mentally ill or crazy, you don't help them by being rude. That is crazy.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Commenting on the dumbshit some of you say is rude? Sometimes.. But no one is forcing you to keep watching this channel...

          June 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Commenting is fine. I can give you 3 examples of people who comment, do not agree with me and are not rude if you would like?

          I can also give you examples of people who are rude and don't agree with me. They could comment without being rude, but they choose not to. If you point out their rudeness, they blame other people. They shift the blame. They don't own up to it. They say it is the other person's fault. They have to act rude.

          No you don't.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Dala – sometimes I'm rude to you and sometimes I'm not... depending on my mood and whatever ridiculous thing that you have said... I try to stay consistent with my inconsistency.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • kudlak

          blessed
          Actually, stating that "Wives are to be submissive to their husbands" sounds pretty rude to me. About as rude as telling black folks to know their place.

          June 25, 2014 at 6:24 pm |
        • blessed137

          Being a submissive wife to a husband is no more rude than being a submissive employee to an employer. It is necessary for the success of the business as for the success of the marriage. The mail person is no less important than the CEOI Each person has their role. God created woman to be a help to her husband. Ive never told a black person to know their place. All man is created equal.

          June 25, 2014 at 8:15 pm |
    • monkeyabeyman

      Of course theres a God this planet its complicated life ect ect and every amenity that a living thing could have to enjoy life didnt come from no where ,,and as far as souls? your Right man is a soul so are animals..we dont have a soul and yes when your dead your dead..your only hope is the resurrection

      2. What is the condition of the dead?
      Humans are made from dust. (Genesis 2:7; 3:19) We are not spirits living in a body of flesh. We are physical creatures, so no part of us survives death. When we die, our brain dies too, and our thoughts perish. Thus, Lazarus said nothing about his experience of death because the dead are unconscious.—Read Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        Oi! Where to begin?

        hey – believe what you want to believe. Just keep those beliefs from infecting the classroom, the lawmakers, and the courts

        June 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        Another barely literate Christian... but at least the bible passage you copy & pasted is legible. Ridiculous... but legible.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
  5. noahsdadtopher

    Hey, BeliefBlog editors ... can I write one of these?

    June 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • magicpanties

      no

      June 25, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      You got my vote!

      June 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
    • Alias

      This blog needs a bit more humor.
      Just have it peer reviewed or be honest about it being an opinion piece before you do.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
    • tallulah131

      I'd like to read one from Austin. That would be a hoot.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
      • fintronics

        ,,,, salero.... WOW!

        June 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm |
    • Science Works

      Hey topher I think you can submit it to the iReport and see if it will get picked up – it would be a hoot.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:48 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        I refuse to besmirch the name of journalism with an "iReport."

        June 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Science Works

          Well topher there has been other pieces back here on the belief blog from the iReport no ?

          June 26, 2014 at 4:13 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Hey Topher, you need to write on the 5 Solas of the reformation, and how modern liberalism chisels away at them for the sake of political correctness.

      Or, write on the Holiness of God, and how Americans have divorced God of most of His attributes in favor of a "God of love" who could never express hate, or wrath, or justice.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
      • observer

        Theo Phileo

        "modern liberalism" seems to oppose the bigotry and heartless commands in the Bible in favor of the concept of the Golden Rule.

        No wonder so many Christians are upset.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • Science Works

      Hey topher we are not suppose to post videos anymore but you should watch this – no god(s) needed.

      CERN Says LHC Really Found Higgs Boson, Will Restart In 2015
      Date:
      June 23, 2014
      Source:
      Newsy / Powered by NewsLook.com
      Summary:
      As the LHC's upgrades near completion, a new study on the particle CERN discovered in 2012 shows it behaves just like the theoretical Higgs boson. Video provided by Newsy

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/1f95b02d0eb3449f19f0c35ff056e2ff.htm

      June 25, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
  6. blessed137

    Women are equal in salvation, love, grace. They are able to have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Man in the household has authority because it is God's way of keeping the family unit together. Wives are to be submissive to their husbands. A house divided does not stand. People think different and want their own way. If two people are making two different decisions they are not in unity. God gave man the right to be the leader. Not because he is better, smarter. But because he choose man to lead. Women are not considered less because of this. Unfortunately many men abuse this role and use this for their own selfish gain, not just in the home but also the church. Men are to love their wives. They are not to trample them down under their foot. If a man truly loves his wife he will treat her with kindness and respect. As for the role in the church man has the authority to lead. And there is one leader, senior pastor, in each congregation. Women are to teach the younger women. They have the same authority to exercise the power of Jesus, baptize, speak by the spirit, have divine prophecies, and form ministries. They are not to dictate to men. A woman is equal with man in worth to God and does not love one gender more than the other.

    June 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • magicpanties

      My invisible pink unicorn is praying that you get a clue.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:26 pm |
      • Alias

        Excuse me?
        Why is the IPU yours??
        You clearly didnt go to kindergarden because you do not know how to share.
        OUR unicorn is hoping he gets a clue.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:31 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          If the unicorn is invisible, how does he know it is pink?

          June 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
        • joey3467

          Faith, Dala, Faith. If you would just believe in the unicorn you would also know that it is pink.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't have faith in that.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          becasuse dala, it's right there in the name...and it is scripture, since I can read it so it must be true.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ok. Show me that scripture. Show me what logical, reasonable and rational though that has been put into discussions and inquiry about that invisible pink unicorn. Are there any examples of believers in that invisible pink unicorn that testify about it? Examples from people that are society generally holds in high esteem, like doctors, scientists and leaders?

          June 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
        • joey3467

          Sorry, Dala, but none of that can be revealed until you believe. Then it is obvious, so no one needs to tell you about any of it.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:51 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't believe in things like that. Good luck with it.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
        • Alias

          Yes Dalahast, you believe in something exactly like that.
          Yours is just more popular in this counrty.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, I don't. That analogy is just a joke. It is not a serious argument.

          I would bet magicpanties does not honestly believe in an invisible pink unicorn that is praying. He is saying it as a joke.

          I honestly do believe in God. I'm not joking.

          I think you just committed a logical fallacy.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          You don't see the post from magic panties? It says "my invisible pink unicorn". All scripture means is something that was written down, and I can clearly see it was written down, so it must be right. Aren't you guys always calling scripture correct all the time?
          Of course it is a supernatural creature, so you cannot comprehend the chromatic or achromatic nature of such an ent!ty.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ Dal: I don't think magiclanties was questioning the sincerity of your belief. He was mere suggesting that you, too believe in an imaginary thing. Invisible Pink Unicorn = imaginary. God = imaginary.

          Millions of little children have a very sincerely held belief that Santa Claus is real. But they grow out of it.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:08 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          you use that honestly belief argument all the time.
          Is that the only difference in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns? The level to which one believes? Actual BELIEF versus joking belief? Seems the only difference is the belief part, so that has to be the lamest argument of all time.
          Because THAT is your argument.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          magicpanties wrote something down from his imagination and a bunch of anti-theists joined in with him as a joke.

          That doesn't demonstrate what I believe. And it definitely is NOT EXACTLY the same as another poster claimed. How can you deny that?

          I'm not that gullible or simple minded. Sorry.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – Is that the only difference in the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns?

          No.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • fintronics

          Life is proof the unicorn is real.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          You say no, but your argument has been , over and over, that no one actually believes in the other things like you believe in god. Your argumnets have been about nothing but belief. Time to retire that lame argument.

          By the way, sinice no one can show your god, leprechauns, etc to exist, they ARE the same, except for the level of belief.

          I know you will balk at that last statement, but you have just as much evidence of your god, as there is for leprechauns. There was a time when people believed in the just as much as you believe in your god.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I see more evidence of God, then leprechauns.

          You are free to believe what you want. I'm going to continue to make rational and reasonable decisions based on reality. Not things people just imagine up and try to convince me are the exact same thing I believe. I know Richard Dawkins philosophical musings and anti-theist websites say this is sound logic. But it really isn't.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm |
        • G to the T

          "I see more evidence of God, then leprechauns."

          Then provide some. Instead of constantly telling us what you don't believe. Why not tell us what you do believe and why?

          June 25, 2014 at 3:35 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          Thank you for admitting it is simply a matter of belief. You believe you have more evidence of "god", There are many who believe they have evidence of Nessy. and I am certain we could find someone somewhere that believes they have more evidence of leprechauns.

          It boils down to belief,

          June 25, 2014 at 3:36 pm |
        • kudlak

          Guys
          I've discussed leprechauns with Dalahäst just a few days ago. He doesn't appear to think that anyone actually still believes in them, or trolls, despite being shown articles that demonstrate otherwise. He calls these beliefs a "joke" too.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have had someone tell me in this thread my belief in God is exactly like magicpanties belief in a invisible pink unicorn. Exactly the same. No contesting it.

          And now someone is saying they KNOW I have no evidence in God. And they KNOW my belief in God is just the same as some imaginary person they say believes in leprechauns.

          And kudlak knows 1/3 of people believe in Leprechauns because of an Onion like article that said it was so.

          I know God exists. I don't know of any leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns or elves that exist. I'm confident in my knowledge. Nobody has any issue with this knowledge but 5 to 7 anti-theists on a religion blog who look for believers to be confrontational about what they "know" versus what I "know".

          June 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm |
        • igaftr

          kudlak
          Yeah, can't get anywhere with logic when someone claims to "know" god.
          It is the same as someone "knowing" their team is going to win before a game.
          Some simply cannot distinguish belief from knowledge.
          Dala has demonstrated this countless times.

          He has never been able to demonstrate how he could possibly "know", and how he could exclude all other possibilities, even the ones he has not yet concieved.
          It is at that point he loses the debate, simply for stating such an obviously false statement.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Ig said: "I know you will balk at that last statement" which = his saying "someone 'knowing' their team is going to win before a game."

          "It is the same as someone "knowing" their team is going to win before a game."

          Knowing God is not the same as "knowing their team is going to win before a game"?

          Why is it the same? Because you say so?

          I've never said I "know" my team is going to win before the game.

          How do you know all this? Why do you insist to know me better than I know myself?

          Why don't you focus on what you do know?: yourself.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          igaftr

          Sorry, but you just failed at using logic.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          igaftr

          "You say no, but your argument has been , over and over, that no one actually believes in the other things like you believe in god."

          No, that is not my argument.

          I'm asking if you can provide evidence that is similar to what is available to me.

          There is plenty of evidence available for me to look at to consider whether God exists or not. And I've looked over a lot of it.

          "and how he could exclude all other possibilities, even the ones he has not yet conceived."

          I haven't excluded all other possibilities. I haven't had one presented to me that is compelling or believable.

          Especially ones involving leprechauns and invisible pink unicorns. Especially when I know that such possibilities are completely made up as a joke. I'd bet my house on it.

          Show me a person who believes in the invisible pink unicorn I can talk with. So I can look him/her in the eye and ask why they believe. And how it changes their life.

          My knowledge in God is not the same as some guys on the internet upset that I have trust and confidence in God and have no qualms discussing it.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:39 pm |
        • igaftr

          sorry dala
          my logic is correct.
          Claiming to "know god" is completely illogical. How do you know what you claim to be knowledge of god, is not Satan fooling you for example? Or a product of your own imagination? Or some other god, or nothing at all.
          Leaping to a conclusion is illogical. You want your belief to be true, so proclaim it is and you know it. Simply unreasonable and illogical. You will never be able to debate without the basic understanding that you very well likely are flat out wrong.
          As far as you have shown, belief in leprechauns and belief in gods is the same thing. Your assurances that you "know" are not accepted, since you cannot answer the above questions, which indicate you have not questioned properly that which you claim to know.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          How do you "know" claiming to "know god" is COMPLETELY illogical?

          How do you "know" I've leaped to a conclusion?

          How do you "know" I want my belief to be true?

          – If I wanted my belief to be true I would have a magical leprechuan that granted me wishes and an invisible pink unicorn guiding my way to pure happiness and sunshine.

          How do you "know" I will NEVER be able to debate without the basic understanding that I am likely are flat out wrong. That sounds like your problem. It appears you are closing your mind to what I know and insisting you know what I know and don't know.

          And by "wrong" you just mean I don't agree with YOU.

          Belief in leprechauns and belief in gods is the same thing? Why? Because you say so? Because Richard Dawkins wrote a philosophy book that says so? What about the atheists that tell me it is NOT the same thing? Are they wrong? If people don't agree with you: they are all wrong?

          Just because you personally don't accept my knowledge, doesn't mean it is inadequate or illogical. You are not in charge of what is logical. Or reasonable. Or believable.

          It sounds like since I haven't reached the same conclusion as you I must be wrong. Which is complete nonsense.

          Stick to what you know and share that. Quit trying to shove your beliefs down my throat and telling me what I should and shouldn't know.

          You don't seem to know what you are talking about. You are just sharing your opinion.

          I've heard it before. Despite what you assume.

          I've seriously considered it before. Despite what you assume.

          I used to believe it. Despite what you assume.

          Can you offer something new?

          June 25, 2014 at 5:07 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          kudlak

          "or trolls, despite being shown articles that demonstrate otherwise. He calls these beliefs a "joke" too."

          Was that article actually about elves? Or about people claiming elves exist so they could prevent a construction project they didn't want in their neighborhood?

          June 25, 2014 at 5:55 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          So, what are you claiming then, that very few Irish people actually believe in leprechauns and that very few Icelanders actually do believe in trolls, despite the laws they passed protecting these creatures? Can you produce some other poll that proves your point?

          How about some other thing then? From a 2005 Gallop poll of American belief in the supernatural:

          Extrasensory perception, or ESP 41%
          That houses can be haunted 37%
          Ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations 32%
          Telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses 31%
          Clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future 26%
          Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's live 25%
          That people can communicate mentally with someone who has died 21%
          Witches 21%
          Reincarnation, that is, the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death 20%
          Channeling/allowing a 'spirit-being' to temporarily assume control of body 9%

          A special analysis of the data shows that 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the 10 items listed above
          FR: http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/Three-Four-Americans-Believe-Paranormal.aspx

          That would seem to indicate that a goodly percentage of American Christians also believe in at least one of these things, right? How are these beliefs different than their belief in God then?

          June 25, 2014 at 6:45 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Elves then.
          What evidence do you have that they're all lying? Someone else could just as easily say that you Christians are all lying just to get your way too, right?

          Come on, stop dodging. If you have to, imagine you're talking to an 18th century Irish or Icelandic peasant who believes in the little folk. How would you demonstrate that your belief is real while their's is false?

          June 25, 2014 at 6:53 pm |
        • kudlak

          igaftr
          Well, he hasn't been able to demonstrate how he could possibly know that what he believes is factual, or just a misperception. I don't think that Christians are crazy, or even entirely delusional. I think that they are caught up in a misperception that the natural world indicates that some supernatural agent is at work. From my personal experience I also realize that people are indoctrinated in how to manufacture their own "evidence" for God.

          I can remember defending my faith just as strongly as he does before I realized this. The first thing they get you to do is invest your whole future and worldview in the belief that God exists. Then they encourage you to love God more than anything, or anyone you know. After that, the very thought that all of that could be a mistake is so frightening that it only strengthens your "faith" that it simply has to be true, despite anything you may hear.

          Doubtless, he will deny that any of this refers to him, of course.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + Come on, stop dodging. If you have to, imagine you're talking to an 18th century Irish or Icelandic peasant who believes in the little folk. How would you demonstrate that your belief is real while their's is false?

          I don't worry about it. I worry about what I can control and go on to master a science. Or assist others to fly to the moon. Or build a hospital. You know – do things we have evidence that other God believers are capable of doing.

          It is not worth my time to argue about elves or leprechauns with someone insisting to me they exist. I let them have that.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:13 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + From my personal experience I also realize that people are indoctrinated in how to manufacture their own "evidence" for God.

          I haven't been indoctrinated. I have a different experience than you. I'm glad that works for you, but it doesn't for me. I've tried what you preach.

          + I can remember defending my faith just as strongly as he does before I realized this.

          I can remember insisting to other people that I knew better than religious people, too. And that I was logical. And science was on my side. I was right. They were wrong. No matter what, I knew that.

          + The first thing they get you to do is invest your whole future and worldview in the belief that God exists.

          Who is they? Nobody did that to me.

          + Then they encourage you to love God more than anything, or anyone you know.

          Nobody has ever told me that.

          + After that, the very thought that all of that could be a mistake is so frightening that it only strengthens your "faith" that it simply has to be true, despite anything you may hear.

          Sorry. I didn't go to your church. I wasn't raised by your parents. Just because that happened to you, doesn't mean that logically happened to me. It is possible that there are other explanations than what you offer.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:19 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + That would seem to indicate that a goodly percentage of American Christians also believe in at least one of these things, right? How are these beliefs different than their belief in God then?

          I can only speak for myself. Their beliefs don't work for me. If they did I would talk about how they do work for me.

          If you could convince me to believe in leprechauns or elves, then your theory would start to have life. But I don't believe in things without evidence and compelling reasons.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          + What evidence do you have that they're all lying?

          I don't have any compelling reasons to believe them.

          + Someone else could just as easily say that you Christians are all lying just to get your way too, right?

          Yes. That is easy to say. If I didn't have evidence or compelling reasons to believe I'd be worried.

          June 25, 2014 at 7:28 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          dala,
          "But I don't believe in things without evidence and compelling reasons."

          Another day – the same nonsense. If you had objective evidence you'd provide it. I know it's beneath you to explain to people who post on the same boards as you, but do bear in mind that it's you posting that you "know" there is a god and that you have evidence. Why do that if you don't expect to support your position. Until then your god is the same as elves, leprechauns, yetis, unicorns, etc.

          June 25, 2014 at 9:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          dala
          I know you do not know there is a god.
          Let me use a play out of your playbook, you do not know what I know so you cannot say I am incorrect.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:24 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't know what you know.

          Just like you don't know what I know.

          Just because I can't prove something to 4 to 6 guys on the internet doesn't prove that much. Especially when I never said I could prove it to you.

          I just said I have proof. Some people have verified the proof. Others reject it. I'm free to choose for myself.

          June 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • fintronics

          "I just said I have proof"

          But you don't present it......... It must be a secret

          June 26, 2014 at 1:17 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. My proof comes from God. It is spiritual in nature, but the evidence of it in nature and our world shows the works of this amazing intelligence that governs the universe. There are atheists that change and begin to see that proof and know God exists. So there remains a strong possibility you might be wrong about me. I've explained what the evidence is like and how I have searched it, questioned it and scrutinized it. To say I have no proof is not accurate. To say you don't like my proof is more accurate. But basing my life on what 4 to 6 guys on a religion blog says to me is not very reasonable. Especially when they offer no compelling proof to counter what I know.

          June 26, 2014 at 1:47 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "To say I have no proof is not accurate. To say you don't like my proof is more accurate."

          Proof: /pro͞of/noun: proof; plural noun: proofs 1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

          Evidence: noun 1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

          Noun: 1. a word (other than a pronoun) used to identify any of a class of people, places, or things common noun, or to name a particular one of these proper noun.

          Where are the testable "things" you claim you have that prove your God exists? I ask rhetorically because I know you have no such "proof" as you claim because if you did it would make headlines. People have been searching for "proof" of God for milenia, you are just one of billions who want to believe you know better because not knowing just hurts your tiny brain too much so it's easier to just to invent an answer.

          June 26, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Get down on your knees. Humbly ask God to reveal Himself to you in a way you can understand. God will give you proof.

          It works.

          June 26, 2014 at 2:20 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          humble – not proud or arrogant; modest: to be humble although successful.

          June 26, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          You see, the folks who believe in elves or leprechauns aren't trying to pass laws in North America that affect us all, unlike many Christians. You may not be one of them, and your church may be the most liberal of all denominations, but the beliefs that you share are the same ones that empower and embolden the radicals, so they have to be challenged in order to fight that political movement.

          I didn't know that I had been indoctrinated until I realized it. There's theology that constructs an argument designed to convince people that the natural world somehow needs God to explain it, despite the fact that we have never discovered any scientific reason to assume this. That's indoctrination, and if you have bought into it, then I should assume that you have been indoctrinated, right?

          "I can remember insisting to other people that I knew better than religious people, too. And that I was logical. And science was on my side. I was right. They were wrong. No matter what, I knew that."
          Maybe you were right back then, and you're mistaken now?

          Did you end up placing your whole future and worldview in the belief that God exists? Did you end up loving God more than anything, or anyone you know? You may not believe that it's all part of a system, but it sure is interesting how many Christians end up with these things in place, helping prevent them from straying away, eh?

          "But I don't believe in things without evidence and compelling reasons."

          You keep dodging the point of this argument: The folks who believe in leprechauns or elves have their reasons and evidence too. Same for ESP, ghosts, reincarnation and the other examples. What would I find different between their reasons and evidence and yours?

          "I don't have any compelling reasons to believe them."
          And I don't have any compelling reason to believe you either. I have no reason to believe your claim that God exists, or that you haven't just convinced yourself that he does. I don't even know how you could be certain that you didn't. How can you be certain that you haven't just convinced yourself that God is real?

          June 26, 2014 at 3:54 pm |
        • igaftr

          "Get down on your knees. Humbly ask God to reveal Himself to you in a way you can understand. God will give you proof.

          It works.

          Tried it for decades. Did not work. Does not work. But you have convinced yourself it did. Good for you.

          June 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm sorry you have been indoctrinated. I hope you have found help to recover from it. I trust you have taken advantage of one of the many programs that helps people do that? Or received therapy?

          I have not been indoctrinated.

          I do not support indoctrination.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – I have no reason to believe your claim that God exists, or that you haven't just convinced yourself that he does.

          That is fine. I don't believe your claims either. Everybody holds different beliefs. I've heard hundreds of different reasons of why people imagine I believe in God. I can't believe all of them.

          – I don't even know how you could be certain that you didn't.

          I know. That is ok if you don't know that.

          – How can you be certain that you haven't just convinced yourself that God is real?

          If I created my own God – he would probably just reflect what I believe. It would probably just be a bigger version of myself. I don't have that kind of God.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          igaftr

          What kind of prayers did you say?

          What did you ask for?

          Did you take any steps to encourage humility in your outlook and behaviors? If so, how did you do that?

          June 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm |
    • mythless

      All words defined by men for the express purpose of keeping women subservient. A truly worthless doctrine.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        A most intelligent (and sweet to me) response

        June 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        I hope you dont mind if I use your quote on my FB page.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      And this post is a prime example of why religion is so dangerous. "God chose men to lead." Yeah, right! What else do you say God chose? Straight over gay? White over Black? Rich over Poor?

      Using an unprovable, non-existent being as your source of authority is religions's greatest skill. Wake up and smell the equality.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:34 pm |
      • Alias

        According to the bible:
        Straight over gay. Poor over rich. Jewish uber alles.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
    • mostblessedwoman7

      Please see my posts. It is not God but humans that have set the gender roles

      June 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Right.
      Men and women and equal in the eyes of the Lord – but women need to shut up and do what their husband says.
      Wait... how does that work again?

      June 25, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
      • blessed137

        Woman are equal in worth to God, he does not love man more than woman. No God honoring man would tell his wife to "shut up and do what I say". He leads his family and makes a decision that is best for all concerned. A woman who respects and loves her husband will trust and respect his decision. There will be no arguing or long lasting discord. Their is unity and peace. A husband and wife are a team. Every team has a leader. Every leader has a comrade. God made a wife to be a help to her husband.

        June 25, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • tallulah131

          In a real partnership, the leader would be the best qualified, not automatically the one with external reproductive organs.

          Christianity is just a misogynist as the Bronze Age tribe that invented it's god.

          June 25, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
        • blessed137

          Neither are "best" qualified. Both men and women fail miserably equally. Only God is perfect and the true leader. However he does appoint man to lead and bare responsibility under His authority. Man is not appointed leadership because he is the best. Only God is the best. He created man to lead he created woman to help him lead.

          June 25, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          In my family, we discuss decisions that affect us so that we can work together.
          If there are disagreements, we find ways to compromise.
          Because of our mutual respect, we've always found such a compromise.
          A household should be communal, not hierarchical.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:36 am |
        • blessed137

          Christian spouses discuss major issues all the time. Its not a heirarchy. Prayer before any decision is final. However when couples don"t agree the man makes a finial decision when it is the best one. Husbands also listen to the suggestions and opinions of the wives. If heres is better and he not a prideful idiot hell listen. Compromises are not always the best choice. It may work out, but it could have been better. We "acknowledge the lord in all your ways and he will direct your steps". – Proverbs. I know this is not your way. Im not criticizing your family dynamics. I wish you well Doc.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:04 am |
  7. Theo Phileo

    "Satan delights in wreaking havoc on the church. He twists the truth on every issue, creating doctrinal confusion wherever he can, and he has been particularly successful in distorting the roles that God has designed for men and women. Over the years, the cultural ideal of “gender role equality” has seeped into many churches—and many Christians have bought into it.

    In an effort to be equal in today’s society, and against the backdrop of se.xism that now flows in both directions, women have stepped up into positions of leadership within the church against the clear teachings of Scripture as fallen people continue to live out the curse of Genesis 3.

    At stake today is God’s perfect design for His church—a design that reflects the principles of authority and submission that allow both society and the family to function. While there is no disputing the equality of men and women as believers in Christ (Galatians 3:28), God specifically calls qualified men to lead His church. Women have unique opportunities to serve the church and are in many ways its warmth and depth, but God’s basic design for leadership in the church is for men to be in authority."
    -Dr. John MacArthur

    June 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      “The Bible: proof that gullible people will believe any dumbass thing that you tell them” ~LET

      June 25, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      In 1 Timothy 2 and 3, Paul sets both genders straight by teaching them God’s design for men and women in the church, starting with men by reminding them of their responsibility to lead, for it was Adam’s lack of leadership that allowed Eve to sin.

      Paul grounds woman’s subordinate role in the order of creation, not in the Fall: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13). Eve was created after Adam to be his helper (Genesis 2:18)—she was designed to follow his lead, live on his provisions, and find safety in his strength. Such tendencies were from that point on built into all women.

      Paul does not derive woman’s role from the Fall; instead he uses that event as corroboration. He points out that “it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression” (1 Timothy 2:14).

      We usually connect the Fall with Adam since Romans 5:12–21 speaks repeatedly of the one man (Adam) who ushered sin and death into the world. Although he was not the one actually deceived by Satan, as was Eve, Adam still chose to disobey God. As the head of their relationship, he bore ultimate responsibility. But we must keep in mind that he didn’t actually fall first—Eve did (Genesis 3:1–6).

      When Eve abandoned the protection of Adam’s leadership and attempted to deal independently with the enemy, she was deceived. The Greek word translated “deceived” in 1 Timothy 2:14 is a particularly strong term: It refers to being thoroughly deceived. When a woman leaves the shelter of her protector, she exposes a certain amount of vulnerability.

      The Fall resulted not only from direct disobedience of God’s command but also from a violation of the divinely appointed role of the se.xes. Eve acted independently and assumed the role of leadership; Adam abdicated his leadership and followed Eve’s lead. That does not mean that Adam was less culpable than Eve, or that she was more defective—both of them chose to sin. We’re all vulnerable in different ways.

      Christians affirm the leadership of men in the church because it is established by creation and confirmed by the Fall. The headship of man, then, was part of God’s design from the beginning. The tragic experience of the Fall confirmed the wisdom of that design. No daughter of Eve should follow her path and enter the forbidden territory of authority intended for men.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        @ Theo – do you actually, really believe what you wrote to be true?

        June 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          It is true, regardless of my belief.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          I agree with the premise that the truth of a supposition does not rely on a belief in the truth of that supposition. However, simply making a bald claim that something is true, without sufficient cogent, reliable evidence to back up that claim, is not sufficient. Especially in light of the conflicting evidence. For example, DNA evidence showing the evolution of the different branches of the primate families shows that the Garden of Eden story is a myth.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "For example, DNA evidence showing the evolution of the different branches of the primate families shows that the Garden of Eden story is a myth."
          ---------------
          No, what the DNA code tells us is akin to "Apes have two eyes, humans have two eyes. Apes have 10 fingers, humans have 10 fingers..." Which is evidence to a common Designer, not a common ancestor.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm |
        • observer

          Theo Phileo,

          So God had little trouble coming up with unique appearances for animals such as elephants, giraffes, turtles, etc. but then when he came to his greatest creation, he apparently was out of new ideas and just tweaked his ape model.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          @ Theo – if there is a Designer, why did he do such a terrible job? Why are there extra parts, and parts designed really, really badly? If I had a designer working for me who was that bad i'd fire him.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:26 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          "if there is a Designer, why did he do such a terrible job? Why are there extra parts, and parts designed really, really badly? If I had a designer working for me who was that bad i'd fire him."
          -----------–
          "What went wrong" is a GREAT question! God created everything without blemish, but man, choosing to glorify himself rather than God, chose to disobey God and he sinned, and in so doing, he initiated corruption into all that was created. It is not that things were "designed pooly," as you put it, but rather, God cursed everything in creation because man sinned.

          Romans 8:19-25 – For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:41 pm |
        • speediejoe

          Theo Phileo: Your God seems like a 4 year old child who breaks his own toys and then cries, "you made me do it!!!!" So, Eve got talked into eating the apple, and that caused God to go around and redesign all of nature in a poorer way, a way he doesn't even like, in some weird retribution to what Eve did? What kind of psychotic imbecile is your God?

          June 25, 2014 at 5:41 pm |
    • magicpanties

      "Santa Claus delights in wreaking havoc on the church of the leprechauns" makes just as much sense (or, nonsense).

      June 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Isn't John MacArthur the guy who accused Joel Osteen og being a pagan? LOL... Yes I'll take his word for what it's worth... nothing

      LET's Religiosity Law #5 – The highest form of ignorance... is one dumbass Christian telling another dumbass Christian that they are not really Christian... because (insert whatever dumbass thing they believe differentiates them from each other)…

      June 25, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        "Isn't John MacArthur the guy who accused Joel Osteen og being a pagan?"
        -------------–
        Yup, call Osteen what you will, but Osteen is NOT a Christian as defined by the Bible, since he refutes the claims of the Bible such as Jesus being the only way. But if you're finding MacArthur in contempt because he spoke out against the apostasy of Osteen, I've got a long list of other pastors who have publicly done the same (and used the Bible to do it).

        You can't be a member of PETA and still eat at Burger King. In the same way, Osteen does just that to the Christian faith.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          I'm willing to bet that I would find most if not all of your spokesmen contemptible

          June 25, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Yeah, you probably would.... Here's some of them, in no particular order:
          Robert Godfrey, Sinclair Ferguson, Justin Peters, John Gerstner, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, A.W. Pink, Steven Lawson, A.W. Tozer, R.A. Torrey, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Albert Mohler, Adrian Rogers, Ray Comfort, Todd Friel, F.F. Bruce, Ravi Zacharius, Paris Reidhead, Alistair Begg, John Piper, C.H. Spurgeon, Erwin Lutzer, John Bunyan, J.I. Packer, J. Gresham Machen, and Stephen Charnock.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          Although not all of the have spoken out against Osteen specifically, those who haven't, have at least spoken out against the liberalism that Osteen stands for.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:59 pm |
    • mythless

      One problem here. This God you refer doesn't exist. He's a figment of imagination along with the "plan" you claim he has.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
  8. djd1008

    Get your facts straight. The only thing religion teaches about gender is that males and females have different roles. Their bodies and psychologies are different. One is not superior to the other. Religion is an observation of the reality God created. As far as church leadership, Jesus picked 12 men to be apostles. The Church doesn't presume to have the authority to change that, end of story. The Bible teaches that a man's role is to give his life for his woman. Is that domination? I don't think so. Perhaps religious people don't live up to what the religion teaches, but that is not the religion's fault. It is the fault of humanity's limited understanding. Don't compare Christianity to Islam thinking they belong in the same category "religion" either. There is healthy and unhealthy religion. Condemning all religion is a logical error.

    June 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
    • Theo Phileo

      Amen, well said.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
    • noahsdadtopher

      Yes. Right on.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
    • Alias

      'Different' doesn't mean better or worse, it means ' not the same'.
      However, it also doesn't require things to be equal. The role given to women is clearly subordinant to the role given to men. It also does not allow people to choose their role, but requires women to accept their submissive role. How can you be so Okay with this, unless you are an insecure man who needs his bible to be superior to half the population?

      June 25, 2014 at 1:28 pm |
      • noahsdadtopher

        The Bible is superior to 100 PERCENT of the population.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
        • whippstippler7

          The Bible is a book. The "population" is the humans alive on the earth. Do you understand that they are radically different things, and so claiming that one is "superior" makes as much sense as saying that giraffes are superior to the colour green.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • mythless

          The "bible" is simply a book created by men for political and power considerations. It's NOT superior to anything, including the large majority of good literature that men have created and continue to create.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          But Charmin quilted TP is more effective...

          June 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
      • Theo Phileo

        Men are supposed to be submissive to their wives as well.. (1 Peter 3:1-7, and Ephesians 5:21-33) Does that offend you as much as where it says that women are to be submissive to their husbands? No, because too many people these days have a chip on their shoulder.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
        • observer

          Since the person with the highest IQ in the world is a woman, it's a RIOT that the Bible says that women shouldn't instruct men.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Theo Phileo

          What does a test designed to identify learning disabilities in children have to do with anything?

          June 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        You need to study out this subject. All of the references to teachers, deacons etc, have make and female or neutered words that were NOT translated into our bibles. Go go go, do your deep homework

        June 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
      • djd1008

        You don't need to be an insecure man who wants to dominate half the population to be ok with it. It is simply a matter of comprehending and accepting reality. The power struggle between men and women and their desire to be something he or she is not is what is evil, not the religion.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • djd1008

          Oh and by the way, children pay the price spiritually because women will not stay home with them. Our culture is spiritually depraved. To think that the culture is right and the religion is wrong is arrogance. Pure evil.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:04 pm |
        • joey3467

          I find what you said above to be fairly disgusting. It seems to me that people like you just don't want to consider women to be your equals so you hide behind religion.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Pure eeevviiilll... like sharks with lasers strapped to their heads...

          June 25, 2014 at 2:14 pm |
        • djd1008

          Joey, that's because you don't understand it. You like many others continue to beat a misinterpretation to death. The religion says that men and women have different roles, equally important. It is not saying they are not equal, despite what Mr. Alias says. Men and women are meant to be submissive to each other. Men are meant to give their lives for their women. I don't hide behind the religion, I accept it because I can see the truth. Men are meant to be community and church leaders, while women are meant to be mothers. When men or women reject their roles, the world becomes a more hostile place to live.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
        • mostblessedwoman7

          by your way of thinking, if the man is the spiritual head (not biblical) then it is HIS problem if the kids lack in their spiritual growth. The man as HEAD of the family means he takes on ALL responsibility and the wife does not. Not God's word, you are believing in mans' teaching and not Gods.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • djd1008

          mostblessed, try Ephesians 5:23 if you want to talk about what is not biblical.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
        • joey3467

          If men are allowed to be priests, and women are not then they are by definition not equal in the eyes of your religion, and I find that to be disgusting. I don't care what the bible has to say about the roles of men and women as I put zero stock into what it has to say about anything.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:40 pm |
    • djd1008

      What I am saying is that the church does not presume to have authority to change what was established by Christ. If the Church does not claim authority, it is not denying women anything. Denying would be asserting authority. It is simply a virtuous, humble, and peace-promoting act for men and women both to accept what was established by Christ.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:33 pm |
      • James XCIX

        "What I am saying is that the church does not presume to have authority to change what was established by Christ."

        By that reasoning, the church should presently have 12 men in authority. Since it does not, I don't understand why other differences can't also be allowed.

        June 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm |
    • G to the T

      I'm often amazed that people never question why he picked 12, let alone 12 men. As I understand it, the plan was that each would be the leaders of the newly established 12 tribes in God's kingdom on earth.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm |
    • djd1008

      And yes, the 12 apostles of Jesus were the original authority of the church. An authority that knows its limits. Yes, it is exactly why women cannot be ordained.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:36 pm |
      • djd1008

        The bible doesn't say women can't be ordained per se, and it doesn't need to. The Church follows Jesus's example and the tradition of the early church, and that's enough. However, there is 1 Cor.14:34 and 1 Timothy 2:11-12. I don't know why God made it this way, and I don't feel like I need to question it.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
      • djd1008

        And I told you he did not say women can't be ordained. You're failing to understand the concept of following an example rather than looking for it to be spelled out. That is what the church does. You're also failing to understand the concept of reality. If a dog wants to be a fish, is it not denied? If a man wants to be a woman (at least naturally), is he not denied?

        June 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
      • djd1008

        This is not about me. I'm explaining why the Catholic Church has never ordained women in 2000 years. The Bible contains Jesus's example of choosing men to be the church leaders. That is the church's answer. The creation of male and female is one of the biggest concepts in Christianity, from Adam and Eve in Genesis to Christ the bride and the church the bridegroom in Revelation. The leaders of the Church represent the man of Christ. Christ himself was a man. That is the reason. It is simply a Christian thing. The cultural movement of women into power doesn't apply. The only thing that doesn't further the conversation is that you won't acknowledge the point, which you did not. No offense.

        June 25, 2014 at 4:15 pm |
      • djd1008

        You're not conceding anything. Mysogyny is hatred of women, and that's going to far. The religion does not teach mysogyny. It teaches men to have great love for women. I'm not saying mysogyny doesn't exist in the Church, but any mysogynist who calls him/herself Christian is ignorant of what the Church teaches. Not ordaining women is not mysogyny. Just because you don't give someone something they want doesn't mean you hate them. But you go ahead and throw that word around. Personally, I think women would be plenty qualified to be leaders and so does the church. That's not the reason it doesn't ordain women. The church simply looks at it different. It's a matter of tradition and Christ's example of choosing men to be the leaders. It looks at it as a matter of God given and Church established roles of men and women, not whether or not one is qualified to perform the role of the other.

        June 25, 2014 at 5:12 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Hesis please us!

        June 25, 2014 at 9:24 pm |
  9. Lucifer's Evil Twin

    "He – and if there is a God, I am convinced he is a he, because no woman could or would ever f*ck things up this badly."
    — George Carlin

    June 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      George Carlin has a Catholic god.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
      • whippstippler7

        Carlin has no god or gods.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No, he said he prays to Joe Pesci. And Joe Pesci is a devout Catholic.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • mostblessedwoman7

      I do believe in God, God is not a he or a gender, he is spirit. He made us in their image, meaning he made humans in the image of God Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I do believe that if the tables were turned, women would have messed up things on earth too. Unbridled greed and power poisons all. Now as the general being of woman, not screwed up by life, with love and relationship, building and creating as forefront , then I would agree with George Carlins' statement.

      June 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        I had to read your horribly disjointed post 3 times to understand what you were trying to say... but in response I would have to say, congratulations to whomever was responsible for indoctrinating you so well. I would pat your head and give you a treat if I could.

        June 25, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
  10. cfanlonc

    Religion is just a Big Load of NOTHING. When you are dead, you are dead. nuff said, to be dead.

    June 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • primatica

      We should be using science to fight death, tooth and nail.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Why? Death is the natural conclusion to life. Death is necessary for healthy population balance. The human population balance is already so far out of whack that it will take a massive plague to bring it back to a sustainable number. Why not embrace life and let death come when it will?

        June 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
      • igaftr

        We ARE using science to fight death. Why do you think the life expectancy has been steadily rising?

        June 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
  11. MadeFromDirt

    Hey Jelks, your hatred for God's Word is showing.

    June 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
    • tallulah131

      Or perhaps his interpretation of "god's word" is different than your own. One thing is certain. No religion will thrive in developed countries if it treats women as second-class citizens. The world has moved past that stage, whether the faithful like it or not.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:03 pm |
    • primatica

      you mean bronze aged man's word...

      June 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
    • kenman14

      Exactly! And they're attacking every faith rather than the ONE that is imprisoning women and girls, kidnapping and selling them into slavery, killing them outright with "honor killings" etc, all to attack Christianity, because THAT is what liberals and progressives do, but to do it on a "Belief" blog is really a step up on the hypocritical scale for this network.

      CNN won't be satisfied until everyone is as atheistic as their founder!

      June 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Aw, poor baby. It must be tough to live in a world where women are fighting for earning equality.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:07 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        You are a sad angry little man... did the straps from your aluminum foil hat come loose?

        June 25, 2014 at 1:09 pm |
      • lunchbreaker

        What ONE religion are you refering to?

        June 25, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
      • Alias

        I agree that chrisitanity is not as bad as some – at least not at this point in history – but I still wont accept a flawed bible because it is one of the lesser of multiple evils.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:14 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        a slower death and oppression is by religions of every faith that put the genders into roles and hiearchy. We are all equal, there is no Jew nor Greek nor male or female, if we do what Jesus does and think like Jesus does we shall see that all this junk spoken of here are lies. With Jesus in us as believers (and no there is no sinners prayer), the truth is written in our hearts. We are who we are, with talents and giftings regardless of gender.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • fintronics

          Jesus was a bigot.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:11 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Your reading comprehension is obviously very poor...

      June 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        Psalm 92:6

        June 25, 2014 at 2:29 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          YAY! A meaningless babble passage! That'll show me! LOL.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm |
    • igaftr

      made
      Since there is no indication other than the unverifiable claim from the book itself that it is "gods word", best to call it the Bible, until you have proof. Over 2000 years to this point and no evidence yet.
      For all you know, god inspired me to write this and it is gods word...you simply have no way of knowing, do you?

      June 25, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
    • Alias

      If your god's word is bigoted, it should be hated.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
  12. primatica

    and god saith to the women " Go forth and make him a sandwich"

    June 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
    • whippstippler7

      mmmmmmmm...........sandwich!

      June 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      I thought it was "and get me a turkey pot-pie B!"

      June 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      I believe the ancient Hebrew spelling is "sammich"

      June 25, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
  13. toocoldinmadison

    It is Mormon doctrine that God is a man.

    June 25, 2014 at 12:50 pm |
    • mythless

      Mormon doctrine is a joke. And one of the biggest scams in religion today.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
    • Lucifer's Evil Twin

      Mormon...the second "m" is silent

      June 25, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
  14. somersetcace1

    The entire concept of the garden of Eden is misogynistic at the core. Here you have Adam and eve who are "innocent" knowing not good from evil. The serpent tricks eve and she suddenly knows the difference, but still tempts Adam anyway. It essentially blames women for the fall of man.

    June 25, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
    • Alias

      That's a lot like arguing that most wife beatings are actually the wife's fault. She just would not shut up.

      June 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
      • igaftr

        I saw an article that asked what the best comeback was when a man tells a woman to make him a sandwich.

        The best response I saw " She better come back with a sandwich"

        ( I have great respect for women and have always seen them as different but equal. I just found that "comeback" funny)

        June 25, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • tallulah131

          It's a funny come back, just as long as it's a joke. I'm a firm believer at laughing at things. When you laugh at things, it makes them less powerful.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
    • tallulah131

      It's a marvelous way to not only institutionalize misogyny, but to also create a sin to pass down from generation to generation. What else can you expect from a patriarchal, tribal culture that needed a means to control it's people for the sake of survival?

      June 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
      • mostblessedwoman7

        I wanted to 'LIKE' your comment. so here it is

        June 25, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
    • smalltownlutheranpastor

      It most certainly does not do that. Adam (the man) was to protect his wife as he was the first pastor (shepherd) called by God. First, he did not correct the false statements that the serpent made and then he did not reach out to stop his wife from taking that first bite. Adam shares equally, in fact, I would say is really more responsible than the woman in the fall of mankind. God loves both woman and men, but we were created for different roles (vocations). Are bodies are not physically nor physiologically the same, nor do we have "equal" roles in child creation or rearing. We are in no way "equal" but yet we are both loved by God equally. This "western, progressive, liberal" desire to have everyone the same, actually destroys both men and women and you make God out to be a liar or worse. Repent, and believe the Gospel.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:02 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        It is genetically impossible for a single man and woman to have spawned all of the varied forms of mankind. Your myth is ludicrous.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
      • mythless

        Repent and believe in the "Gospel". Why? It's simply man made. Only the gullible give it power.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:46 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        "Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die"
        – Ecclesiasticus, 25:19

        "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
        – 1 Timothy 2:13

        June 25, 2014 at 2:25 pm |
        • mostblessedwoman7

          you need to do some deep studying, wow!

          June 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          Yeah Doc. You need to do some 'deep studying'... shame on you for quoting directly out of their book.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:45 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Do I?
          OK then- first order of business is a more thorough reading of that passage from Ecclesiaticus.

          " The wickedness of a woman changeth her face, and darkeneth her countenance like sackcloth.
          Her husband shall sit among his neighbours; and when he heareth it shall sigh bitterly.
          All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman: let the portion of a sinner fall upon her.
          As the climbing up a sandy way is to the feet of the aged, so is a wife full of words to a quiet man.
          Stumble not at the beauty of a woman, and desire her not for pleasure.
          A woman, if she maintain her husband, is full of anger, impudence, and much reproach.
          A wicked woman abateth the courage, maketh an heavy countenance and a wounded heart: a woman that will not comfort her husband in distress maketh weak hands and feeble knees.
          Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die.
          Give the water no passage; neither a wicked woman liberty to gad abroad.
          If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go."

          Not a hint of misogyny there, right?

          June 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • mostblessedwoman7

          You are quoting from rabbi's? They HATED women, used them and considered them property. Do ya think the translation was just a TAD BIT BIASED? yikes brother the truth is written on your heart, if you believe in Christ.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:01 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          Before He became His own Father, God was a lot more intolerant.
          The vengeful, smitey God of the Jews bears little resemblance to His humble, charitable, forgiving, fleshly incarnation as The Son.
          Still, when God spoke to Timothy, He still didn't think much of nattering women – hence Timothy's message from God to women was for them to sit down and shut up in Church since they don't know jack and cannot exercise authority over a Man's opinion.

          June 25, 2014 at 3:10 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      They listened and followed a voice telling them to disobey God. They followed it. They felt shame (not just guilt, but shame) and hid. And lied. And shifted blame.

      This is an origin story. And shame, lying and shifting blame has an origin. And it doesn't come from God.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:10 pm |
      • Lucifer's Evil Twin

        So much for you omniscient omnipotent being...

        June 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The story says God made us and all of creation “good”, not perfect.

          So given the good-but-not-perfect nature of humanity, maybe messing up and then speaking the truth of it and then allowing God to forgive and make whole that which we have broken has just always been part of the deal.

          It shows me that forgiveness and mercy are part of God's "good", but not perfect creation.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:23 pm |
        • tallulah131

          It shows me that if your god does indeed exist, he's either a lousy designer or a vindictive bastard who needed to create flawed beings so that he could punish them for doing exactly what he designed them to do.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:45 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          He is creating creatures of love. Not robots.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Discipline. Not vindictive punishment.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • Lucifer's Evil Twin

          "creating creatures of love" He must not have been watching the news for the last 2000 years

          June 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Creatures of love? Have you spent much time in reality, Dala? Again, either your god is poor designer or he is a vindictive bastard who created flawed beings so he could punish them for doing what they were designed to do.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:33 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Human beings have the capacity to do great and loving things. And also the capacity to do horrible and terrible things.

          I do watch the news. That is why I don't have much faith in human kind. Human power almost always fails me.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not sure he is strictly just punishing us for being what we are. He lets the consequences of our actions unfold. Most of it we do to ourselves.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:50 pm |
      • joey3467

        The only problem is that haven not eaten from the tree yet, they wouldn't have the knowledge that what they did was wrong. It is like kicking a newborn baby out of the house the first time it makes a mistake despite the fact that the baby had no way of knowing that what it was doing was wrong.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. It is more like showing that our actions have consequences. It is like a parent teaching a child that what they do matters. A baby might pick up something dangerous and cry if you take it away. But you know better.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm |
        • joey3467

          I agree that actions should have consequences, but in this case Adam and Eve could not have known whether they were doing something good or evil because they didn't even know about good or evil yet. Even if god told them not to do something they had no way of knowing that going against god would be considered a bad thing. Now, if they had had knowledge of good and evil before the serpent came along then the story would make at least some sense.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm |
        • joey3467

          Yes, I would know it, but the baby wouldn't know it which is why I might take it away but I wouldn't punish the baby for touching something it had no idea was dangerous.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          You might have to discipline a child, and not just punish it for the heck of it, when it does wrong. The child might think you are being a vengeful, vindictive pri.ck that hates it. But you know better. You don't want a spoiled brat that grows up to be a big baby, so you teach him/her the consequences so they don't have to learn the hard way when they are 40 years old and holding up a grocery store for money to pay off gambling debts; and accidentally shoots a cashier.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:35 pm |
        • joey3467

          I would tell the kid not to touch it again. Now it knows not to touch the dangerous object, and the next time it does you can punish the child. That is not what god did according to the bible.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:46 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          What if you saw the kid pick it up and hurt himself with it. He hides it. He lies to you. He says it was someone else's fault?

          This is an origin story. The origin of our human nature and why we have to deal with the consequences of the harms and evil our parents and grandparents committed. A lot of the harms had good intentions. Our parents and grandparents didn't know any better.

          June 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
  15. tallulah131

    I'm all for more equality within religion, but the misogyny is just more proof that gods are man-made and reflect the societies that invent them.

    June 25, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
  16. I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

    I thought this was a really great article.

    June 25, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
  17. Vic

    [
    "Their bravery demonstrates that the province of faith does not belong to a male bishop or a political state."

    "For religious believers, agnostics, and atheists alike, the one thing we can all agree on is that the freedom to believe – or not to believe – can’t be based on gender."
    ]

    Galatians 3:28
    "28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NASB)

    Professor Randal Maurice Jelks is right, most problems and conflicts arise from human doctrines and not from true Belief/Faith in God.

    June 25, 2014 at 12:04 pm |
    • Doris

      Yes – Galatians, Romans, the Gospels, etc. are human doctrine.

      June 25, 2014 at 12:33 pm |
  18. G to the T

    Let's not forget the wisdom of 1st Timothy:

    "A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

    Nope, no misongynistic stuff here...

    June 25, 2014 at 11:59 am |
    • Dalahäst

      It may be he was writing a personal letter to a new religious movement with a base in Ephesus, a place where people worshiped a female deity. Females ran the show.

      And he is trying to show we are all equal in Christ.

      What if he was saying this:

      "So this is what I want: the men should pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, with no anger or disputing. 9In the same way the women, too, should clothe themselves in an appropriate manner, modestly and sensibly. They should not go in for elaborate hair-styles, or gold, or pearls, or expensive clothes; 10instead, as is appropriate for women who profess to be godly, they should adorn themselves with good works. 11They must be allowed to study undisturbed, in full submission to God. 12I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed. 13Adam was created first, you see, and then Eve; 14and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and fell into trespass. 15She will, however, be kept safe through the process of childbirth, if she continues in faith, love and holiness with prudence."

      June 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
      • Alias

        Are you re-translating into what you want it to say, instead of what it really says?

        June 25, 2014 at 12:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I'm just sharing someone else's translation of it. I don't know how to translate from Greek to English.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • Alias

          Oh, I see.
          Just keep looking for a translation that fits your needs.
          Let's not let accuracy get in the way of anything.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't know. I was trying to pose that as a question. I try to question everything.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • jleonard2099

          He's not re translating it, he's actually restating the understanding of it from most scholars, when they take into account the relevant contextual clues within both the historical setting and the text of the surrounding chapters.

          So in other words, he's actually trying to understand what the author meant, rather than just assuming a wooden literal interpretation is and must be accurate.

          He's actually trying to avoid some of the same mistakes the author of this blog makes in painting patriarchy with the same stroke as has always been used in progressive circles, none of which rely on the actual scientific (biological) understanding of why patriarchy was a natural and expected byproduct of human evolution.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
      • G to the T

        Or.... he didn't write it. And it was a later author writing in Paul's name to enforce what he felt should be women's role in church... Once you abondon the preconception that the authorship is defnite, the passages start to make a lot more sense...

        June 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • G to the T

          "...You've read your Orange Catholic Bible, thus you know the story of Eve and the apple. Here's an interesting fact about that story: Eve was not the first to pluck and sample the apple. Adam was first and he learned by this to put the blame on Eve. ..." – Frank Herbert – God Emporer of Dune.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Right. Because in that letter, to a specific church addressing a specific issue, people suggest he says women shouldn't lead a church.

          But in other letters Paul describes female leaders and teachers.

          Jesus was not afraid of proclaiming the good news of full liberation and freedom to women. And neither should we be.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm |
        • G to the T

          Dal – Yup – that's one reason I get frustrated when people say "but you're reading it out of context". I try very hard to understand the context of everything I read, how much more so a book claiming to contain the will of God?

          June 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Start with Jesus and his commandments: love.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • mostblessedwoman7

          Dalahast you have some good posts. No thumbs up or like icons. So here it is

          June 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Start with Jesus and his commandments: love."

          That sounds nice Dal – and if I was looking for a philosophy, this would be a good place to start. But I go even further back and try to understand the entire bible in the context of those who wrote it.

          And if you agree with me that Paul didn't write 1 Tim (or at least those verses we spoke of) – why keep it in the bible (even with a footnote)? Why keep a lie (and writing in the name of Paul is a lie) in the bible?

          June 25, 2014 at 3:40 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is not a philosophy.

          Nobody is certain about the authorship. It could be Paul. The idea that Paul is writing to encourage Timothy on his own ministry is not that far-fetched.

          June 25, 2014 at 4:24 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Nobody is certain about the authorship. It could be Paul. The idea that Paul is writing to encourage Timothy on his own ministry is not that far-fetched."

          It's not far-fetched but perhaps I wasn't clear on my understanding. Only the section I quoted is considered a later insertion into a letter that Paul likely did write originally. So in that, we could both be right.

          And as for the "Love" comment – it is most definitely a philosophy. The concept of the golden rule/love your neighbor, etc. do not require a religious deminsion to be effective. That in my mind is a philosophy.

          June 26, 2014 at 11:25 am |
    • mostblessedwoman7

      That was translated horribly by men who thought little of women and it is a time of the moment verse. AND Adam blamed God and the women He gave her. Notice that is NEVER mentioned. Humans have perverted the word. You dont have to even know of the bible to know there is a God , alive and well I might say. I knew when I was very young, I knew something of my future life in a very simple way. I did not really understand it then, but I did when I got older. It is not tangible, it is a knowing in your heart.

      June 25, 2014 at 3:06 pm |
  19. kevinite

    11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

    12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

    (1 Corinthians 11:11-12 KJV)

    June 25, 2014 at 11:48 am |
    • G to the T

      Ahhh Paul – if all of the works attributed to him are in fact his words, he's one of the biggest misoginists in history.

      June 25, 2014 at 11:52 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Why did he praise women who led house churches, bankrolled Paul’s travels, explained theology to him, risked their neck to save him, struggled beside him in the work of the gospel, served as deacons and as prominent among the apostles, and helped circulate his letters?

        June 25, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • G to the T

          Because, as I said, many of the works attributed to him (1st Tim a great example) were most likely not written by him. That's why his words seem to conflict with each other – it's because they do.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Maybe you are reading them wrong?

          June 25, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • Alias

          No Dalahast,
          we have people posting bible quotes that clearly contradict.
          In one place, men and women are equal, and in another the man is dominant.
          We are reading it right. The book is flawed.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh, I didn't know you are right and the explanations other people give are wrong. You should have just told me that in the first place.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:48 pm |
        • fintronics

          @Alias.... You're taking the contradictions out of context (grin)

          June 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm |
        • G to the T

          "Maybe you are reading them wrong?"

          Perhaps, but how could ever read it "right" if I'm not aware of the full history of the passage's creation? Doesn't the fact that most scholars agree that the portion I quoted was a later interpolation important to how we should read it?

          June 25, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Yes. It is important to note that. My Bible says that same thing, too.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:59 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          (in the footnotes it says that)

          June 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
      • kevinite

        And yet here Paul declared that to God both male and female are equally important and are interdependent with each other.

        June 25, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • G to the T

          Yup – confliciting messages from Paul. As I said, my statement only makes sense if he was indeed the author of all the works attributed to him.

          Personally, I believe Paul thought the end of the world was nigh and so gender/social distinctions were of little importance. It's only later when the church had to retool for the long-haul did the misogynistic verses start appearing.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • kevinite

          Well that is your opinion, which is just that an opinion. So, what makes you think that an all knowing being would automatically view that leadership authority given to one gender means that gender is actually superior to the other gender and not be interdependent with each other?

          20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. (key words being help meet and not help mate)

          21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

          22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

          23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

          24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
          (Genesis 2:20 – 24 KJV)

          June 25, 2014 at 12:24 pm |
        • fintronics

          ""And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the wh-ore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)"

          June 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • G to the T

          "So, what makes you think that an all knowing being would automatically view that leadership authority given to one gender means that gender is actually superior to the other gender and not be interdependent with each other?"

          I don't. I don't make the assumption that an all knowing being was behind the Bible. What I see is something very much rooted in the culture of the times that produced it, with all of the prejudices that comes with that.

          June 25, 2014 at 12:51 pm |
        • fintronics

          "For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

          June 25, 2014 at 12:53 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

          June 25, 2014 at 12:54 pm |
        • fintronics

          "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

          These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including ra-pe, beatings, slavery, etc

          June 25, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • fintronics

          Abused but "equally important"...

          June 25, 2014 at 1:06 pm |
        • fintronics

          And of course, because these verses have negative connotations, I'm probably taking them out of context........ LOL

          June 25, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
  20. Dalahäst

    "All places where women are excluded tend downward to barbarism; but the moment she is introduced, there come in with her courtesy, cleanliness, sobriety, and order" – Harriet Beecher Stowe

    June 25, 2014 at 11:44 am |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      That's a nice quote. It's funny and apt.

      I love the t.itle of this op ed.

      June 25, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        I lke the t.itle, too. And the conclusion.

        June 25, 2014 at 12:20 pm |
      • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

        The idea that God should be without gender? Yes, stipulating belief in God, I concur.

        June 25, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
    • igaftr

      cleanliness? Several studies of public restrooms proves that women's facilities harbor far more bacteria anf general filth. Also, I have known many women who were frequently drunk, so there goes the whole sobriety thing.

      June 25, 2014 at 1:00 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Women's loos are the worst. Although I don't really have much experience with men's loos, so I can't compare.

        June 25, 2014 at 1:05 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I'm terrible about cleaning at home, but I try to be very clean in public areas. Perhaps your theory is correct and women who are very clean at home feel a certain sort of pleasure at making a mess that others are employed to clean up.

          June 25, 2014 at 1:42 pm |
        • igaftr

          I have had women tell me that part of the problem is "hovering" above the seat, so missing the target can be an issue. I am a male so cannot confirm

          June 25, 2014 at 1:53 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.