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. barticus88

    You are really reaching to equate these two stories. Meriam Ibrahim is someone just trying to live her own life in peace, and she was sentenced to death. Kate Kelly is a rabble rouser who is trying to cause discord. The Mormons don't publicly excommunicate someone very often. They don't do it for disobedience, they don't do it for insubordination, but Kelly is leading a mutiny, and many organizations kick out mutineers.

    July 6, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
  2. observer

    Spam.

    June 30, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
  3. mcfx

    What a Crock of Crap.

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

    And for every famous women who was immorally brutalized there are an equal number of examples of men who were equally brutalized. There was no respecter of persons! What is the point of this article?

    Men and women equally challenged the status quo throughout religious history. Jesus' ministry in itself was the BIGGEST example of the "spiritual daring" of the Jewish religion of the day and it got Him murdered. And after Him, Peter, Paul, James, John, etc...all martyred. Martin Luther began the entire Protestant Reformation at the risk of his life never mind being found guilty of "apostasy".

    June 30, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
  4. Salero21

    HEY, HEY, HEY if you lie you fail, he lied therefore he failed.

    June 29, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
    • igaftr

      Are you trying to Quote Fat Albert? What episode is that from?

      By your quote, you fail continuously.

      June 29, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
    • Reality

      Salero, since you have not disclosed your religious persuasion are we to assume you have none?

      June 29, 2014 at 2:32 pm |
  5. Salero21

    HEY, HEY, HEY... his ignorance, lying, misandry, misogamy and feminism agenda is showing for the WWW to see.

    June 28, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
    • Athy

      Psst, it's psst.

      June 28, 2014 at 1:39 pm |
    • Reality

      And once again Salero, what religion do you belong to? Are you embarrassed to tell us?

      June 28, 2014 at 6:37 pm |
      • Salero21

        Wow... once again you asked such stupid question. See... that's why I keep saying that atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total Stupidity and you're a PRIME example of it. Were you born that way or are you just playing the part? You don't have to do that, you know.

        June 28, 2014 at 7:12 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          dude he is "spiritual not religious" christian leaning am i wrong?

          June 28, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          that’s why I keep saying that atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total Stupidity......................

          As an ATHEIST I think...that all those that believe in something they've never seen in the history of the UNIVERSE and spend so much energy and $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ on is sheer INSANITY.

          June 29, 2014 at 10:40 am |
        • Keith

          If you dont' want to have a conversation don't come here, if you do, answer the question like you have some sense.

          July 2, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • Reality

        So Salero, your religion is?

        June 29, 2014 at 7:25 am |
        • Salero21

          HEY HEY your absolute, complete and Total NONSENSE is showing.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:11 pm |
  6. colin31714

    I wonder why there are no mainstream gods who are female and allow for women to treat men like second class citizens. Yahweh, and his Christian and Muslim derivatives, God and Allah, certainly have been invented with misogynistic personalities over the centuries they have existed. I'm surprised the female gender never came up with a competing female god. I guess we are at our most ovine when it comes to our gods.

    June 28, 2014 at 11:24 am |
    • kudlak

      Well, the Amazons supposedly worshipped Artemis primarily, but can it be just a coincidence that, as women have been achieving more and more equality in our society, talk of God as exclusively male has been diminishing?

      June 29, 2014 at 2:17 pm |
      • idiotusmaximus

        I wonder why there are no mainstream gods who are female and allow for women to treat men like second class citizens.....

        I think men invented gods because they were fearfully insecure so they created them to look and be like themselves.... women weren't so insecure so they were not that interested in gods and by not participating they defaulted and became second class citizens.....as Aristotle was to have said...IF HORSE HAD GODS THEY'D PROBABLE LOOK LIKE HORSES...so men made men gods.....don't need rocket science to figure that out.

        June 29, 2014 at 2:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          Yup! Bible God clearly starts off as just another anthropomorphic Middle Eastern/Mediterranean god, walking in the Garden and such.

          June 30, 2014 at 1:29 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      actually the Jewish and Christian God does nOT make women second rate...though there have been INCIDEINTS of MEn doing it...that does not mean that God supported it.....Genesis 1 says BOT mean AND woman were made in image of God...that does not show second rate at all..they are BOTH equal...and BOTH men and women are EQUALLY saved!

      July 1, 2014 at 2:19 am |
  7. bostontola

    Abrahamic religions didn't invent misogyny, they codified it into God ordered, unchangeable law.

    June 27, 2014 at 9:22 pm |
    • kudlak

      Maybe that's why people invented gods; to assure that their opinion could never be challenged by equals.

      June 28, 2014 at 11:08 am |
    • Salero21

      HEY, HEY, HEY your ignorance of the Scriptures is showing for the WWW to see.

      June 28, 2014 at 1:38 pm |
      • Athy

        Psst, it's psst.

        June 28, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Aww, be nice, Athy–Sally just discovered the "paste" command and is trying it out...

          June 28, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
      • idiotusmaximus

        You people are amusing....debating fictional crap.

        June 28, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
      • kudlak

        Salero21
        "HEY, HEY, HEY"

        Who are you, Crusty the Clown? (smily)

        June 29, 2014 at 1:15 pm |
        • kudlak

          Sorry, I meant Krusty the Clown (or is it Klown?)

          June 29, 2014 at 1:16 pm |
        • igaftr

          Not Krusty, more likely Kinko the Kid Loving Clown ( if the kids just love me back , I'll never wear a frown)

          June 29, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • kudlak

          How many people think that Flanders is the best example of a Christian on TV?

          June 29, 2014 at 2:07 pm |
        • igaftr

          Kudalk
          I do not have a christian on my TV.

          I have a penguin.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          igaftr
          (smily)

          June 30, 2014 at 1:20 pm |
  8. idiotusmaximus

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

    Hell no....it's for the people who live in terror of dying period.....gives them a new place after they die to continue hating and fighting the people they do here on earth...but not to worry......the LAWS OF PHYSICS does not allow for a heaven.

    June 27, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
    • kermit4jc

      hell no..you do not speak for me..I wasnt afraid of dying...dont be dishonest thinking you speak for all

      June 27, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        No kidding. He sure does like to dictate to others what he simply imagines they believe. I think he is projecting his feelings onto other people.

        The "law" of physics does not disprove heaven.

        June 27, 2014 at 7:38 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          right..what these geniuses don't get is that laws of nature..laws of physics etc...only deals with NATURAL...THIS realm..heaven is not of this realm.....

          June 28, 2014 at 1:41 am |
        • Athy

          It sure as hell isn't. It isn't of any realm.

          June 28, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • jkflipflop

          One would have to be nearly braindead to believe that crap.

          Some "God" that's all-knowing and all-powerful creates man knowing that he's going to have to wipe man out later down the line. He wipes out man because they don't behave the way he thinks they should behave. Even though he could just create man to think and act the way he determines as "proper", he instead programs man to do whatever they wish and hides himself totally from view. Then eventually he kills all men because they're "sinners".

          Your God is a real Jerkface.

          June 28, 2014 at 3:17 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..God gave man free will.he di dnot make puppets.....and God doesn't "wipe" themout toally....all humans will live eternally..depending on where

          June 28, 2014 at 3:39 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          . The “law” of physics does not disprove heaven.....lolololololol

          So that's your reason for believing there is a heaven.......LOLOLOL...they LAWS OF PHYSICS does not pertain or work in the realm of fantasy.

          June 28, 2014 at 10:35 am |
        • Dalahäst

          I don't believe that crap, either.

          We are not programmed. We are not robots. To choose to live in a good way, we have to be able to choose to live in a bad way, too.

          June 28, 2014 at 11:12 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "So that's your reason for believing there is a heaven.......LOLOLOL...they

          No. I didn't say that was my reason for believing in heaven. But what you stated sounds illogical. It is possible that there are other realms where the "laws" of physics do not apply.

          June 28, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          "we have to be able to choose to live in a bad way, too."

          So, that story in the Bible about God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart and all the other examples where God manipulates foreign rulers to punish Israel are all false then?

          June 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Not necessarily. They had hardened their own hearts. God steps in and hardens them more – but how and why – we don't know?

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

          Dalahäst
          Yet, without God adding this additional bit of "hardening", Pharaoh may have come around before the final plague. One theology reads this as God manipulating Pharaoh in order to achieve all of these plagues, which are actually more signs to the Hebrew people of his dedication to them. Why else would God see the need to harden Pharaoh's heart if Pharaoh were still dead set towards denying their freedom? Besides, any amount of hardening by God would const.itute a violation of free will.

          June 30, 2014 at 2:00 pm |
    • thesamyaza

      under the current multiverse theory heave could in fact exist, a do to the law of physics could conservation of energy, the energy that makes up a person could in fact transmigrate into another realm our universe that vary well might be heaven. but that would be at a random probability much like everything else in the universe; Chaos the force of creation the very essence of the universe is so random that it is nearly impossible to see or calculate the order of it. butterfly wings and all that.

      the idea of doing as Their god said to get in is ridicules he did not create this universe or any other. the universe created its own self, and it was the universe before that. at least that's my belief

      June 28, 2014 at 3:09 am |
      • idiotusmaximus

        the universe created its own self, and it was the universe before that. at least that’s my belief........

        Time and the universe were created at the same time.....therefore there was no where for these so called gods that everyone believes to have been able to exist to do this creating....and yes it was created out of emptiness ..

        June 28, 2014 at 10:22 am |
        • Robert Brown

          I wonder how time is measured in eternity. God resides in eternity.

          June 28, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          What crap.................gods existed through out human time because they exist only in the believers mind.....when you die gods cease to exist....like it or not.....I'm curious as to what those that believe in gods think about what he was doing before you think he created you....what are your feelings about that...I use the word feelings because you are speaking from your emotions not from the scientific logic you use when doing math.

          June 29, 2014 at 10:28 am |
        • kudlak

          Robert Brown
          Can you demonstrate that eternity is even possible? From what we know right now, time most likely unfolded like all the other dimensions with the Big Bang, and there wouldn't have been any time for God to exist in beforehand.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:25 pm |
    • kudlak

      Guys
      Do you actually think that a poster who chose to call themselves "idiotusmaximus" wanted to be taken seriously?

      June 28, 2014 at 11:12 am |
      • Dalahäst

        Nope. Good point.

        June 28, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          If you're looking for true idiocy read the bible.

          June 28, 2014 at 5:28 pm |
        • kudlak

          idiotusmaximus
          It may seem so today, but the Bible was pretty standard fare back in it's time. What I don't see is any reasonable argument for taking it more serious today than the Greek, Norse, or Egyptian myths.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
  9. wemarriage

    Reblogged this on wemarriage's Blog.

    June 27, 2014 at 3:31 pm |
  10. kermit4jc

    It is unfortunate that history shows men doing these things against women...FORTUNATELY though, the Bible does not support any of what has happened in the history since...Women CAN speak and teach men, as long as they teach from theBible and not heresies, (as the women in Ephesus did in Pauls time) and also not dominate over men–since no one is to dominate over others..we are ALL to submit to one another..men women children workers employers..etc. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that BOTH men and women were madein Gods image..thus BOTH are equally human and oneis not over another

    June 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
    • kudlak

      Yet, in Genesis 2 God appears to have only made Adam at first. He then placed Adam in his garden to take care of it and only later created Eve as a "helper" to him. So God made the animals, but after no suitable animal could be found, only then did God create Eve. Adam also named Eve, like he did all the animals, thus symbolically establishing his dominance over her as well. She was named for her condition of being just a small part of him, and a part cannot be equal to the whole of something, right?

      June 28, 2014 at 11:24 am |
      • kermit4jc

        NOt at all...there is nothing in the text tio indicate chronology....the word "and" does not denote chornology" in fact..if you read the entire of Gensis 2 and compare that with Genesis 1 you will see different writing...Gensis 1 clearly denotes chornology and makes it implicit....Gensis 2 clearly denotes TOPICAL language...namely the naming of animals and looking for a help mate

        July 1, 2014 at 2:17 am |
  11. Dyslexic doG

    there may or may not be some force that created the universe ... we haven't figured that out yet ... but it is not this god of bronze age foolishness that is so concerned with keeping women in their place and so concerned with what people do while na.ked and so concerned that we praise him all day long and tell him how wonderful he is and so concerned with suppressing science and so concerned with meting out punishment and so concerned with inanities like what you can eat and what days you can work on and what cloth you wear and who you can marry.

    And yet Christians use that "creation" thing as an escape hatch. They preach all this bronze age foolishness and judge, judge, judge people based on their story book but as soon as it is shown to be scientifically and historically flawed foolishness they panic and dodge and throw out "then who created the universe?" as if that has anything to do with 99% of their infantile fairy story book.

    June 27, 2014 at 9:49 am |
    • Dalahäst

      Yea! I don't believe in that god either!

      I also don't use that "creation" thing as an escape hatch. And I don't preach all this bronze age foolishness and judge, judge, judge people based on my story book. Nothing has been proven to be scientifically and historically flawed foolishness. I've never panicked and dodged and thrown out "then who created the universe?" I don't have an infantile fairy story book.

      June 27, 2014 at 10:05 am |
      • Dyslexic doG

        but you sure do seem to have multiple personalities ...

        June 27, 2014 at 10:44 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You sure do like to judge people. And then turn around and criticize people for judging people. Over and over again.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm |
      • Science Works

        Hey Dala what about that fig leaf cover up again ?

        June 27, 2014 at 11:30 am |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.intertek.com/chemicals/physico-chemical/

          June 27, 2014 at 12:12 pm |
        • Science Works

          Wow Dala is that a new chemical formula for a fig leaf cover ?

          This works – U-Pb dating – isotopes.

          June 29, 2014 at 11:19 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Yep. That is it. You got it. I'm glad it makes sense to you.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:21 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey Dala the rib tickler – oh well .

          Pope Francis jokes ‘woman was from a rib’ as he avoids question about Catholic Church’s misogyny

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/29/pope-francis-jokes-woman-was-from-a-rib-as-he-avoids-question-about-catholic-churchs-misogyny/

          June 29, 2014 at 3:02 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Awesome. Logically that only leads us to this:

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/ancient-tree-rings-suggest-good-weather-helped-genghis-khan-build-empire/

          June 29, 2014 at 3:05 pm |
        • Science Works

          Since the rib made a woman is a joke – that makes god(s) a joke eh – go figure.

          June 30, 2014 at 2:01 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          Gods were a joke long before the stupid rib thing....so dick and jane.

          June 30, 2014 at 5:06 pm |
      • kudlak

        Dalahäst
        Still, that original, bronze age idea of God was the root of all other versions of God, including yours, correct? If it was a mistake, what makes you think that your God isn't just an updated version of that same mistake?

        June 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – Still, that original, bronze age idea of God was the root of all other versions of God, including yours, correct?

          No.

          – If it was a mistake, what makes you think that your God isn't just an updated version of that same mistake?

          They might have been wrong about God. I might be wrong about God. But God still is God.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:14 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "I might be wrong about God. But God still is God." what the f does that mean?

          I might be wrong about leprechauns. But Leprechauns are still Leprechauns...

          June 27, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They sure are. Apparently 30% of Ireland believes in leprechauns. You should find Irish/leprechaun message boards and tell them all about how you don't believe in leprechauns. Every day. For hours and hours. Talking about something you don't believe in.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I certainly would if they had forced their views into my secular government. I would be just as embarrased if my dollar bill said "In Leprechauns we trust" or if my daughter was forced to recite "Under Leprechauns" in the pledge. I would be here every day complaining about the parents in my community who want Leprechaun origins taught in school or if the only way you could get elected to any political position was to publically proclaim your deep seated love for and belief in Leprechauns. You bet I would be here making sure these fiction fans knew how silly their ridiculous fantasy beliefs were.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is my secular government, too. A secular government that was set up and supported by a predominately Christian people. My church supports a secular government. The government should be secular. But by that same token the government's role is not to promote secularism. I believe the Const.itution restrict that kind of behavior. A secular government is a Christian ideal (and yes an ideal shared by others who are not Christian). I don't care what the dollar bill says. It has a bunch of other crap on it I don't care for. Nor what the pledge of allegiance says. Why do we pledge allegiance to a flag anyway? Complaining and arguing with people on religion blogs won't fix anything. You are generally mean spirited and disrespectful to those who might come to visit who could change their minds on such things. Why?

          June 27, 2014 at 8:19 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          So your argument is "We got here first so suck it!"? because that's what it sounds like. If that is your only excuse for keeping the establishment Christian tilt on nearly every aspect of American life, from TV commercials to putting your hand on the bible in court or being sworn in to political office, then you are not a person I would want to associate with anyway. I find it disgusting and unbecoming exclusionary behavior for a human that has no place in mankind's future where only working together will we survive the ever changing planet and spread out into the universe and colonize other planets. If we can't rid ourselves of this divisive and destructive thing called religion that pits one imaginary God against another, and in so doing pits those Gods followers against the other followers, then we don't really deserve to spread out through the universe.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – So your argument is "We got here first so suck it!"?

          Nope. You probably have religious people that hold the same ideals as you. But you acting like the extremist religious people – but only for atheism, isn't helpful.

          What tv commercials have Christian tilts? I hate commercials. I think it is a reflection of our secular society: indoctrination into being a consumer who supports brands and being persuaded to buy things we don't really need.

          There are horrible things that happen outside of religion. At least my religious group I belong to is dedicated to opposing those things like slavery, persecution and oppression. As in we take a stand against all slavery persecution and oppression – especially that which is against people different from us – like atheists, agnostics and people of other faiths.

          I'm just saying this isn't your secular government. It is our secular government.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:09 pm |
        • thesamyaza

          first of leperchan is offensive it is an insult to Lugh Lamfada and any Irish man who uses that phrase has offended their ancestral god and if that number is 30% its just said, oi my brothers if you hear the wailing at night its not the bean sidhe its Morrigain. stop using the offensive names Christians gave them to belittle our gods. and live the sidhe out of it even associating them with Christians evil god is just wrong, the sidhe don't push their beliefs on others no do their teaches harm this world.

          its just not cool, and you should be Careful Cernunnos likes to play tricks, puck will fuck you up.

          June 28, 2014 at 3:51 am |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          The ancient peoples who preceded the Hebrews had gods, right? God in Genesis starts off walking and talking like all the other anthropomorphic gods of their neighbours. Later, they have him speaking from bushes on top of mountains, making him still a typical sky god, still admitting that other gods are real, and something to be jealous of.

          Later still, God becomes more global when the Jews become exiled and start wondering if he has any power outside of their homeland. Jesus evolves him even more and on, and on, but if the first, Genesis version is really no different that the other typical bronze age gods, and the character clearly appears to evolve through time, then how can you just say that there's no chance that the God you worship today is just an updated version of the primitive deity that those first people worshipped?

          They believed that their version of God was real. If they were wrong about that, how do you figure that God is still actually real?

          June 28, 2014 at 11:38 am |
        • Dalahäst

          – God in Genesis starts off walking and talking like all the other anthropomorphic gods of their neighbours.

          Not literally. The gods of their neighbours said the moon, sun, stars and animals were gods. Genesis says, no, God created those. They are not gods.

          – Later, they have him speaking from bushes on top of mountains, making him still a typical sky god, still admitting that other gods are real, and something to be jealous of.

          Nope. Other gods were idols. The thing to fear was worshiping a man made idol as if it were God.

          – They believed that their version of God was real. If they were wrong about that, how do you figure that God is still actually real?

          I don't know that they were wrong. All I really know is what I've experienced on my own and tested in my life. A lot of the religious and pious people in Jesus' time were wrong, in my opinion. That is why I strive to not be too religious or too pious. That is not God's will for me.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:32 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Maybe there's not so much talk about leprechauns on the Web because those people don't feel the constant need to reassure each other that they're not deluded in believing in what they do?

          Maybe there aren't so many leprechaun skeptics on blogs because the leprechaun believers aren't using it as an excuse for denying gay marriage, abortion, and birth control? They have God for that.

          You appear to be a leprechaun skeptic in that you seem to think that the very idea of people who still believe in them must be a joke. What I keep asking you is how did you reach that conclusion? What about leprechauns is so much harder to believe than God?

          June 29, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          God is real. Leprechauns are not.

          The onus is on God or the leprechauns to prove themselves to me if they want to be known.

          God has. Leprechauns have not.

          And what you speculate about is just that: speculation.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:41 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          You believe that God is real, but seem to be just assuming that leprechauns are not.

          You may just be living in a leprechaun-free place, or you may just be oblivious to their obvious presence around you. Maybe leprechauns are avoiding you because you do not believe in them, and that's why you don't have any evidence for them? You can not have actually established that there are no leprechauns anywhere in existence. So, it is illogical for you to claim to "know" that they do not exist.

          If this sounds like a stupid argument, try replacing "Leprechauns" with "God" and you'll see a very common theist argument often used here.

          June 30, 2014 at 2:10 pm |
      • In Santa We Trust

        But again, the ones making the claim need to support it. You would be skeptical in all other walks of life. With no evidence, your god is in the myth category along with elves, leprechauns, yeti, unicorns, etc

        June 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have evidence of God. I have no evidence of elves, leprechauns, yeti, unicorns, etc. You can put them all in the same category. I can't.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:50 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Despite your denials the only evidence of a god is what is written in religious texts – the majority of which are scientifically and historically inaccurate and only provide circular "evidence". You regularly post quotes from well-known believers as though their authority is sufficient to validate the bible and therefor god; if you had real evidence you'd post it.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:05 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I do have evidence of God.

          This evidence is not strictly what is written in religious texts. Nor is it the quotes from well-known believers. But those 2 things do point to God for me. And it demonstrates that, despite your denials, you don't know everything. In fact I see evidence that you don't know what you are talking about sometimes.

          Why should I trust you? I'm not the one trying to tell you what to believe. I'm just sharing about myself. I wish you would do that, too.

          What kind of evidence do you want? Every time you answer that you seem to suggest you want an idol or a magical sky fairy. That is not what God is.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:16 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          I see you're still in the market for ocean-front property in Arizona. You know what evidence is and if there were any outside of the bible you'd be able to identify it and support your claim of cause – the fact that there is a universe is not evidence of a god or your god or that any god created the universe.

          I never once said or implied that I want an idol or a magical sky fairy – I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. You are the one posting daily that you know there is a god and that you have evidence, so I'm asking you to support your claim.

          June 27, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I never once said or implied that I want to buy ocean-front property in Arizona – I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. But it seems hypocritical that you criticize me for something, and the turn around and do the exact same thing.

          If you don't believe in God, then don't believe in God. I'm not going to stop proclaiming the truth of God's existence just because some guy on the internet doesn't like it. Especially on a blog dedicated to faith, belief and religion.

          June 27, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "No. I do have evidence of God." We have been asking you to provide some for what seems like eternity...

          "What kind of evidence do you want?" Something that could be used in a court of law would work. We have plenty of data for phenomenon all following physics the same for good and bad alike so thats the control, now provide some examples of any supernatural influence on these predictable physics, show how the Christian worshiper who does everything right and has thousands of other Christians praying on their behalf have any better chance of beating cancer or any other disease than the atheist who rejects Gods existence. If there was any real world interaction between the physical and the spiritual it would be detectable. The fact that it goes completely undetected is powerful evidence that such a force does not exist.

          "What is believed to be the smallest force ever measured has been detected by researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California (UC) Berkeley. Using a combination of lasers and a unique optical trapping system that provides a cloud of ultracold atoms, the researchers measured a force of approximately 42 yoctonewtons. A yoctonewton is one septillionth of a newton and there are approximately 3 x 1023 yoctonewtons in one ounce of force." – http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140626150924.htm

          Just to point out how advanced our detection methods are now.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          -Something that could be used in a court of law would work.

          There are some things that are true and real, that can't be proved following the rules of our courts of law. Our courts of law weren't designed for determining all truths.

          The spiritual aspects of our life does not go completely undetected. You may have no evidence of God, but that doesn't mean other do not.

          – Just to point out how advanced our detection methods are now.

          Science still can't do a lot of important things, like determine human values prove logical truth, historical truth, or experiential truth to be true. But it is quite amazing what people using science can do. That is why I fully embrace it. But I won't follow scientism/materialism/atheism that is being preached or believe posters on message boards that imagine science proves everything they know.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:32 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          It wouldn't take much. God could just turn off the sun for 5 seconds and announce to the world "This is God. Follow my Bible". That's all. FIVE seconds to save BILLIONS of souls.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:37 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          There were supposedly people in the bible who tested God in a real, physical way, if true, why shouldn't that work now?

          "21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing. 22 Then Elijah said to them, “I am the only one of the Lord’s prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets. 23 Get two bulls for us. Let Baal’s prophets choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. 24 Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the Lord. The god who answers by fire—he is God.” Then all the people said, “What you say is good.” 25 Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, “Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire.” 26 So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. 27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.” 28 So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed. 29 Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention. 30 Then Elijah said to all the people, “Come here to me.” They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the Lord, which had been torn down. 31 Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord had come, saying, “Your name shall be Israel.” 32 With the stones he built an altar in the name of the Lord, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs[a] of seed. 33 He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, “Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood.” 34 “Do it again,” he said, and they did it again. “Do it a third time,” he ordered, and they did it the third time. 35 The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench. 36 At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: “Lord, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. 37 Answer me, Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again.” 38 Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. 39 When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!” 40 Then Elijah commanded them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Don’t let anyone get away!” They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there." 1 Kings 18:21-40

          June 27, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Isn't Elijah following God's command?

          Doing what neverbeenhap or observer suggests God following our commands.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:10 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          I never suggested that God follow our commands. Stick with what I ACTUALLY say.

          I have suggested that man not follow God's commands that support slavery and numerous discriminations.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:17 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          All of this is such a waste of time since there has never been any empirical evidence of these so called GODS in the history of the earth....and I find it fascinating that the earth had been around 4.5 billion years with all kinds of different life and even our ancestors for millions of years... but then all of a sudden a few thousand years ago he made humans in his image...what took this powerless stupid god so long to do that....I'll tell you why....because humans created gods in in their image that's why....

          June 28, 2014 at 9:57 am |
        • Dalahäst

          "It wouldn't take much. God could just turn off the sun for 5 seconds and announce to the world "This is God. Follow my Bible". That's all. FIVE seconds to save BILLIONS of souls."

          I took that as you telling God what He should do.

          If you follow God's will, you actually wouldn't even consider owning slaves. In fact, you would probably do like a lot of Christians do and actively fight to free those who are currently enslaved. Our nation supports slavery. And not enough people are fighting that sad reality.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:23 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "Isn't Elijah following God's command?"

          There is no command for Elijah to test God in this way even though in the same scripture it does have God supposedly giving him one command.

          "the word of the Lord came to Elijah: “Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land.” 2 So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab."

          Here again is a supernatural effect that is claimed (that of God bringing rain on command) that could be tested today but of course, no such supernatural evidence of rain falling out of clear skies, or even clouds forming where no evaporation of water has occurred.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:41 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          That is not about testing God. Elijah already knew God existed. It was the other people that didn't know.

          God told Elijah what to do and what would happen. Elijah did it (even though he probably didn't want to). And God did what He said He would do.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:00 pm |
        • colin31714

          It's odd that a being with the capability to not only understand, but to CREATE quantum mechanics, the complexity of the DNA molecule, general relativity and the uniform expansion of the cosmos, chose to speak only to late Bronze Age Jews, communicating through burning bushes, a thundering voice and a ball of light.

          It is so obvious that the Jews created God in their image and not vice-versa.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:10 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          God is trying to change our hearts. You know, so we stop being the type of people that get off on the warm comfort our ego produces when we childishly imagine we are completely right and all the others are completely wrong.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:26 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst

          You raised the issue of what proof someone would want and I gave a VERY simple 5-SECOND solution that could save BILLIONS of lives..

          So rather than admit how EASY and CONCLUSIVE it would be, all you have left is "I took that as you telling God what He should do."

          Don't ask questions if you can't handle the answers.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I didn't realize you were asking in that context. I asked that question of somebody else and I didn't understand your intent.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:08 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          Normally, I repeat the quote I am referring to. In this case I failed to do that and I should have.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is alright. That would be compelling evidence. I agree.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          You have evidence of God, someone else has evidence of leprechauns or elves, someone else simply "knows" that yeti and bigfoot are real, etc. So far, you haven't been able to articulate how their reasons, evidence, and beliefs differ from your own.

          So from our viewpoint, you all have exactly the same kind of evidence for your particular beliefs, right? Aren't we justified then in treating your beliefs all equally? If you can't objectively see that, then why object to people concluding that you're either deluded and/or special pleading?

          June 29, 2014 at 1:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          The only viewpoint you can speak from is your own. You say "our viewpoint", but each one of you has offered different reasons, understandings, theories and explanations about my faith in God. And nobody is offering any arguments I haven't already considered for myself.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:58 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          But you never explain yourself, only swerve and dodge. You say you were an atheist so you must have a good idea of what evidence you found lacking, yet you can never identify what evidence you have that caused you to change your mind apart from ethereal statements.
          You post "facts" on a public blog yet object when those are challenged.
          There is still no evidence for your god other than what the bible claims.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:37 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Santa,

          The evidence was and is in my life. As I try to become a better person, following Jesus Christ provides a way to do that. I wouldn't know where to start as an atheist to carry out the things I hope to do. With Jesus, theology and a community committed to the same goal I can.

          I have evidence of God. You don't. But maybe tomorrow you will find it and see it doesn't just exist in a book.

          I found evidence of God and then I went to the book.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:44 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          So no more objective evidence than for leprechauns then.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have no evidence of leprechauns. Sorry.

          I focus on what I know.

          June 29, 2014 at 2:53 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          What evidence were you seeking and where were you looking? What evidence would you require to believe in leprechauns?

          June 29, 2014 at 8:44 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've never met a scientist that believes in leprechauns. Or a person who has overcome a racist system peacefully who believes in leprechauns. I've never met a person who was reasonable, intelligent and compassionate that believes in leprechauns. But I have met such people that do believe in God. I've talked to them. And looked into their eyes.

          If I do meet someone who believes in leprechauns who can demonstrate to me they are reasonable, practical, caring, loving and honest, I would be open to listen to what they have to say.

          June 29, 2014 at 9:47 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          More dodge and swerve. It doesn't matter that you've never met someone who believes in leprechauns. You said you had no evidence of a leprechaun. So the questions were:
          What evidence were you seeking and where were you looking? What evidence would you require to believe in leprechauns.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:26 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Not a dodge and swerve. You are asking loaded questions.

          I have never sought for evidence of leprechauns. I have no reason to.

          June 30, 2014 at 10:59 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          Loaded because it shows that you really have no more evidence for your god than anyone can produce for a leprechaun. In anticipation of your denial – either answer the questions or provide the evidence for your god.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:11 am |
        • Dalahäst

          No. Your loaded questions did not prove I have no evidence of God.

          Those sound like the questions I asked you. But here is the difference:

          I have evidence of God. I believe in God. If you tell me what kind of evidence you want or how you've searched for God I may be able to help you. You've been asking for evidence of God from me.

          I can't say the same thing for leprechauns. The only people I know that talk about leprechauns are anti-theists that try to use the analogy to prove I have no evidence. But it isn't quite that simple. And it is not logical.

          Why are you getting so bossy? We are commenting in a message board of a blog dedicated to faith, belief and religion. This article is written by a believer in God. A person that has evidence of God. Just because you can't or won't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Don't be so narrow-minded.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • In Santa We Trust

          So no answers – just dodge and swerve and faux indignation that no one is fooled by it.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Wrong. I gave answers. I just didn't answer like an anti-theist would. And you don't like that.

          You haven't proved anything.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • Edsed

          Exactly, Santa. Dalahast is a particularly slippery dodger, but he has already been caught in his usual tricks, lying about having evidence for his god that he can present. See here for one example of that. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/21/pope-excommunicates-mafia-members/comment-page-4/
          Dalahast, you have been caught in your lies before. You have no evidence for you god.

          June 30, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • Dalahäst

          EdSed,

          We just disagreed in that thread. I may be wrong. But that doesn't make me a liar.

          There is no truth to your opinion that I have to prove something to you or In Santa We Trust or it doesn't actually exist. That is nonsense. That is the type of thing one would expect an anti-theist to post on a religion blog. I can't imagine anyone is worried over what you 2 think. You aren't paid for your writings. Nobody is asking you to come here. You are posting opinions on an opinion blog. Don't take yourselves so seriously. Nobody else is.

          June 30, 2014 at 12:08 pm |
        • Edsed

          No, Dalahast, dodger and liar, you were caught lying in that thread.

          June 30, 2014 at 2:21 pm |
        • In Santa We Trust

          You're someone who says context is important.
          You said you had evidence of a god and you said you had no evidence of a leprechaun.
          What evidence were you seeking and where were you looking? What evidence would you require to believe in leprechauns.

          You post spurious "evidence" like some scientists are christians – some scientists are muslims and hindus but you don't believe in their gods.

          No matter how long you dance the questions will remain.

          June 30, 2014 at 9:31 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          With no evidence, your god is in the myth category along with elves, leprechauns, yeti, unicorns,...

          That's the reality.....
          THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..
          If you propose the existence of something such as a god, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence, otherwise I have no reason to listen to you.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:01 am |
    • idiotusmaximus

      ...............there may or may not be some force that created the universe ..............

      Duh........I think it's called the BIG BANG.

      June 27, 2014 at 6:20 pm |
  12. Vic

    From time to time, given the subject matter and the course of discussion, I feel the need to stress upon the culmination of God's revelation of Christianity.

    From the beginning of time and going through all time dispensations & temporary creeds of old and new†, Christianity is summed up in three passages, I believe:

    John 3:16
    "16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (NASB)

    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)

    Ephesians 2:8,9
    "8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (NASB)

    † The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament was temporary.
    Apostle Paul's directives to the Churches in the New Testament regarding women were pertaining to the cultures they were addressed to, hence temporary.

    June 27, 2014 at 7:33 am |
    • awanderingscot

      not temporary and certainly not cultural. we live in the same dispensation and thus everything spoken by Paul applies to us today. not cultural as evidenced by no women priests in the previous dispensation.

      June 27, 2014 at 8:20 am |
    • awanderingscot

      has nothing at all to do with faith, only God's decrees for His church. He is still the God of order shown to us in the OT.

      June 27, 2014 at 8:23 am |
    • awanderingscot

      "The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament was temporary"

      – this saying and application is yet another aspect of the yeast seen today in the apostate church. Christ did not come to do away with the Law but to fulfill it. we no longer need to offer up blood sacrifice to atone for our sins because His blood is sufficient and any ceremonial laws or rules associated would also be null and void. however, God's laws remain to this day, because He is holy, He is just, and He is also immutable. God's decree concerning headship and spiritual authority was very clearly expressed by both the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul; and by the apostle to the Jews, Peter. Both would never have assumed the authority for this on their own and it is God's decree, just one of many the apostate church chooses to ignore most recently in these last days.

      “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.. – Matthew 5:17, NKJV

      June 27, 2014 at 8:50 am |
      • Doc Vestibule

        So which of the OT codes are still binding? Levitical? Deuteronomical?
        Is all that was once labelled an abomination still considered thus in the eyes of God?
        "These the End Days" – sure.
        “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
        —1 John 2:18

        We've been in the "Last Hour" for 17 million hours now. "The End" has always been nigh in Christian thinking.

        June 27, 2014 at 10:16 am |
        • awanderingscot

          oh let's see, murder, adultery, stealing, and i could list many more. consider this also; he is eternal and thus not bound by the constraints of time as measured by mortal man. also consider this; right now He is being patient with you so you would do well to consider that His patience might just be fulfilled for His appointed time.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:36 am |
        • christianguy17

          Awanderingscot is correct. The instuctions in the epistles, From peter, John, and the entire NT are given to us in this new testament dispensation if his grace. All of the old testament is still of use to instruct us in morality and by example. However, there are 3 types of laws on the OT. The moral (still binding today), the ceremonial and the political laws given to the children of israel as a nation (those regarding punishments, cities of refuge, etc.). Israel as a nation composed of the 12 tribes is no more and God did not extend those laws to the gentiles after Christ. Again, remember that the entire NT is to direct his church today. The ceremonial law (sacrificial system, etc) is fulfilled in Christ. It too has passed away (read the book of Acts, Galations, etc). However, whatsoever is morally taught in the OT, including The 10 commandments, is still binding. God does not change, neither do His laws, Christ has fulfilled the law, He came to "establish the law", but the dispensation of grace, aka the gospel, is different for the NT christian.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:37 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          The Legend of King Arthur is not evidence for Merlin.
          The Greek Myths are not evidence for Heracles.
          The Epic of Beowulf is not evidence for Grendel.
          The American Folk Tradition is not evidence for Paul Bunyan.
          The New Testament is not evidence for Jesus.
          The Old Testament is not evidence for Yahweh.

          The miracles happened ... in the story.
          The prophesies were fulfilled ... in the story.
          The character was emotionally appealing and morally right ... in the story.

          Get out of your stories.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:42 am |
        • awanderingscot

          'but you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.' – 1 John 2:20, NKJV
          – not in the sense of being omniscient as our Lord is, but we will know when you don't; and then it will be too late for you to join in the wedding and feast. you will knock but the only thing you will hear is "go away, you don't have an invitation and i don't know you". this is the day of His grace and i urge you to seek Him.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:46 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0G
          knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, – 2 Peter 3:3, NKJV – seek Him D0G, while He may still be found. your very soul is in the balance.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:50 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          If the moral laws remain intact, why did Christians change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?
          Doesn't that mean that everyone (except the 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses) are disobeying one of God's primary commandments?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:01 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. "for the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” – Matthew 12:8, NKJV
          and
          the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath – "and He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." – Mark 2:27, NKJV

          so tell us D0C, using your spiritual discernment; is it right and is it good that Christians rest on the day of Christ's resurrection and please also provide scripture that either confirms or denies that this is not right and good.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • christianguy17

          Correct, the moral law, including the 4th commandment regarding the sabbath is still in force. But again, whatever is moral is to be kept and whatsoever is political law (or ceremonial) has been abrogated. We deduce that the 4th commandment has both moral and political contained because of the example of the New Testament church assembling on the 1st day of the week for worship, the day Christ rose from the dead and rested from His work (as He did in creation). All explicit commands as well as those commands dervied from good and necessary logical consequences are to be kept. We have the example of Paul using a political law of Israel, TO PROVE A MORAL POINT, that minsters shoulde paid for their efforts in preaching the gospel. See 1 Corinthians 9:8-11
          "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written:that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" Fascinating isn't it?"

          June 27, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • Doris

          Snotty: "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, – 2 Peter 3:3, NKJV"

          As with much of the NT, authorship is always highly questionable. It's just as reasonable to consider Peter 2 as an internal memoranda of the early church as anything written by any individual based on the lack of evidence. As Bart Ehrman points out, most NT scholars do not believe Peter 2 was authored by Peter.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:17 am |
        • Doris

          excuse me – I guess that should be "an internal memorandum"

          June 27, 2014 at 11:18 am |
        • observer

          christianguy17

          The corollary to the 4th commandment in the Bible was God's COMMAND to KILL everyone working on the Sabbath. Fortunately Jesus saw that was wrong and changed it.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:20 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          @Christianguy
          Thanks for the thoughtful, well referenced, polite responses.
          Scot should take notes from you on how to comport oneself in a Christian way as opposed to a vitriolic, self-righteous ass.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:25 am |
        • awanderingscot

          'so let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,' – Colossians 2:16, NKJV
          – we are not bound in observance to the sabbath.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:37 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C, LOL you would not have a clue as to how a Christian should or would comport themselves. and when you deceitfully twist and torture scripture to support your evil attacks on God and His servants, then yes i will consider you a viper and deflect your venom right back at you; and yes i am righteous, because He makes me righteous; i'm unfazed by your judgment.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:46 am |
        • Doris

          Of course a lot of other Christians would say the same about your interpretation of Gullible's Travels, Snotty.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:49 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          so as usual, you obfuscate and resort to name calling. so since you brought it up, why don't you answer the question i posed.
          a) using your spiritual discernment; is it right and is it good that Christians rest on the day of Christ's resurrection?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Doc Vestibule

          "I am righteous"

          There's a fine example of Christian humility.

          And Scot – you are the undisputed king of name calling. It is generally your first response.
          Even the trolls like Salero don't throw ad hominems around as much as you.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm |
        • observer

          Doc Vestibule,

          Yes, awanderingscot constantly engages in projectionism. He constantly accuses other of some of his worst habits like name-calling and lying. Sad case.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:56 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          D0C
          LOL .. and this person isn't even here ... "Even the trolls like Salero" ... you still have not answered the question and you are the one who brought the subject up. Here is yours:
          Doc Vestibule
          If the moral laws remain intact, why did Christians change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?
          Doesn't that mean that everyone (except the 7th Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses) are disobeying one of God's primary commandments?

          and so i responded with the following and my question at the end, which you refuse to answer.

          awanderingscot

          D0C
          Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath. "for the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” – Matthew 12:8, NKJV
          and
          the Sabbath was created for man, not man for the Sabbath – "and He said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." – Mark 2:27, NKJV

          so tell us D0C, using your spiritual discernment; is it right and is it good that Christians rest on the day of Christ's resurrection and please also provide scripture that either confirms or denies that this is not right and good.

          You're like a child who spits at you and then runs. All you can do is spew your emotional vomit and give your sick and twisted interpretation of scripture. grow up hate-theist boy.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:22 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot

          "i am righteous, because He makes me righteous; i'm unfazed by your judgment."

          Where In the Bible does it say "Thou SHALL bear false witness"?

          Your HYPOCRISY and LYING is amazing and amusing.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:27 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          When God bestows a blessing, it is forever.
          "You, O Lord, have blessed it, and it will be blessed forever"
          (1 Chronicles 17:27).
          "I have received a command to bless; He has blessed, and I cannot change it"
          (Numbers 23:20)

          God blessed the 7th day as the Sabbath.
          "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy"
          (Genesis 2:3).
          "Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy"
          (Exodus 20:11)

          The Apostle Paul said that God's Laws must be kept, despite Christ's fulfillment of the law.
          "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law"
          – (Romans 3:31).

          Jesus said, "I have kept My Father’s commandments"
          – (John 15:10)

          The women who went to anoint His body after his death "rested on the Sabbath according to the commandment"
          – (Luke 23:56)

          Therefore, Christians should honour God's commandment in Exodus 20:10.
          "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God"

          June 27, 2014 at 1:52 pm |
      • Vic

        In short:

        Jesus Christ spoke of that the Law would be binding until it is accomplished. That's why he accomplished it for us for no human can accomplish it.

        You are very much confusing the "Dispensation Of Grace" and the "Dispensation Of Law." Jesus Christ was born in the flesh under the Law and ministered as such during His Ministry on earth, and then, He died on the Holy Cross for the Remission of our sins, descended to hell and defeated death, rose from the dead on the third day as the First Fruits Of Resurrection bringing us Eternal Life and Reconciliation with God the Father, and then ascended to Heaven promising us the sending of the Holy Spirit and preparing a place for us.

        His Work is DONE.

        John 17:4
        "4 I glorified You on the earth, having accomplished the work which You have given Me to do." (NASB)

        John 19:30
        "30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit." (NASB)

        Hebrews 1:1-3
        "1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high," (NASB)

        June 27, 2014 at 10:43 am |
        • christianguy17

          So are you proposing antinomianism? That there is grace from God so God's laws and instuctions are no longer to be followed? What is the point of the epistles and the rest of the NT scripture? The verses you have referrenced spoke to Christ having accomplished His work as our high priest, having conquered sin, satan and that last enemy, death. They speak to nothing more, no can they logically as you have ripped them out of context and they don't negate our present duty as given in scripture. Christ said, "if you love me, keep my commanddments., and again in I John 5:3, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous".

          June 27, 2014 at 11:06 am |
        • observer

          christianguy17

          "That there is grace from God so God's laws and instuctions are no longer to be followed"

          Fortunately we are smart enough to no longer follow many of God's laws. Slavery is mostly gone. Discriminations against women, gays and the handicapped are rapidly disappearing, etc. We are more enlightened in those areas and more MORAL by most logic.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:13 am |
        • Vic

          Matthew 22:34-40
          "34 But when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered themselves together. 35 One of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”" (NASB)

          John 13:34
          "34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." (NASB)

          June 27, 2014 at 12:23 pm |
        • observer

          Vic,

          Please pass the word about the Golden Rule to ALL the Christian hypocrites who don't believe in following it.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:27 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          well that's exactly right CG17, a couple verses here that make it clear

          'Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?' – Hebrews 10:29, NKJV
          and
          'What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?' – Romans 6:15, NKJV; also see Romans 6:1

          June 27, 2014 at 12:35 pm |
        • christianguy17

          John 14:15 "If ye love me, keep my commandments."

          1 John 2:3-5
          And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected:hereby know we that we are in him.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:37 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          When asked what was the MOST IMPORTANDT commandment, Jesus mentioned a few commandments.

          What did Jesus NOT mention as a candidate for MOST IMPORTANT:

          (1) The Golden Rule
          (2) S3xual sins by heteros (adultery) or
          (3) S3xual sins by gays

          June 27, 2014 at 12:41 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17

          "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

          So do you keep his commandments in support of slavery and beating helpless children or do you just HYPOCRITICALLY pick and choose?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:45 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ – Christ was speaking of loving others, this in contrast to the previous dispensation where Jews were surrounded by their enemies.

          A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."
          – John was speaking to the church and the special love one has for another brother or sister. He was echoing and clarifying the words of Christ Himself.

          Christ spoke in his prayer of John 17:23b, "that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me."

          – the world was to know that Christ has a special love for those who love him. "them" refers to his disciples, not the world. "they" refers to Christ's disciples, not the world, the world is not "they" who have been made "perfect in one"

          June 27, 2014 at 2:43 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          CG17
          don't even bother trying to explain the following mindless rant, i have explained it to he/r more than once and s/he chooses to continue being ignorant in he/r hate for God.

          observer
          christianguy17
          "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."
          So do you keep his commandments in support of slavery and beating helpless children or do you just HYPOCRITICALLY pick and choose?

          June 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          Where in the Bible does it say that God CHANGED and now opposed slavery?

          Was it the same "UNCHANGING" God in both testaments?

          (Malachi 3:6) “I the Lord do not change.” OOOOOPS!

          June 27, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          lovely how yuo rip that out of context..it refers to Gods NATURE>.that he is JUST..read th e REST of that chpater of Malachi..sheesh..THATS what doesnt change abuot God..THAT si what he is referring to....listen...youre not a Bible scholar...stay out of it

          June 27, 2014 at 7:26 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          So going from a LONG LIST of commands to KILL people to NONE doesn't reflect a "change in nature"?

          lol. Get serious. Sheesh.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:30 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          apparently yuo don tknow difference between actions and nature.....God is JUST God...youre refering to his ACTIONS......totally different issues

          June 27, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "...youre not a Bible scholar...stay out of it" lol, i guess kermie is because he "knows" the real deal here...

          June 27, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          If someone went from telling people to KILL others for a long list of reasons and then told them NOT TO KILL ANYONE, YOU wouldn't see any change in their NATURE.

          lol. Please apply even a TINY BIT of logic to your responses.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • kermit4jc

          nope..again you are referring to ACTIONS..not nature...as I said..God is a JUST God...even when he stops "killing" people he is STILL a JUST God..because JUSTICE is served..thru death of Jesus to pay for our sins

          June 28, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • thesamyaza

          yo Froggy are you saying genocide is just as long as its your god killing?

          June 28, 2014 at 1:49 am |
        • kermit4jc

          GOS gave them life..not us....GOD is just..God is Judge..not you and me..GOd reserves right to take their lives (we ALL die anyways-so whats your problem?)

          June 28, 2014 at 2:01 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          For generation after generation, the word is spread. God COMMANDS everyone to KILL anyone caught doing a long list of bad things. After centuries, suddenly one day EVERYTHING changes. Now God is telling everyone that it is a SIN to do that and they could end up in hell for doing that.

          But of course God didn't change his mind.

          Please get serious. You are just embarrassing yourself.

          ..

          But, of course, God hasn't CHANGED his mind.

          Get serious. Get some LOGIC. You are embarassing yourself.

          June 28, 2014 at 1:58 am |
        • kermit4jc

          that is nOT what happened...and again you are still confusing actions with nature....God is still JUST God..sins are still paid for...whether in this life or the next....I am serious..youre the one embarrassing yourself by confusing actions with nature...those in past still went to hell as they do today.....not everyone got killed by Israel anyways.....God didn't judge all peoples..the Chinese and native americans in same was as ZCanaanites were..each person he deals with INIDIVIDUALLY

          June 28, 2014 at 2:04 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          And Kermit is still Kermit. He NEVER CHANGED either. Just his actions.

          Get serious. God even admitted he was wrong about how long man should live and so CHANGED it.

          Read a Bible and try to comprehend what it says instead of WISHING what it said.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:08 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God changing tat does NOT mean GOD changed..he is still God you idiot..and comparing me to God is silly....IMNOT Holy righteous and such..also..God KNEW this would happen already..he didn't change his mIND..He changed hwo he DEALT with it and STILL remains GOD..PERIOD..He di dnt cease to be God...I AM saerious..maybe You should read it all in context..as I said malachi refers to Gods JUSTICE...His Justice does nOT change..His very NATURE is He is JUST..and He still IS JUST..THAT has nOT changed

          June 28, 2014 at 2:16 am |
        • thesamyaza

          GOS gave them life..not us....GOD is just..God is Judge..not you and me..GOd reserves right to take their lives (we ALL die anyways-so whats your problem?)

          we all die so whats my problem,.. dude it was murder,.. murder is not OK, so you believe your God created every one so if Your god commands death of some one its ok because your god commands it. it is only ok to kill for survive or sustenance, what part of genocide is ok. what gave the Israelite and your god the right to butcher them? the answer nothing. and for your information your god did not create the Amorites were of Nordic decent the had the blood of Danu flowing in their vains, they were not born of your god. they were peaceful people, whose only crime was trying to bring green to your backwater desert as is commanded by Danu herself. it was ethnic cleansing and nothing more. your god may have the right to off his children, but those of us of Danu line ware here when: the sky was black,ash rained down and the ground cracked of fire. your god had no right to butcher them as they did.

          its like saying because Hitler killed the Jews he was working for god as he believed so hitler and god had ever right to kill the Jews.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:22 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Speaking of idiots, you are claiming that God KNEW he would not like how long he would set up for man to live and did it anyway knowing he'd have to CHANGE it later.

          lol. You keep digging yourself in further and further.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:25 am |
        • kermit4jc

          God changed the weay he DEALT with things..and He is STILL a JUST God..that has nOT changed...

          June 28, 2014 at 2:29 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          When discussing the Ten Commandments, God COMMANDED that anyone working on the Sabbath should be KILLED. You say he hasn't changed, so he believes that ALL CHRISTIANS who work on the Sabbath should be killed, but Jesus accepts their due punishment. So it's still a SIN and he will deal with those SINNERS in heaven, right?

          June 28, 2014 at 2:35 am |
        • kermit4jc

          My God you stildont get it..Im through trying to get it thru your thick head He is STILl God..he did nOT change..He is GOD..he changed on how he DEALS with people..but he is STILL a JUST God..period...you don't get it...youre too blinded

          June 28, 2014 at 2:37 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          You say he hasn’t changed, so he believes that ALL CHRISTIANS who work on the Sabbath should be killed,...

          I'm scared...you mean I could be killed by something I don't believe in because it has never been proven to exist?

          June 28, 2014 at 10:03 am |
        • thesamyaza

          due your god is not just, the name a bare on this site is proof of that, you know Samyazas story, samyaza was born from gods injustice so to speak its why he/she is also known as the Anguished one. Samyaza was a Angel gods first born who fell in love and Married a Human, and your god imprisiond him and sent down Gabrial to murder his wife and child, because the filth of humans have spread to the pure angel. his followers who did the same were next. if your god was just tell me how come Nergal, Samael , Samyaza(lucifer), and according to the Qur'an Mastema(satan) has all falle. all of his top most beloved angels said fuck this guy.

          your god is not just, he is not the only one god who is perfect, that is a lie.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:38 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Speaking of THICK HEADS, what is the answer?

          When discussing the Ten Commandments, God COMMANDED that anyone working on the Sabbath should be KILLED. You say he hasn't changed, so he believes that ALL CHRISTIANS who work on the Sabbath should be killed, but Jesus accepts their due punishment. So it's still a SIN and he will PUNISH those SINNERS in heaven, right?

          June 28, 2014 at 2:40 am |
        • kermit4jc

          working on Sabbath is not sin anymore...and God is STLL God thus he has NOT changed...Jesus says HE is the LORD over the Sabbath...it was nOT made to burden man..and God is STILL God and STILL Just..and he has not changed

          June 28, 2014 at 2:42 am |
        • thesamyaza

          if you stare to long into the light you will never see the darkness that hides inside it, you my friend are blind.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:41 am |
        • tallulah131

          Of course your god changed, kermit. That's why his handbook has a "New" testament. Gods have to change as the cultures that invented them change. Otherwise, those gods and their priests would become obsolete. It's happened before. Eventually, it will happen to your god.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:43 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          God: KILL anyone working on the Sabbath

          Jesus: It's okay to work on the Sabbath

          Kermit: God never CHANGES.

          Jesus MUST be wrong.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • kermit4jc

          IM done beating a dead horse here..you are not using your brain..you just don't get it..God is still God..he did not cease to be God.....youre pretty lame..Im done...

          June 28, 2014 at 2:45 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          What's fascinating is that this was done before it was started.

          June 28, 2014 at 10:07 am |
        • kermit4jc

          yes..done before it was started...some people cant seem to separate aciotns with nature....its pitifully sad....God is still god..period..he did not cease o be God....and this is what obsever cant seem to grasp....

          July 1, 2014 at 2:09 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON RELIGION…..
          If you propose the existence of something such as a god, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of its existence, otherwise I have no reason to listen to you… And anyone that does is a fool.

          Do you have proof of what you imply kerm?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:03 am |
        • kermit4jc

          as if science proves everything?? sir...you depend way too much on science...second...science can "prove" Gods existence indirectly...using areas of cosmos, DNA, microbiology (showing the obvious signs of a Creator-not something that comes out of thin air...plus philosophical debates can show existence of God....too much to mention here, but personally, I know God exists cause of my personal experiences I have with God Himself (this is not only evidence as I pointed out the above as well)

          July 1, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • tallulah131

          kermit, all your insults and name calling don't change the fact that there isn't a single shred of evidence that your god even exists. Your insults and name calling simply make you sound like a child throwing a temper tantrum.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • thesamyaza

          "working on Sabbath is not sin anymore.."

          but it was before...

          that equals change ...

          your god changed his mind thus he has changed.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:48 am |
        • kermit4jc

          you don't seem to get it either...He did nto change his mind..he changed with how he dealt with people..and he is STILL GOD..He did nOT cease to be God..thus he did nOT change..youre too shallow

          June 28, 2014 at 2:52 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          He did not change his mind..he changed with how he dealt with people..and he is STILL GOD...

          Why did he change how he dealt with people...you mean he got it wrong in the beginning and needed practice to get it right?

          June 28, 2014 at 10:15 am |
        • observer

          God: "KILL anyone working on the Sabbath"

          kermit4jc: "working on Sabbath is not sin anymore"

          Kermit: "God didn't change"

          You get more and more desperate and ILLOGICAL as you go along..

          ..

          June 28, 2014 at 2:49 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          In short: Jesus Christ spoke of that the Law would be binding until it is accomplished. ...

          Even shorter is that there was no one called Jesus...it's not even a name used in the middle east.

          June 28, 2014 at 10:09 am |
        • thesamyaza

          IM done beating a dead horse here..you are not using your brain..you just don't get it..God is still God..he did not cease to be God.....youre pretty lame..Im done...

          if this internet bulling has caused you the desire to kill your self please post it online, i know a few poeple who get off on that.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:51 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc

          "you don't seem to get it either...He did nto change his mind"

          So we are to KILL anyone working on the Sabbath like he COMMANDED. He said "FOREVER". OOOPS.

          (Exodus 31:15-17 “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. It is a sign FOREVER between me and the people of Israel” [God]

          June 28, 2014 at 2:59 am |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all..he changed how he dealt with people..thatsnto changing his mind..especially since he is all knowing..second..the Hebrew word "forever" is an inddeinite amount of time..stop[retending the Bible was originally writtein IN Modern day English

          June 28, 2014 at 3:05 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          .stop[retending the Bible was originally writtein IN Modern day English.........

          Must be an Evangelical...those people are beyond strict.

          June 28, 2014 at 10:17 am |
        • kermit4jc

          not being strict..its a matter of proper communication..read the Bible from the view point of the writers...not the raders...as I said..the Bible was witten mostly by JEWS over 2000 years ago.....thus culture, language, etc was different from USA culture...and language

          July 1, 2014 at 2:13 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          ..read the Bible from the view point of the writers…...

          And reading this way out of date FICTION is going to do what for me?

          July 1, 2014 at 11:05 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..fro wrtiers view opint it isnot fiction..don't be double minded,,if you weanna believe it is fiction from YOUR point of view..fine..but in the sense I said to get UNDERSTANDING of the text, to do so with view of the writers....

          July 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          So God couldn't find any word to describe "FOREVER". He just meant it would be for a fixed amount of time. Even if he intended it to mean "forever", he couldn't do it. "FOREVER" is already over. So every place the Bible says "forever", it's for a fixed amount of time and it may already be over.

          That's a classic!

          June 28, 2014 at 3:10 am |
        • kermit4jc

          uhh..its called studying..god expects us to use our brains...and apparently you are too ignorant to know anything about rlanslating from one language to another..

          June 28, 2014 at 3:11 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          uhh..its called studying..god expects us to use our brains…...........LOVE THIS.

          Not because god expected it but it is the natural progression of time....even the animals we have around us have progressed mentally in the millions of years of their existence..... it is since the big bang the order of things....TO EXPAND....but it's funny humans that believe in gods want just the opposite....NOT TO EXPAND...that they live and believe something written by old men living in the desert 1400 years ago is the proof of that..

          June 28, 2014 at 10:29 am |
        • kermit4jc

          expand? how so?? How do I not want to expand??

          July 1, 2014 at 2:14 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          expand? how so?? How do I not want to expand??

          You can expand within the confines of what your bible allows you ....and that's it...SORRY....you have limited yourself.

          July 1, 2014 at 11:08 am |
        • kermit4jc

          still not specific...expand morality, thought...what?????

          July 1, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          So when the Lord's Prayer ends with "for ever and ever", it just means his "power and glory" is just temporary and may already be over.

          June 28, 2014 at 3:14 am |
        • kermit4jc

          first of all...youre going to the Greek now.....secondly....that is not a figure of speech..it is literal

          June 28, 2014 at 3:37 am |
        • idiotusmaximus

          So when the Lord’s Prayer ends with “for ever and ever”, it just means his “power and glory” is just temporary and may already be over....

          Of course that's assuming it EVER BEGAN.

          June 28, 2014 at 10:31 am |
        • observer

          kermit4jc,

          Speaking of NOT KNOWING about translations, all of the Bibles use the TRANSLATED word of "forever". Apparently NONE of the biblical scholars is as smart as you and know it should say "for a fixed time".

          lol. lol. You are a riot.

          I'm sorry to have to go to bed. It's fun watching you squirm and spout out nonsense to try to explain why God AND THE BIBLE say something is going to be FOREVER and it's already OVER. It's going to be hard for you to be this funny tomorrow, but you can try if you don't have a job as a biblical SCHOLAR by then. lol..

          June 28, 2014 at 3:24 am |
        • thesamyaza

          עולם or olam, with the English alphabetic means forever, or for a unknown length of time, but assuming in the refering to the 10 being written by your god himself, and that through him nothing is unkown, it would be safe to assume he meant the forever translation of the word.

          my expiriance with language is gouse in this order
          from least to greatist

          Gaelic (modern Irish)
          Hebrew
          English

          June 28, 2014 at 3:28 am |
        • thesamyaza

          sorry meant greatest to least, i speak English realy good, i write for shit. this site is good practice.

          English is a fucked up language. but people say that about my native tongue to so,..

          June 28, 2014 at 3:36 am |
      • christianguy17

        Observer,
        You have no idea what you are talking about and you don't seem to be listening. Go back and read my posts about the 3 types of laws and what Christ abrogated. If you have a problem with the political laws and their punishments given to the nation of Israel as a body politic BY GOD, then there is nothing Else to say...there is only "a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation" for Christ's adversaries and those who "sin willfully" who "have received the knowledge of the truth". (Heb 10:27-28 KJV)

        June 27, 2014 at 11:33 am |
        • Doris

          Of course no one knows for certain who authored Hebrews. There has been some effort to ascribe it to Paul, but then, with most NT scholars not believing that Peter authored Peter 2, there goes the certainty that Paul ever received any stamp of approval from Peter for his works being divine "scripture".

          June 27, 2014 at 11:48 am |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          Speaking of having no idea what you are talking about:

          Did Jesus CHANGE the COMMAND of the perfect and "unchanging " God so that we no longer have to KILL anyone working on the Sabbath? YES or NO?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:55 am |
        • christianguy17

          Yes, there has been many books of the Bible that have been questioned (3 john, james, etc,). However, Athanaius (AD 367), and since AD 397 (councel of carthage) the church has declared the 66 current books (including 2 peter, pauls,s epistles, etc) to be "self-authenticating" and the Word of God. These 66 books have not wavered with the true church and have lasted until now these 2000 years or do. God has promised to preserve His Word for us and even refers to a "book of prophecy, the bible, in Rev 22:18-19, and even denotes a curse to any who would attempt to take away any part of that book. Mark 13:31 promises His words shall never pass away, and I believe God has kept His Word for the entire history of the NT church.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:02 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17

          " I believe God has kept His Word for the entire history of the NT church"

          Unfortunately, he was also the God of the OT who preached KILLING and discrimination against women, gays, and the handicapped.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:06 pm |
        • christianguy17

          I have already answered your question Observer, not sure the point of what tou are asking or why you seem so angry in asking it. Yes, Christ, who is God, the I AM, who gave the original commands to Israel to stone those who "picked up sticks" on the sabbath, abrogated that political law of Israel commanding them to kill those who worked on the sabbath. But you are incorrect, sir, to deduce that Christ thought it was immoral for him to have originally set up that law. Whatsoever is moral is binding, so to work on the sabbath today, is a sin, as also the 4th commandment teaches us.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:07 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          Did Jesus AGREE with God commanding the death of people working on the Sabbath?

          YES or NO?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:10 pm |
        • christianguy17

          Lol, sir, did you not read my post above. Jesus himself, the Son of God, the I AM, was the one who originally gave Israel that law...so yeah, I think he agreed with it.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          Jesus wasn't around then. God hadn't impregnated an engaged woman at that time.

          Are you actually claiming that the perfect and unchanging God CHANGED his mind?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:34 pm |
        • FranticRed

          This whole concept of 3 types of laws is at most an interpretation by church authorities over the years. This is certainly not in the Bible. Nowhere does it state that laws in group A applied only to people X, and don't apply to those of X who became people Y. Nowhere does it state that the laws in group B are only spiritual laws and they don't need to be actively fulfilled either. If you say that any of the laws do not apply anymore when there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states so, that is an interpretation. Much of the rules and laws that apply to Christianity are based off interpretations, since very little said by any of those individuals reported in the various books was actually explicit. Even looking back at the "Old testament" one can easily find laws that seem pretty specific and yet have been interpreted as something else. Take Kosher laws, for example – "Thou shalt not boil a lamb in its mother's milk." That says nothing about mixing meat and dairy products in general – just not the rather disturbing concept of cooking something's baby in the food produced specifically for that baby. Many Christians say that Jesus nullified the old covenant when he introduced the new one, and yet there is a pretty clear cherry-picking of which laws still do or don't apply – and those very as much by person as by sect. The bottom line is that you cannot know for sure which of the various laws/orders/commandments are to be read literally or not as soon as you decide that some don't have to be taken literally. To make such a claim is to claim that you know the mind of the individual who laid out those laws, and by definition, no mortal can know the mind of God.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:49 pm |
        • FranticRed

          Observer,
          I am certainly not a Christian, but that is somewhere the Bible is pretty specific – God changed his mind or opinion more than once. In the events leading up to Noah's Ark, God stated that he regretted even creating mankind. When Jesus came along, taking into account the belief that he was God, he created a new covenant and removed many of the original rituals and laws that were laid upon them before he did so. Those laws applied to the Jewish people. The followers of Christ were merely Jews who saw him as the messiah. Jews must do A, B, and C later became Jews who do D still have to do B and C, but no longer A. That is a change, any way you cut it.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm |
        • observer

          FranticRed,

          Yes. It's all pick-and-choose HYPOCRISY. No one believes and supports it all.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Because of Jesus, I am taught that God does not expect me to live under Leviticus law. Those were laws for a different people at a different time. With Jesus, God is creating people who act out of love. Not act out of following laws. Or obeying cultural rules in an attempt to please a deity. Jesus made it clear that those who were following the Law and thought that brought them righteousness, were not doing God's will. That is why he had to point to the "lowly" Samaritans to show an example of how to live.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:11 pm |
        • observer

          Dalahäst,

          I hope you keep believing in the Golden Rule and wish there were far more Christians and non-believers who did.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:18 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          CG17
          this is a perfect example of the ignorance of not knowing who Christ is, right?

          observer
          christianguy17,
          Did Jesus AGREE with God commanding the death of people working on the Sabbath?
          YES or NO?

          June 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          It is a good principle to follow.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          lol. You still haven't figured out how man could KILL an OMNIPOTENT God like you claim. Oooops..

          June 27, 2014 at 2:22 pm |
      • awanderingscot

        It is clear that Christ as Lord of the Sabbath has unbound us from observance of the Sabbath. As "Son of Man" He and only He has the authority to do so.

        For this reason the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill Him, because He had done these things on the Sabbath. But Jesus answered them, “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” – John 5:16-17, NKJV

        "If a man receives circ. umcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?" – John 7:23, NKJV

        'So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths' – Colossians 2:16, NKJV

        June 27, 2014 at 4:07 pm |
        • Alias

          After jesus was executed, they needed a new area to market their religion.
          So they wrote Acts and made the whole thing easier to sell.

          June 27, 2014 at 4:12 pm |
    • fortheloveofellipsis

      So...no quotes from the Messiah you claim to follow, but plenty from the reformed Saul of Tarsus. Par for the "Christian" course, and it shows me who you really worship...

      June 27, 2014 at 12:39 pm |
      • Vic

        Didn't you know that the infamous "John 3:16" is in the Lord Jesus Christ's own words?!

        June 27, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
        • fortheloveofellipsis

          Actually it isn't, Vic. Check the color of the type...

          June 27, 2014 at 1:54 pm |
        • Vic

          Bright "red" as can be!

          June 27, 2014 at 2:12 pm |
  13. Salero21

    This is just one of those subject matters where the extreme hypocrisy of atheists is most noticeable. The Compulsive and pathological lying is also congenital. Their ignorance of Scripture of course not surprising and their misunderstanding and twisting of History is just SOP. That's why atheism is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE.

    June 27, 2014 at 1:47 am |
    • TruthPrevails1

      Oh my, such hatred coming from you. Misogyny is within your book and sorry to burst your arrogant bubble but yes, we comprehend the scripture quite well.
      Now you might wish to seek out the help of a professional who deal with anger management...you need it!

      June 27, 2014 at 8:53 am |
      • Salero21

        HEY, HEY, HEY your ignorance of the Bible is showing for the WWW to see. Your hypocrisy and compulsive Lying also is in display.

        June 28, 2014 at 1:37 pm |
        • TruthPrevails1

          Poor Sally...caught being a hateful slug and cant handle the TRUTH. I'm not surprised..you have the intellect of a rock.

          June 28, 2014 at 1:43 pm |
  14. observer

    Dalahäst,

    How could Eve have a bellybutton? She wasn't attached to her mother by an umbilical chord.

    June 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
    • Keith

      Did Eve need a belly button?

      June 26, 2014 at 7:16 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Adam and Eve are imaginary constructs used by bronze age herdsmen to represent human origins so you can give them any features you want...

        Our DNA proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our species has never been reduced to fewer than 1000 individuals anytime in the last 250,000 years which effectively disproves any biblical creation version. The religious will i'm sure try to get around the facts by claiming maybe Satan faked stuff like fossils or our DNA evidence. If God didn't do it, then Satan must have! Don't worry Christians, there are still plenty of pockets in America where you can hide your ignorance, where none of the other tools in the local shed are very sharp either...

        June 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • Keith

          Adam and Eve serve their purpose very well, with or without belly buttons. They are teaching stories, not history or biology. Most Jews accept evolution as a fact and Genesis is their book. It seems silly that the Christians would try to interpret it literally when the folks it belongs to know better.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think the story was concerned about the origin of things like dishonesty. shame and our troublesome human nature. Not the origin of belly buttons. I have other books for explaining that.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:47 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Yes, a myth, right? Just like the myth of Pandora also explained (for the Greeks) how pain and suffering entered the world. Prometheus kinda serves as their Adam, although he wasn't a human. It was he who brought knowledge to humanity, stole it from the gods and was considered a hero for doing it. Poor Adam seems more reviled for doing basically the same thing. The Greek gods, however, seems satisfied with only torturing Prometheus for his disobedience, but YHWH saw fit to pass this crime down all through the generations. All in all, the Greek gods appear more just in this.

          June 27, 2014 at 8:26 am |
        • awanderingscot

          "Our DNA proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that our species has never been reduced to fewer than 1000 individuals anytime in the last 250,000 years which effectively disproves any biblical creation version."

          – they've never found DNA to compare with from even 1 thousand years ago let alone 250 thousand years ago. you're telling stories again.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:13 am |
        • awanderingscot

          Keith
          the book of Genesis and all of scripture belong to Christians just as much if not more. we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham – 1 Corinthians 14:36, NKJV; Romans 4:12, NKJV also see Romans 4:13, 16; Galatians 3:7;

          June 27, 2014 at 10:06 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "- they've never found DNA to compare with from even 1 thousand years ago let alone 250 thousand years ago. you're telling stories again."

          I was about to call you a moron for not knowing that I was talking about DNA being reverse studied and the time estimates are based on how frequently genetic mutations occur, not that they have DNA material from 250,000 years ago, but I understand you choose not to study these fields as they contradict your already held creation narrative.

          June 27, 2014 at 2:13 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          never been happy hatheist,
          pure baloney on the "reverse studied" DNA with respect to time and mutations. DNA sequencing is nowhere near capable of doing this. do you realize even how long this would take even if they could do it? it takes years now for even a single genome to be sequenced, let alone mapping the genome of entire populations. and so what if they were somehow able to do it, you're only going to have a baseline from that time forward, not going back in time. this is just wishful thinking by dreamers and i'm sure even genome researchers realize it can't be done. dream on.

          June 27, 2014 at 5:16 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "The study was advanced by doctoral student Rebecca L. Cann, who started collecting mtDNA in 1979 based on ethnicity. She collected samples from US hospitals from women (their placenta, to be precise) of diverse ethnic backgrounds, such as from Asia, South Pacific, Europe and Americans of African descent (she could not get samples from aboriginal Africans). Their initial observation of the mitochondrial genome of 100 individuals led them to resolve that it was possible to trace back individual female lineages back hundreds of generations thereby reaching the point of a common ancestor. With more technology and the ability to sequence DNA scientists' conclusion was that all living humans were descended from one specific woman, who lived between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago in Africa.

          Owing to its figurative reference to the first woman in the Biblical Book of Genesis, the Mitochondrial Eve theory initially met with enthusiastic endorsement from some young earth creationists, who viewed the theory as a validation of the biblical creation story. Some even went so far as to claim that the Mitochondrial Eve theory disproved evolution. However, the theory does not suggest any relation between biblical Eve and Mitochondrial Eve because Mitochondrial Eve:

          is not a fixed individual

          had a mother

          was not the only woman of her time, and

          Y-chromosomal Adam is unlikely to have been her se xual partner, or indeed to have been contemporaneous to her.
          -wiki

          "New York – Scientists have reached farther back than ever into the ancestry of humans to recover and analyze DNA, using a bone found in Spain that’s estimated to be 400,000 years old. So far, the achievement has provided more questions than answers about our ancient forerunners.

          The feat surpasses the previous age record of about 100,000 years for genetic material recovered from members of the human evolutionary line. Older DNA has been mapped from animals. The researchers mapped almost the complete collection of so-called mitochondrial DNA. While the DNA most people know about is found in the nucleus of a cell, mitochondrial DNA lies outside the nucleus. It is passed only from mother to child.

          Researchers used the DNA to construct possible evolutionary family trees that include the Spanish individuals and two groups that showed up much later: Neanderthals and an evolutionary cousin of Neanderthals called Denisovans. They a s s umed the DNA would show similarities to Neanderthal DNA, since the Spanish fossils have anatomical features reminiscent of Neanderthals.

          But surprisingly, the DNA instead showed a closer relationship to Denisovans, who lived in Siberia and apparently elsewhere in Asia, far from the Spanish cave. Scientists are uncertain of how to explain that, Meyer said." http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/57218563-68/dna-ancient-evolutionary-human.html.csp

          June 27, 2014 at 6:33 pm |
        • idiotusmaximus

          ,............. who lived between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago in Africa.

          South east Africa I think.

          June 27, 2014 at 7:51 pm |
        • jwsbmwm3

          Lost scat, how do you deal with that?

          June 27, 2014 at 9:43 pm |
      • realbuckyball

        She would have, if there had been an "Eve". But since we know there is not the slightest question that Ho'mo Sapiens evolved from primate precu'rsors, it's not really a question, for intelligent adults, in 2014. What is somewhat interesting are the literary origins of the "Adam and Eve" myth, which lie partly in Babylonian mythology, (from where a lot of Genesis was taken), and extra-biblical Hebrew (Talmud) material. There are many examples of this fact.

        A number of times in the Bible verses that extol Yahweh’s military skills: “Was it not you who split Rahab in half, who pierced the dragon through?” (Isaiah 51:9; see also Job 26:12; Psalms 74:13, and 89:10). It is important to understand the writers of Job were at least aware of the Dragon Myth.

        Between 1792-1750 BCE, 1000 years before any Bible text had even begun to be written, Hammurabi made Babylon into the most powerful city in Mesopotamia and set up Marduk as his divine patron, in the divine assembly, or council of gods. About 600 years later, around 1100 BCE, a creation myth was created from the various traditions to specifically celebrate the military accomplishments of the city, and it's leaders. This written myth was called the Enuma Elish, and was recovered by archaeologists in 1849 CE, in the ruins of the Royal library at Ashurbanipal, in the ancient city of Nineveh. It was written on clay tablets. In the Enuma Elish the head of the council of gods, is Apsu, and he is identified with sweet/clean/fresh water, and the goddess, Tiamet, with the sea, (salt water). Their son Mummu symbolized the mist that rises from the waters.

        In the myth, (the Enuma Elish), Tiamat marries Apsu, and many evil deities were born. Tiamat was an evil woman, whose purpose was to create conflict, strife, and confusion. She decided to kill her children, and a great war followed. Apsu, her husband was killed by Ea, (his son), and he, fearing Tiamat, fled to the farthest distance of the Fresh Waters. Tiamat, then remarried her son Kingu, and had more kiddies, and battled them also, and eventually was killed by her grandson, Marduk, the Sun God.

        In Sumerian mythology, there was a council of gods, and Enhil, or Enki, who was boss, who lived in Abzu, which was a place synonymous with "the deep", or the place from whence the rivers and lakes, and swamps, drew their water.

        One cannot read the Bible, (the Torah) without also reading the Talmud, it's companion Jewish literary effort.
        In the Talmud, a whole world of Hebrew thinking is revealed. There was a world called Adam Kademon. The word Adam, (which I was taught means "the man", in grade school), actually does not mean "the man" in Sumerian, and Hebrew. The word Adam, by itself), meant "in the likeness of", (Ha-Adam means "from the earth"). Kademon is translated as "primordial".

        In the Talmud, the Adam Kademon is a sublime world, which is the likeness of the infinite light, which is the most sublime level. (The Adam Kademon is NOT the Infinite Light.) There are complexities concerning the nature of this world, which one can further investigate. The world of the Adam Kademon is a world of potentiality, (only). A world of unity, and simultaneity, (not eternity). There was no space, no time, no inside, no outside, no up, and no down, no before, no after. As light descends from this world, in this worldview/myth, (yeah, I know, descend is "down"..shut up), from the Adam Kademon, a primeval "order" which is an unstable world/level, is shattered, and breaks into ten individual "qualities", called the Sefirot, or "the Sefirot of Tohu", which was a world of chaos and disorder. So there is the highest level, (the level of the infinite light), the next level... the level of the unstable Adam Kademon, and then the lower levels of the "broken light" or the sefirot, (Chaos). These ten "qualities" or "sefir", (plural sefirot), break up, and become "incompatible" with each other, and are completely independent of each other, (non-integrated). Each is a powerful concentration of the original light, from which it originated. The Tohu is also an unstable "plane" of reality. As a result of the lack of integration, or interaction, each of the Sefirot members, can not limit the activity or expansion of any of the others, and Chaos and disintegration results, and thus the Sefirot also shatters. Chaos and Order play a huge part in Ancient Near Eastern mythology, and is a very common theme, as we shall see.

        FYI, there is a (supposedly), a somewhat lame attempt in Genesis to replicate this "shattering" of the Sefirot in the (known) incorrect listing of the Kings of Edom, as each one independently succeed, (Genesis 36:31-39), according to the Torah scholar Rabbi Yitzchak Luria. In any case, the shattering serves a purpose, and creates diversity, and an ontological state of separation, and part'i'tioning, and is re'c't'ified in the Tikun.

        In the world of the Tikun, the highest level, is that of "Emenation", which is derived from a word which means, "near" or "close". One tries to get back to the Infinite Light, and return to the world of Adam Kadmon. The world of Adam Kadmon, being lower than the Infinite Light, possess less "structure", (more Chaos), than the higher level. It's a matter of degree. or distance, ...devolution. The difference is one of inner structure. As one approaches the Atzilut, inner structure is revealed, from the inside out. Atzilut is the highest plane, or the world of Immanence. There is a rather technical discussion of the meanings of vessels and light, by Talmudic scholars, but for this it serves to know that the higher one goes to (re)-approach Emenation, (which is not "analyzable", but a "flash of intuition"), (mysticism), the vessel both contains and limits the light. It's spoken of as a "eureka" moment, or sudden insight, and it's quality is dependent of the receptive ability of the "vessel". One who exists in a chaotic state cannot be receptive to the light. If the vessels are not receptive the light goes on to oblivion, and eureka moment cannot happen.

        In Babylonian mythology, there is the concept of the "mes", (traits, or skills), which were collected by Enhil/Enki .The "mes" were an interesting aspect of this system. The mes were the skills or traits of a civilized life. The mes were collected and then handed over to the safe-keeping of Enki who was to broker them out to the various Sumerian cities, beginning with his own city of Eridu and then Ur, Meluhha, and Dilmun. This is described in the epic poem, "Enki and the World Order" which tells how he grants the gifts for various crafts and natural phenomena to the lesser gods. After telling himself, and everyone what a great guy he is, Enki's daughter, Inanna comes before him, complaining that he gave her too little in the way of divine influence. Her main intent is to bring more of the Arts of Civilization, (the mes) to Uruk", but mainly Inanna's discontent is the theme. She is the protector deity of Uruk and desires to increase its power, glory by bringing more mes to it from Eridu. She travels to Enki's Eridu shrine, the E-abzu, in her "boat of heaven", and asks the mes from him, when he is drunk, and he agrees. After she departs with them, he comes to his senses and notices they are missing from their usual place, and on being informed what he did with them attempts to retrieve them. The attempt fails and Inanna triumphantly delivers them to Uruk.We never learn what any of the mes look like, exactly, but they are represented as physical objects of some sort. Not only are they stored in a prominent location in the E-abzu, but Inanna is able to display them to the people of Uruk after she arrives with them in her boat. Some of them are indeed physical objects such as musical instruments, but many are technologies like basket weaving or abstractions like "victory". It is not made clear in the poem how such things can be stored, handled, or displayed.

        Not all the mes are admirable or desirable traits. Alongside functions like "heroship" and "victory" we also find "the destruction of cities", "falsehood", and "enmity". The Sumerians apparently considered such evils and sins an inevitable part of humanity's lot in life, divinely and inscrutably decreed, and not to be questioned. The mes were found by archaeologists in at least 4 separate lists. There are 64 mes.

        In Babylonian mythology, the Tablet of Destinies, (a legal docu'ment, or "covenant") was conferred upon Enki, the Supreme Deity, as a measure of his authority. He was da boss, by virtue of the Tablet of Destiny.

        The most important myth for our purpose here, is Marduk slaying the Dragon of Chaos, (Tiamat). First here are a few of the other well known Babylonian myths, just to get a feel what the themes were, in general. Then I'll tell the Marduk story.

        Enki, the (supreme and Water-god, and God of wisdom), impregnates his half-sister, Nin-Hursang. Enki wants a boy, but gets a girl. Then he impre'gn'ates the daughter, who also has a daughter. Nin-Hursang decides to stop all this immoral stuff by sowing eight poisonous plants in the garden. Enki eats the plants, and becomes ill. One of the sick organs is his rib. Nin-ti is created to heal Enki. Her name means, "she who makes live". Nin-ti means the same thing as the Hebrew word for "Eve". Nin-ti, is usually translated as the "lady of the rib". "Ti" means "to make live". Note : "Eve" is translated from the Hebrew chavvaòh , for lifegiver, as in "the mother of all living." Its root, Chaya, means "serpent" in Aramaic. Eve and serpent are taken to be synonymous. Thus a "pun" is set up in the Hebrew, (which was used later.)

        From the Babylonians also comes the legend of of Adapa. The son of the God of Wisdom (Ea, also called Enki), broke the wing of the Storm bird, who had attacked him in what is today, the Persian Gulf. Ea summons Adapa, and warned him about his behavior, and told him he would be offered food and drink which would be deadly, and he must refuse it. When Anu, (one of the council of three highest gods), found out about the disclosure, attempted to foil Ea, by offering Adapa the bread of life, and the water of life, instead. He, Adapa, refused, and Anu sent him to earth as a mortal.

        In the myth of Gilgamesh and the Serpent, Gilgamesh heard about a plant that held the secret to immortality. By much effort, he pulled it up from the bottom of the ocean. On the way back to his peeps, he set the plant aside at a spring where he stopped to take a bath. A serpent came up from the water and grabbed the plant. As it returned to the water, it shed its skin. In so doing, the serpent robbed humans of the potential for rejuvenation and acquired an ability to renew itself by shedding its skin.

        So we have poisonous plants, ribs, Eve, death by eating stuff, bread of heaven, water of life, plants which offer immortality, and snakes which bring about death, and most important, Chaos and Order.

        Another interesting Babylonian myth, is the Enuma Elish, and it's perhaps the most famous, (where Marduk slays the Dragon of Chaos), the quintessential Babylonian Chaos Myth. Tiamt is a chaos monster, and such as Laviathon, a goddess of the Ocean. She had mated with Abzu, and produced many other gods. First she is the mother-god, in a Sacred marriage, of fresh water, and salt water, in which the cosmos is generated. Then she becomes the evil monstrous embodiment of Primordial Chaos, and through her chaos reigns. Eventually she is killed by the Storm god Marduk, and he splits her corpse, and in making that order out of her, the heavens and the earth are formed, each from one half of her body.

        (In the Hellenistic Babylonian Berossus' first book of universal history, Tiamat is called "Thalatte", ...Greek "sea" is "thalassa".) The Greeks knew about this stuff. Biblical scholars agree on the approximate dates and order of the actual writing of the Bible texts, in general. There was no written "bible" at all, until the long process of assembling, writing, and re-writing began around 600-500 BCE. The ancient Hebrews were, up until the time of one of the several writers of the Isaiah text, who are known by Biblical scholars as Second and Third Isaiah, a monolaterist polytheist culture. That means they acknowledged that many gods existed, but chose to have a "covenant" with one, and only worship one, in order to obtain his/her special favor and protection. There are still some fundamentalist scholars who still refuse to accept the facts that archaeology has found, and insist that they always were monotheists, and then "fell" into idolatry in Egypt. That is simply not historically true, and there are mountains of evidence for this fact, and these fundie scholars are not as numerous as they used to be.

        June 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm |
        • Keith

          Thanks for the history lesson.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:25 pm |
        • realbuckyball

          Every "religious" text springs from the (100%) HUMAN culture that produced them. There is nothing "inspired" about anything. The Bible texts fit PERFECTLY into the HUMAN culture of the time that produced them. There is nothing about a "fall from grace" or a "need for salvation" ANYWHERE in any of them, until those concepts were "slapped on" top of ancient myths that attempted to explain the world humans observed around them.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I have a pastor that alludes to that all the time. She draws a different conclusion than you, but still argues about the intention of the stories are different from what some are taught it says.

          June 26, 2014 at 10:28 pm |
        • Salero21

          The mountains of Evidence are of the Absolute, Complete and Total Stupidity of atheism.

          June 27, 2014 at 1:42 am |
        • awanderingscot

          wrong once again rbb but thanks again for your incredibly long copy and paste of hatheistic rhetoric. both eve and lucy have been thoroughly discredited as being pro*gen*itors. fools scratching in the dirt will need to keep looking.

          June 27, 2014 at 9:25 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          oh scotty, your level of cognitive dissonance is quite staggering

          June 27, 2014 at 9:39 am |
        • awanderingscot

          D0G
          oohhh you found a term you can spell for which you have not the slightest clue what it means.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:08 am |
        • Dyslexic doG

          Christian method: when faced with the truth that proves you are a fool, insult the truth teller and hope that changes the subject.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:11 am |
        • awanderingscot

          no D0G you have not insulted me, and the truth still proves you are a fool.

          June 27, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
        • awanderingscot

          "A number of times in the Bible verses that extol Yahweh’s military skills: “Was it not you who split Rahab in half, who pierced the dragon through?” (Isaiah 51:9; see also Job 26:12; Psalms 74:13, and 89:10). It is important to understand the writers of Job were at least aware of the Dragon Myth."

          – wrote Bucky, but none of these verses have anything to do with the Sumerian dragon myth. this is yet another attempt by hate-theists to discredit the bible.

          Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD! awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Are You not the arm that cut Rahab apart, and wounded the serpent? Are You not the One who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that made the depths of the sea a road for the redeemed to cross over? – Isaiah 51:9-10, NKJV

          – This message given to Isaiah prompts the remnant of Israelites to call on the Lord to deliver His people as He delivered them from Egypt (metaphorically referred to as Rahab) and from Pharaoh (metaphorically the serpent, it was his symbol), drying up the sea so the redeemed could cross over. The memory of God's intervention in the past enables them to foresee the captives in Babylon returning to Jerusalem.

          June 27, 2014 at 10:22 pm |
        • observer

          awanderingscot,

          "no D0G you have not insulted me, and the truth still proves you are a fool."

          Not that you care AT ALL what Jesus said, but here it is:

          (Matt. 5:22) "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with their brother or sister will be in danger of judgment. If they say to their brother or sister, ‘You idiot,’ they will be in danger of being condemned by the governing council. And if they say, ‘You fool,’ they will be in danger of fiery hell.” - Jesus

          Wow. Jesus said that someone like you might be headed for hell for saying such things.

          OOOOPS!. Keep up the world-class HYPOCRISY. You are classic!

          June 27, 2014 at 10:30 pm |
    • blessed137

      One day a group of scientists got together and decided that humankind had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientists to go and tell Him that hey were done with him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're at the point where we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you go on and mind your own business?" God listened very patiently to the man. After the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this? Let's say we have a people making contest. I will make a person and you make a person but were going to do this just like in the day I made Adam." Scientist said, "sure no problem," and bent down and grabbed a handful of dirt. God looked at him and said,"No, no, no you don't. You go get your own dirt."

      June 26, 2014 at 8:32 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        That is a good one.

        June 26, 2014 at 8:50 pm |
      • tallulah131

        Of course the problem with that scenario is that there is no one needs to tell god he's not necessary because as far as evidence shows, there is no god. That simple fact renders this anecdote just another silly christian exercise in shooting at humor and missing by a mile.

        June 26, 2014 at 8:56 pm |
        • blessed137

          The problem with you is that you have no sense of humor. Laugh alittle. Besides im sure that atheist have antigod jokes about a God that doesnt exit. Which is actually a joke inself.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:02 pm |
        • blessed137

          Here's one: An atheist walks up to a Christian and says look God is standing right behind you. The christain has a look of joy from miraculous wonder and turns around. No one there. Made u Look!!

          June 26, 2014 at 9:05 pm |
        • tallulah131

          I laugh at funny things, "blessed". Your scenario doesn't qualify as funny. It's just stupid.

          June 28, 2014 at 2:35 am |
      • realbuckyball

        It's not even funny. No group of scientists would go tell any of the gods anything.
        Are you writing a book called "Humor for Presuppositionalists" ?

        June 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
    • Dalahäst

      I don't know if she had a belly button. Did the story say she did have one?

      It is an interesting question.

      June 26, 2014 at 8:45 pm |
      • bostontola

        The Mitochondrial Eve certainly had a belly button.

        June 26, 2014 at 9:29 pm |
  15. neverbeenhappieratheist

    Being raised a Christian I was always told the headship rules of husband and wives was just like a pilot and co-pilot. It wasn't until I was older that I started to question the fact that those rules claimed women weren't ever allowed to be the pilot, they could only ever be the co-pilot which had to accept the pilots decisions. So anyone defending their religion as having equality because each has been given a role to play doesn't understand the meaning of equality. If the religious would just admit this simple fact it would be much easier to have a discussion of their doctrines merrits, at the moment all they do is say they aren't discriminating and that everything is equal while they cover their ears and close their eyes humming "lalalalalala, i don't know what you are talking about, lalalalala" to themselves.

    June 26, 2014 at 6:12 pm |
    • Keith

      Most of the time their explanation is that we just don't understand because we have no faith. It seems religious people can justify just about anything. Contradictions in their bible, contradictions between the teaching in the bible and they way they conduct their lives. None of that seem ridiculous to them, I am like you, it makes little sense to me.

      June 26, 2014 at 7:20 pm |
  16. christianguy17

    I would read Genesis and understand how God ordered, in creation, that women are to be under the authority of their husbands. It does not mean men are better, smarter, a higher class of human, but it just means this is the authority structure God has commanded. Consider these verses and I recommend biblical reformed study on this topic (and every topic):
    Ephesians 5:22-24
    "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 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. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing".
    1 Corinthians 11:3
    "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God".
    1 Corinthians 11:9
    "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man".
    1 Corinthians 14:34-35
    "Let your women keep silence in the churches:for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:for it is a shame for women to speak in the church".
    1 Timothy 2:12-15
    "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".
    1 Timothy 3:11-12
    "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well".
    Working from back to front in 1 Corinthians 11:3: Christ is equal to God, but God is His Head (John 5:18; 10:30,38; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15,19; 2:9; Hebrews 1:3). The woman (wife) is equal to the man (husband), but the husband is his wife’s head (Genesis 1:26-28; 2:23,24; 5:2; 1 Corinthians 11:7-12; Galatians 3:28). The man (husband) is equal to Christ, but Christ is his head (Psalm 8:4-6 — Hebrews 2:6-11; Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21; John 20:17,18,27,28; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9).

    Read also:
    http://www.angelfire.com/in/HisName/womensilence.html

    June 26, 2014 at 4:25 pm |
    • Løki

      LET's Religiosity Law #2 – When someone starts a conversation by identifying themselves as a 'Christian', they are about to be an asshole.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
    • igaftr

      It is not surprising that the MEN who wrote the bible said those things about women.
      There is no indication any gods had anything to do with it.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:40 pm |
    • kudlak

      God supposedly created Eve only as an afterthought, after no animal could be found to be a suitable "helper" for Adam. She was made from a part of Adam that he could easily do without, it seems, and Adam named her like he did all the animals, establishing his dominance over her. I fail, then, to see any "equality" in their relationship.

      The story goes on to illustrate how it was Eve who brought all the hardship and pain into the world, further justifying how women were never to be trusted with decision-making.

      In fairness, it was common of ancient myth to have a similar story blaming women for evil, pain, hardship and such. Just read the myth of Pandora for comparison.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • Dalahäst

        "And God said, Let us make man* in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man* in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:26, 27.

        *human beings, both male and female

        "And it repented the LORD that he had made man* on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Genesis 6:6.

        *human beings, both male and female

        "And the LORD said, I will destroy man* whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Genesis 6:7.

        *human beings, both male and female

        June 26, 2014 at 4:59 pm |
        • kudlak

          20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

          But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

          23 The man said,

          “This is now bone of my bones
          and flesh of my flesh;
          she shall be called ‘woman,’
          for she was taken out of man.”

          Gen. 2:20-23

          One assumes that women wouldn't have ever been made had Adam been content with a dog, or some other pet, for a "helper", right?

          June 26, 2014 at 5:14 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Was Adam androgynous?

          One theory I've heard is that they became male and female after God put Adam to sleep and took his rib. Some translations say "half" instead of "rib".

          Or it describes the taking of his "rib" to signify equal status. The rib is in the middle of the body and male/female ribs look alike.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:21 pm |
        • kudlak

          Like most Christians, you'll likely agree that both creation stories actually complement each other, but notice that God still created man in his image and gave him all the authority in the first. Woman may have been also created by God, but only after he created all the animals and found none of them suitable for Adam's helper. There is no equality of the genders in either story.

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

          I used to believe that. Now I'm not so sure.

          I think God intended for us to be treat each other as equals. But that doesn't happen.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:30 pm |
        • evanherik

          The second Genesis story, the one where Adam and Eve are both created out of dirt, is the older. And while it doesn't create equality of genders, it doesn't argue against it, either. It's an interesting point, but the fact is that women were treated more or less as property at that time in that place. Equality wasn't something familiar then, so it would have been a surprise to see it turn up in their writings.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:38 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Why not? God's supposedly androgynous, isn't he, and Adam was made in his "image", right? No need for reproductive organs if you're the only member of your species to ever exist.

          "One theory I've heard is that they became male and female after God put Adam to sleep and took his rib. Some translations say "half" instead of "rib"."
          Read the Genesis 2 account more closely. It says that God closed up the skin, not that he took the time to make a weenie. Besides, there's no indication that having kids was ever in the plan until they supposedly sinned, and God cursed Eve with painful childbirth. Notice also how Adam actually gives her her her personal name (Gen 3:20). At best, that's more like a parent-child relationship than an equal marriage.

          Of course, if you want to entertain "theories" of what could have happened between the lines, why stop there? Why not put in the part where Noah welcomed T-Rex on board the ark and Satan buried the fossils?

          "Or it describes the taking of his "rib" to signify equal status. The rib is in the middle of the body and male/female ribs look alike."
          No, I think that would be the navel, although Adam would't have had one, so the spot where it would have been then, but I give you credit for one of the more imaginative and humorous apologetics I've heard in a long time.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:50 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          – Why not? God’s supposedly androgynous, isn’t he

          Yea.

          – No, I think that would be the navel, although Adam would’t have had one, so the spot where it would have been then, but I give you credit for one of the more imaginative and humorous apologetics I’ve heard in a long time.

          I'm not an apologist. I was just asking questions. I've learned it is possible what I first think about that origin story, may not be what those who told it and heard it for the first time intended it to describe.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:04 pm |
        • observer

          kudlak

          "The rib is in the middle of the body and male/female ribs look alike."

          Draw a line down the center of a body and you will hit NO RIBS. They are to either side.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Maybe it wasn't a rib. But properly translated he took 1 side, not 1 rib.

          " ...and He took one of his sides and He filled in the flesh in its place."

          June 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          I wonder if Adam was so lonely he went around giving any animal he could find a name and his "rib" until God finally made him Eve that fit his "rib" better than trying to procreate with the T-Rex he was riding...

          June 26, 2014 at 5:58 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          So, there's two conflicting creation accounts then?

          June 26, 2014 at 6:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          They might be describing 2 different things. They are origin stories. In some respects they are actually in harmony.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:07 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          If you're going with what you think God should be like over what the Bible shows God to be like, shouldn't I be susp.icious that you're just creating this character to suit yourself?

          June 26, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Sure. Go ahead and be susp.icious. I don't know everything there is to know about this. I'm only about 3 1/2 years into making a decision to follow Jesus Christ. I know I have a lot to learn.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:11 pm |
        • kudlak

          observer
          Yup, like I said, the navel is the middle.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:10 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "I'm only about 3 1/2 years into making a decision to follow Jesus Christ. I know I have a lot to learn."

          So you jumped right in, bet everything on red 32 and then admit that you havn't really got a clue how roulette is played... you figure you'll learn as you go...but while you're here you might as well give gambling tips to everyone else in the casino...

          June 26, 2014 at 6:18 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          neverbeenhappieratheist

          - So you jumped right in, bet everything on red 32 and then admit that you havn’t really got a clue how roulette is played

          No. Think of it as a skeptical atheist trying something out to see if it is legit.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:26 pm |
        • observer

          kudlak,

          Yes. And no n1pples for Adam and no bellybutton for Eve either.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Only 3 1/2 years as a Christian, eh?

          If there was anything on the internet like this back when I was so newly-minted as an atheist it probably would have been on a blue screen, in UNIX. (smily)

          June 26, 2014 at 6:35 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I'm only about 3 1/2 years into making a decision to follow Jesus Christ"

          So, that would make you an agnostic then?

          June 26, 2014 at 6:38 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I believe in God. I'm choosing to follow Jesus.

          I've been an agnostic, too. But I wouldn't identify as one now.

          I don't really consider myself an atheist, either. I just think it might be a better analogy than the gambling/keno analogy neverbeenhap suggested.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:47 pm |
        • kudlak

          observer
          Definitely no bellybutton for Eve, and I don't see any need of Adam to have n1pples either. Why do men have them at all if we're intelligently designed? Seems kinda wasteful.

          If reproduction wasn't in the original plan, I don't see why either of them would have needed n1pples, do you?

          June 26, 2014 at 6:42 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Eve doesn't have a belly button?

          Adam did or didn't have ni.pples?

          Reproduction wasn't in the original plan?

          June 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          neverbeenhappieratheist
          To be fair, I find a lot of people who've only recently come into atheism to be the same way. They're more excited about sharing the truth of their new belief to realize that it's not their job to reconvert people, and they don't really understand the arguments well enough to give them justice anyway. It's almost like they have a new toy that they can't wait to play with. So, they just jump right in without reading the instructions.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:49 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          "To be fair, I find a lot of people who’ve only recently come into atheism..."

          Atheism just means you don't believe in God.

          There are no instructions. There are no arguments one needs to know.

          Unless you become an Atheist – like the kind that treats atheism like a religion. Then, yes there are instructions and arguments you need to learn if you want to be a "real atheist". (Some atheists have told me I wasn't a "real atheist" before, FYI).

          June 26, 2014 at 7:00 pm |
        • abigchocoholic

          Unless you become an Atheist – like the kind that treats atheism like a religion.
          ------–
          Nope. Learning why logic and reason and science is correct and religion wrong does not make the former like a religion. It just makes the non-believer more educated and informed.

          June 29, 2014 at 11:40 am |
        • Dalahäst

          You can't use logic, reason and science to prove that logic, reason and science are correct.

          There are plenty of examples of religious people who fully embrace logic, reason and science. And still believe in God. Just like there are examples of non-believers who are not well educated nor very well informed.

          June 29, 2014 at 1:19 pm |
        • observer

          kudlak,

          Agree. I've heard that an egg has just ONE set of parts to work with. It's the chromosomes that determine what to do with the parts. For instance, if it's to be a male, the ovaries descend to become testicles. Same parts.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:56 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I'm still an agnostic, only one who doesn't believe that God is real.

          I don't see how anyone who believes that they are imperfect, and capable of being wrong, can be sure that God is actually real, and not just a misperception. Unless I can actually show somebody my reasoning and proof for God being real, or not, and get their objective opinion as to whether I'm interpreting it correctly, all I have to go on is what I think about it. Since I could never rule out that I might be wrong, the only honest position I can take is that of "agnostic".

          June 26, 2014 at 7:01 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I respect that.

          I've seen God's proof. I can't honestly call myself and agnostic or an atheist. Although I am agnostic about a lot of things in regard to how God works.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:06 pm |
        • kudlak

          observer
          The best analogy that I've heard for male n1pples is that they're like the slot in your car for some accessory, like a stereo, that's installed early in the assembly process. Some models actually get the accessory while others just get to keep the blank filler panel in the dash.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:10 pm |
        • observer

          It looks like there may be 3 agnostics having a discussion here.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:14 pm |
        • Science Works

          Do not forget the Fig Leaf dala (the cover-up eh)?

          June 26, 2014 at 7:15 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1948.tb05098.x/pdf

          June 26, 2014 at 7:18 pm |
        • Science Works

          Hey Dala – – guess that link was for me eh ?

          Adam and Eve's cover up – nu-dity (the se-x thingy)?

          A fig leaf is a leaf of the fig tree. The term is widely used figuratively to convey the covering up of an act or an object that is embarrassing or distasteful with something of innocuous appearance, a metaphorical reference to the Biblical Book of Genesis, in which Adam and Eve used fig leaves to cover their nudity after eating the fruit from the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. Some paintings and statues have the genitals of their subjects covered by a representation of an actual fig leaf or similar object, either as part of the work or added afterwards for perceived modesty

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

          June 27, 2014 at 11:15 am |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "I find a lot of people who've only recently come into atheism to be the same way. They're more excited about sharing the truth of their new belief to realize that it's not their job to reconvert people"

          I completely disagree. I find that most atheists I speak with are like myself who spent years and years studying the bible or some other religion and have, after decades of compiling all available evidence for God or gods and dump it onto a table only to be shocked that the table is still empty. And not only that, they realize that everything that religion promised in this life can be had without religion, love, empathy, kindess, charity, helping the less fortunate, all can be done without religion. That is when the lightbulb goes on in most atheists and is the origin of the excitement you speak of, but it is certainly not because they are "new" to their belief, but specifically because it took so much time and study to reach their conclusion.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:21 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Think of most atheists like ex-gamblers who are telling those entering the casino that the games inside are fixed and the house is the only one who wins...

          June 26, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Oh. Except I don't appear to be losing anything. And I'm actually providing a lot of help to people. And nobody is getting rich off me – well, except for maybe the gas, electric and mortgage company.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:31 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Yes, yes, but the newly de-converted, however, have probably either had some epiphany where they realized that God probably isn't real, or they've been collecting arguments against theism and have finally reached a tipping point. Either way, those fresh atheists are likely to be very exited by this realization and more than a few are overly eager to share what they've learned IMHO.

          Me? I'm happy just to spend some spare time on sites like this discussing the topic. There's a lot of new arguments coming out that support atheism, but the theist stuff that keeps getting repeated here was all successfully criticized long ago, which is why I'm no longer a believer.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:27 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I haven't heard that very many new compelling argument for atheism. I have heard a more reasonable and rational approach than what was popularized by Hitchens/Dawkins/Harris. I'm glad to see that.

          You know, it goes both ways. A significant number of children who grow up in atheist households end up believing in God.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:34 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "And nobody is getting rich off me –"

          If you took even one honest look at organized religion you would have to admit that only a tiny portion of the mountains of money donated to churches goes to help the needy. Most goes to help pay pastor and priest salaries while sending the rest to the main denomination branch to be used to build more churches or repair old ones as if the Church is whats important. You may be one that doesn't hand over their hard earned money to these snake oil salesmen but you have to admit that many many wolves in sheeps clothing exist in Christianity and are greedily fleecing their flock in the name of your God.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:35 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          We have a pretty small staff at my church. The pastor does not have a huge salary.

          We do a lot to try and assist those in need. We actually get assistance from the main denomination branch. Our church is in a highly populated, but very poor area. The building is put to good use. We are filling a need that nobody else is.

          Some people do get fleeced. There are atheists who donate to secular groups like American Humanist Association that act just like an organized religion. So it is not just God believers that do such things.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • observer

          kudlak,

          It has been through reading more of the Bible that I have become an agnostic. Same for you?

          June 26, 2014 at 7:39 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "A significant number of children who grow up in atheist households end up believing in God. "

          significant: 1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.

          Where is any data that supts your premise or is this just another Dalahast Definition" that really should be read "There is a number of children who grow up in atheist households and end up believing in God. That number could be 2 or 20,000 I don't know, but I feel in my gut that it's a lot..."

          June 26, 2014 at 7:40 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          http://www.city-data.com/forum/religion-spirituality/1903067-many-people-raised-atheists-end-up.html

          June 26, 2014 at 7:44 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          supts = supports...

          June 26, 2014 at 7:41 pm |
        • kudlak

          neverbeenhappieratheist
          Yeah, there is sometimes a tipping point, and the sudden realization really can be exciting, but it's still not our job to de-convert people, right? It would be nice to see their having more patience with believers too. If it took them a lot of study to come to the conclusion, why imagine that a few quick comments on their part will do the same for others?

          And there are others who seem to have picked up a few Dawkins and Hitchens books, and think that they know it all. I've encountered a few on the internet who really haven't thought through much of this stuff.

          With the gambling analogy, believers are like people who continually buy lotto tickets based only on stories that people have actually won, where atheists say that we're not going to buy any tickets until you can prove that this is a legitimate game.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:42 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          And then you have people like C.S. Lewis who only have a brief atheist period in the youth only to return to their childhood faith.

          Best for atheist parents not to shelter their children from religion least they get caught up in all it's promises later in life, eh?

          June 26, 2014 at 7:47 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I think it is best for parents to expose their children to all viewpoints and let them decide what works best for them.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Also, considering the very low percent who identify as atheist (2%) I find it hard to believe that there are a "significant" number of kids raised by atheist parents. Plus, there is no indoctrination that an atheist parent must push on their children. I am an atheist parent and so far the discussion of God has not come up with my 5 year old, the closest we have gotten to that discussion is telling her that I will not lie to her about Santa who does not exist even though one of her friends believes in Santa. So in a small way we have already had the "imaginary friend" chat.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:48 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I wasn't indoctrinated.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          "believers are like people who continually buy lotto tickets based only on stories that people have actually won, where atheists say that we're not going to buy any tickets until you can prove that this is a legitimate game."

          I can accept that analogy if it's a lotto game that so far not a single person has any evidence of ever winning, so the win is purely theoretical.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:52 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm loving these analogies.

          Religious people do that, too. They make up things where atheists are the idiots, and the believers are the ones who are right. Republicans and Democrats do it, too. Sports teams do, too. Especially college rival.s I'm glad you can demonstrate it happens on other sides of the belief spectrums.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:57 pm |
        • neverbeenhappieratheist

          Indoctrinate: teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

          So you have never been taught any set of beliefs and been asked to accept those beliefs on faith?

          June 26, 2014 at 7:54 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          No. I'm told questioning is ok. I choose to exercise faith to believe things. NOBODY has told me I have to.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:58 pm |
        • kudlak

          observer
          I read through the whole thing, from cover to cover, during my gap year, but I had already read most of it before. Reading it out of interest is way different than being guided through (what to believe about) it in some bible study, however. Taking university religious studies courses, ones where you weren't told what to believe the Bible meant by certain verses; and courses in other world religions and classical myth, that's what changed my mindset from thinking that I could only be told what this stuff meant, to realizing that I could learn it for myself.

          Anyway, guys, my weekend is actually beginning, so TTFN
          Great conversation.

          June 26, 2014 at 7:55 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I've taken academic classes that studied religious texts, too. Not everyone leaves drawing the same conclusions. And there are other ways of approaching the texts.

          June 26, 2014 at 8:26 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          Oh, I took courses with pastors, nuns, and seminary students and I wouldn't doubt if their faith remained as solid as ever. I can't remember any of them being particularly surprised by any of the material either. A lot of people suspect that many clergy are actually unbelievers, but that they see their job, including teaching people to believe in God, as important to people anyway. In the end, their job works just as well whether God's real, or not, eh?

          June 27, 2014 at 11:52 am |
        • Dalahäst

          Not necessarily.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:16 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          My analogy works fine. There is a promise, for example, that people will end up in Heaven, but the only "evidence" that people cite for this are the hallucinations of people whose brains were oxygen-deprived and dying. Anyone who cannot see the folly of that reasoning might deserve to be ridiculed, right?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          Uh, what? No. Some people might believe things for different reasons than you imagine. Your analogy works great if if everything is simple as what you declare. But everything is a little bit more complex than that. Your analogy doesn't really work for me.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:19 pm |
        • kudlak

          Dalahäst
          I never realized that I had been indoctrinated until years after I had became an atheist, and was able to see through what I had been taught. Maybe you have to take off the "God-coloured glasses" in order to see the world as it actually is?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:03 pm |
        • Dalahäst

          I'm not wearing “God-coloured glasses”. That is great you can see the world as it actually is. Good job.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:22 pm |
    • Alias

      So you are saying it is okay for womne to be forced into submissinve roles because god said so.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:45 pm |
      • christianguy17

        They aren't being forced into anything as it is the status God created them in. Feminism is unnatural. Doesn't mean men haven't abused their God given authority but it doesn't negate the biblical mandate given.

        June 26, 2014 at 9:25 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          lol. The person with the HIGHEST IQ is a woman.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:32 pm |
        • Alias

          Sounds like the thought process of a small minded man who needs religion to make him domniant because he could never attain such a status on his own.

          June 26, 2014 at 10:47 pm |
    • bostontola

      You are saying that misogyny is justified in your religion and defined as righteous by your God, so you agree with the author.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:46 pm |
    • Vic

      Apostle Paul was dealing with special circumstances that involved cultural constraints in certain Jewish & Gentile communities (e.g. Corinth, Ephesus) that were at the expense of delivering the "Good News" of the Lord Jesus Christ. There were disputes and anger between Jews and Gentiles, men and women, in Church assemblies that had Apostle Paul address them accordingly to maintain order and get the true message of the Gospel across. Those special circumstances based instructions were not doctrinal nor were they concerning gender differences/inequality.

      We don't have those circumstances and constraints in church today, and there is no such disputing between Jews and Gentile, males and females, in the Church anymore to require such measures.

      I understand the natural differences in gender roles but that does not concern equality. I believe a female is equally capable of Church ministry as a male is.

      Concerning equality, Apostle Paul made it clear that all are one in Christ.

      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)

      June 26, 2014 at 5:33 pm |
      • observer

        The person with the highest IQ is a woman and it's an absolute joke for anyone to tell her she shouldn't teach men.

        June 26, 2014 at 5:49 pm |
        • Vic

          I read scientific articles before suggesting that women have clearer minds than men and are more capable at multitasking.

          p.s. Word Filter delays.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:19 pm |
      • Vic

        Look how flexible and resolve Apostle Paul was, he became a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles, just for the sake of delivering the "Good News" of the Lord Jesus Christ; he dealt with cultural constraints accordingly.

        1 Corinthians 9:19-23
        "19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some. 23 I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it." (NASB)

        June 26, 2014 at 6:03 pm |
        • observer

          Vic,

          I'm more impressed with intelligence than flexibility.

          June 26, 2014 at 6:08 pm |
      • christianguy17

        "I understand the natural differences in gender roles but that does not concern equality. I believe a female is equally capable of Church ministry as a male is". That may be your belief, as a result of the sin nature, but the bible is clear on this subject. There is no passage you can point to that this is cultural without ripping it out of context. In fact, Paul says this in 1 Corinthians 11:16, "But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God". Paul says he and the apostles, and the churches, have no custom to be contentious to the express word of God. In fact, Paul says, after directly speaking to this subject in 1 Corinthians 14:37-38, "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. 38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant". If you want to be ignorant on this subject, just ignore scripture.

        June 26, 2014 at 9:45 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          It must be tough for you to know that a woman can runs circles around you intellectually.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:48 pm |
        • christianguy17

          It has nothing to do with who is smarter, stronger, more naturally gifted...there are many women with higher IQ's and God given talents than men...it is just that they must use their God given talents in the place zgod has prescribed them. So must men.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:57 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          lol. So give one reason why MORE INTELLIGENT women shouldn't teach LESS INTELLIGENT men?

          Get real. Get into the 21st Century.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:59 pm |
        • christianguy17

          Observer,
          One more reason? Sure, 1 Timothy 2:12-15, this is in regards to a women teaching in the church (only). Vs 14 is your reason:
          ". But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".

          June 26, 2014 at 10:04 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          The SMARTEST PERSON in the world didn't live within THOUSANDS of years of Eve. She had NOTHING in the world to do with Eve listening to a TALKING SERPENT.

          Try again.

          June 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm |
        • christianguy17

          Observer,
          Ok, one final reason since you asked. Because God said so. I think Romans 9:20 applies right now. "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

          June 26, 2014 at 10:18 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          God also said such nonsensical things as to cut off the hand of your wife if she touches the genitals of someone attacking you.

          Do you believe that or are you just another Christian HYPOCRITE?

          June 26, 2014 at 10:23 pm |
        • christianguy17

          That was a law, that should have been obeyed, by the children of Israel. However, those political laws, given to the Israelites, AS A BODY POLITIC, are no longer inforce, but what still applies, is whatever can be morally applied from what that law was intended to teach. So no, that law is no longer in force according to biblical standards.

          June 26, 2014 at 10:33 pm |
        • observer

          christianguy17,

          So do you BELIEVE that a wife should EVER have her hand cut off for touching the genitals of a man who was ATTACKING her husband?

          Let's see what your MORALS are like. Let's see what you think of JUSTICE.

          June 26, 2014 at 10:39 pm |
        • Vic

          Well, I won't argue much about this issue. Those passages are still puzzling to Christians at large.

          From what I understand is that Apostle Paul was dealing with domestic issues in Corinth and Ephesus, for example, where Jews & Gentiles and men & women were feuding and had contentions at the church in such a way that distorted the true message of the Gospel. Apostle Paul was concerned about false teachings arising from those contentions "that happened to involve women," so he instructed accordingly. Those instructions were specific to those communities at the time but were not necessarily because of nor about gender in general. The false teachings that Apostle Paul was concerned about were contentions against the Gospel, that is Salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. Jews & Gentiles were distorting the message of the Cross in those communities back then were women happened to be in the process as sources of that distortion.

          That said, in general, and simply put, teaching the true message of the Cross, the true message of the Gospel, is not affected by nor is it about gender.

          June 26, 2014 at 11:12 pm |
        • christianguy17

          Vic,
          One reason Paul wrote Ephesians, specifically to the Gentile church, was to emphasize that Jews and Gentiles have both been made one body in Christ and that jews aren't to be considered a higher class of christian. There was no other cultural issue besides Paul stressing that the ceremonial customs and laws of the jewish people are no longer in effect and a reaffirmation of the gospel message, particularly the doctrine of predestination. The two letters to the Corinthans do touch on several topics but I do not see how they can be labeled as cultural. The Corinthians had a particular problem with church discipline...they had not disciplined a man caught in fornication (1 cor 5) as they should have. One must remember that God has given us the entire Bible, and especially the entire New Testiment, to understand the gospel and how the New Testament church should function. Much of Paul's epistles are/were ground breaking instructions for the expansion of His church and how christians should govern their lives until Christ returns. The "true message of the gospel", includes every truth taught in scripture, including both the role of men and women as Christ has ordered it. Read 1 Cor 12...we are all parts in the body of Christ but we do not all have the same function and abilities. There is no basis to limit any of the instructions given in the new testament and paul's epistles. Quite te opposite, see Peter speaking of Paul's epistles: 2 Peter 3:15-17
          "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness".

          June 27, 2014 at 12:08 am |
        • tallulah131

          It appears that christianguy believes that external reproductive organs makes men superior to women. Because it says so in a really old book.

          Is this really the best way to determine qualifications?

          June 27, 2014 at 12:10 am |
        • observer

          More of the "INTELLIGENCE" of Paul:

          (I Cor. 7:1-2) "It is good for a man not to have s3xual relations with a woman. But because of the temptation to s3xual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.”

          BRIGHT.

          June 27, 2014 at 12:16 am |
    • tallulah131

      It comes as no surprise that a god and religion invented by patriarchal Bronze Age tribesmen would place men in the role of authority. What is surprising is that church leaders think their religion will survive if they insist upon maintaining a Bronze Age hierarchy in a culture that exists in the Information Age.

      June 26, 2014 at 5:35 pm |
      • Keith

        It is surprising to me that education has not destroyed Organized Religion.

        June 26, 2014 at 7:25 pm |
    • Keith

      Looks like Christianity is a bad way to go for women.

      June 26, 2014 at 7:23 pm |
      • tallulah131

        There really aren't a lot of mainstream religions that are woman-friendly, but it's so ingrained in culture that women accept it. The more freedom women are allowed in a society, the more women reject the limitations of their religion.

        June 26, 2014 at 9:08 pm |
        • Keith

          My wife and I were both raised religious but by the time I got home from Vietnam and she graduated from college religion was no longer a part of our lives. Hers because of feminism and mine because after seeing war I could see no evidence that god ever existed.

          We found other ways to fill that place the Religion fills for other people with our community work.

          June 26, 2014 at 9:42 pm |
    • dandintac

      Thanks for confirming that misogyny is interwoven right into the very fabric of your religion. All too many modern, liberally-minded, decent, tolerant Christians make excuses for this horrid misogyny:

      "Oh, you're taking it out of context" (the number one favorite excuse for anything bad in the Bible)

      "Oh, it's not really like that! That's just all OT stuff–we have a new covenant now!" or

      "That was for those times–we live in different times!"

      OR–they just ignore it altogether. Most Christians in the US have never even read the whole Bible–just a few select passages chosen by their pastor. The light, easy-breezy stuff about love and forgiveness–this is what is highlighted, not the appalling passages you so helpfully detailed for us.

      Unfortunately for Christianity, we have progressed. There's a reason why conservatives have opposed birth control, suffrage for women, equal rights. But these things have come to pass anyway, and now women in the west are relatively liberated compared to their predecessors. This is why pastors in a lot of congregations don't want to talk about the nasty misogynistic content in the Bible. They might lose their breeding stock.

      June 26, 2014 at 8:07 pm |
      • Keith

        seems like they would write themselves a new book for the new times doesn't it.

        June 26, 2014 at 8:38 pm |
  17. bostontola

    "Hey religion, your misogyny is showing"

    This is a bit unfair. It should be:
    "Hey humanity, your misogyny is showing"

    Misogyny is rampant everywhere. We are just beginning to see through it. If you look at almost any set of laws through history, almost all philosophers from Aristotle, Socrates, through Kant and Nietzsche, there is misogyny. It has been taken for granted in most societies through history.

    It would only be a surprise if religions weren't misogynist. It would be a surprise so significant that you might consider that potential evidence of that religion's God.

    But alas, most religions do have misogynist elements, some allow slavery and brutal justice in favor of rehabilitation. These elements of religion reflect human origins rather than supernatural origins.

    June 26, 2014 at 3:52 pm |
    • Alias

      I kno wthe bible mentions selling daughters into slavery – does it mention selling the male children?

      June 26, 2014 at 4:11 pm |
      • bostontola

        I've not seen a passage on selling male children from a Jewish family, but there are some obscure passages. If not, it reflects misogynistic bias.

        June 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
      • kudlak

        Read Exodus 21. If they bought a Hebrew man as a slave, they had to set him free after six years unless they provided him with a wife and he was unwilling to leave her and their children. Then they could enslave a fellow Hebrew male for life.

        I'm not sure about the boys, but considering that boys were more valued than girls, they probably didn't get around to selling them nearly as much.

        June 26, 2014 at 4:29 pm |
        • bostontola

          In ancient Israel, families arranged marriages very early. The brides family received a dowry from the boy's family. If a daughter couldn't get arranged, I guess that was a liability on the girl's family that could get amortized by selling into slavery.

          June 26, 2014 at 4:42 pm |
        • kudlak

          Bought and paid for like their livestock, it would seem. The dowry was to pay for the expense of having fed and clothed the girl, but it also establishes her as a commodity, doesn't it? Doubtless, more interest was taken in getting the highest amount in dowry than in finding the best match for daughters in many cases.

          For boys, you only have to go to the story of Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son Isaac to see the same kind of disregard for their individual personhood. Clearly, this wasn't the same way we typically love and respect our children these days, eh?

          June 26, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
        • bostontola

          It's hard to put myself in that time. With so much more mortality of infants and children, they had to have many children. That puts women in a tough spot, and could change the perceived value of an individual child. The religion merely reflected the social norms of the time.

          If there was a parallel tribe where women were equal, could they compete with the misogynist group back then? I doubt it. I think it was that way because that is what worked at that time.

          The male lion is much larger than the female. It dominates the pride. It works because the large male can protect the pride from other predators, while a smaller female is better at hunting. It works better than same sized se.xes in a family group.

          Today, we no longer have need for that structure with much better medicine and defenses. We are adapting to that as we watch.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:18 pm |
        • kudlak

          bostontola
          It really wasn't that long ago. Most people expected to lose a few children to illness and such even a 100 years ago in the USA.

          If you look at the most famous story of female power in the ancient world, the Amazons, they were cast as the "outsiders", the foreign threat to Greek society. That's why their greatest hero, Heracles, conquered their queen as one of his labours. They poised a threat, along with all the monsters that he slew.

          June 27, 2014 at 11:38 am |
    • kudlak

      It would appear then that society shapes religion and what the gods approve, or disapprove of, and not the other way around, like religions usually claim. As society becomes more tolerant, interested in equal rights and in protecting the environment it drags religion along with it, and religion conveniently gets the gods to agree that it's all a good idea. The genius of religion has to be that it can get people to forget that these changes weren't part of the original theology all along.

      June 26, 2014 at 4:18 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        bingo!

        June 26, 2014 at 4:26 pm |
      • bostontola

        I agree. Religion is sociological genius. That's why there are so many, and why they are so persistent.

        June 26, 2014 at 4:27 pm |
    • dandintac

      Boston–fair-minded as always. You are such a decent guy.

      However, I must mildly disagree. While it may be basically true that misogyny (or misandry) is a human problem, I doubt there has ever been a more clear channel and effective vehicle for its expression and development into actual harm than religion.

      June 26, 2014 at 8:11 pm |
    • Keith

      It is not unfair at all, many of us have evolved beyond misogyny and religion perpetuates it.

      June 26, 2014 at 8:40 pm |
  18. Løki

    I tapped her on the shoulder
    And said do you have a beau?
    She looked at me and smiled
    And said she did not know
    Punk rock girl give me a chance
    Punk rock girl let's go slamdance
    We'll dress like Minnie Pearl
    Just you and me punk rock girl

    June 26, 2014 at 3:15 pm |
    • awanderingscot

      so what, i have access to all the books as well. you seem to be under the impression that all learned men come from academia. you are wrong. cognitive skills can be developed anywhere. this article is proof that stupidity also can originate in academia. beyond the subject matter of religion, how in the world are there any similarities in these two experiences? there are none, but this guy makes an unconvincing case that there are. in fact it might even be postulated that this excommunicated Mormon is a closet misandrist and the only reason she is doing this is to 'expose' the elders and doctrine of this church, a rebel of sorts looking for revenge. her actions in no way resemble the non-actions of the Christian woman in Sudan but this guy tries hard to make it so and does a poor job at it

      June 26, 2014 at 3:45 pm |
      • Doc Vestibule

        You can't compare the two women's stories at all.
        The Mormon woman, who actually is an apostate, isn't facing death and/or imprisonment.

        June 26, 2014 at 3:50 pm |
      • TruthPrevails1

        " i have access to all the books as well."

        Oh now that can only lead to the question of what level of education do you have? Just because you have access to books doesn't mean you are comprehending what you are reading...5 year olds read and they don't always understand.

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

        What does your stupid rant have to do with the Dead Milkman?

        June 26, 2014 at 3:58 pm |
        • Doc Vestibule

          I just about bust a gut the first time I heard "Takin' Retards To The Zoo"

          June 26, 2014 at 4:10 pm |
        • Løki

          Worse than the Milkmen... the Dead Kennedys... My mother was not pleased with me listening to anything on 'Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables'... I thought she was going to have a stroke when she read the song titles

          June 26, 2014 at 4:22 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Quasi-related side note: I howled quite inappropriately the first time I heard "Meat is Murder". Morrissey just took himself too damned seriously.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:24 pm |
        • tallulah131

          Somehow I missed that one, Doc, but I just gave it a listen. Hysterical and as far from PC as it gets. I miss that kind of music.

          June 26, 2014 at 5:26 pm |
      • neverbeenhappieratheist

        Apparently you have very poor reading comprehesion. The author above is equating two religions, Christianity & Islam, who both have laws regarding women and both of these women have been charged with "abandoning one's faith." Sure the sentence is different, but I can still see his point about how both assume, as he says, "that male rule is constltuent of God or the gods."

        The punishments are not being compared, the misogyny many religions share is.

        June 26, 2014 at 4:23 pm |
    • Science Works

      Hey Diddle Diddle
      The cat and the fiddle
      And the cow jumped over the moon – according to Theo's logic eh ?

      June 26, 2014 at 3:59 pm |
    • tallulah131

      I love me some Dead Milkmen.

      June 26, 2014 at 5:22 pm |
  19. Sea Otter (Leader Allied Atheist Alliance)

    I was born without one good thought.
    Just to live fast, tell a lie and break a heart.
    I have broken many hearts and I've broken many rules;
    That's why I call myself the King of Fools.

    King of Fools, King of Fools
    When it comes around your love, I always lose.

    June 26, 2014 at 2:58 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      Social D is playing Riot Fest up here in a couple of months.
      But I've already got my ticket for the Summer Nationals show in August with Bad Religion, Pennywise, The Vandals and the Offspring. I think this'll be about the 8th time I've seen BR and the first time my wife is coming with me!

      June 26, 2014 at 3:46 pm |
      • Løki

        The last time I saw Social D was in Boston, I think in 2005? I took my daughter, she thought it was awesome. I have the skeleton logo on the back window of my car right now.

        June 26, 2014 at 3:56 pm |
        • Løki

          and smoking something rolled up suspiciously

          June 26, 2014 at 4:08 pm |
  20. Sea Otter (Leader Allied Atheist Alliance)

    "What a great day for Canadians everywhere! The Winnipeg drummers, playing the "March of 1000 Farts"...as is traditional for the Canadian Royal Family."

    "People in attendance, now gently tossing Cap'n Crunch as the prince passes by...as of course is tradition."

    "Ah, here she comes! Yes, there she is! The aboot-to-be princess of Canada. Isn't she ravishing? So pure of heart, so strong in body, so hot in the face....She is indeed the living symbol of our greatly country. My God, she's beautiful."

    June 26, 2014 at 2:31 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.