 |
|
|
|
 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
(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.
Next entry »Mormon feminist: l'll fight excommunication
« Previous entryPastor who officiated son's same-sex wedding reinstated
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Opinion by Randal Maurice Jelks, special to CNN
I think it is a good article. brings up a good point, objectively. It points out the difference between men's ego, which I think is a thought pattern, and the normal mind. I think more men than women take upon themselves to improve their minds or personality etc.. it seems that way to me.. the beating chest and i'm better than you and competetiveness . in my experience I find more men do that than women.. I don't know why that is or even if it is.. I've also heard that most women like aggressive men.. so if that's true than that's how the relationship between men and women is actually some women like dominate men the hard rock tough guy decision maker.. etc.. but its really BS as you can see from vets coming home with ptsd these are the soldiers, the tough guys the chest beaters etc.. because to be tough beat your chest be a warrior means you are probably leaving your feelings behind you're becoming depersonalized.. they realize life isn't as it was back in high school.. and they can't rationinalize it.. now women want their say and they're right do you think Christ was a chest beater and aggressive etc like king kong he was in touch intimately with his feelings and himself.. he was deeply inside of himself.. didn't need to strike out... turn the other cheek... its not a thought pattern..
I think that you don't know many people if you feel the need for such generalization. It has been my experience that every person is different, and that no two relationships are the same.
How odd!
Being arrested for your religious faith is not on the same level as a feminist trying to establish her earthly kingdom.
While the former is persecution, the latter is a selfish pursuit to power and position.
Yet if a male does it, it is not selfish?
How unsurprising - a man who can't understand why women want equality.
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
I would look at the fact that the year is 2014 and your bible hasn't been updated in over 2000 years and thus has no pertinence outside of your home and church. In fact we have laws that prevent you from treating your wife as anything less than your equal....no more can you hog-tie her or threaten her...she has as many rights as you do...regardless of what is in your imaginary friends book.
Lol. Truth man, give it up and learn to be tolerant of what you don't understand.
What's not to understand? That your religion reaches that women are not the equals of man?
I have as much right to speak on this as you do and as a woman I have a better understanding of how it works.
We don't understand because it makes no sense.
When something like that doesn't make sense either we read it and couldn't understand it or you didn't bother. So Alias which category do you fit in?
This is questionable my sister but your right opinions are a persons right. I'm just talking to you on the basis of what you and I believe, nothing more
btw: 50% hollow...is that alias defining the portion of your brain that no longer functions?
Possibly but according to you its all I need to out wit you XD
Do you kill and cook you own food? Do you work the land with hand tools? Just asking because you seem to still read (and somehow believe) a book from the Iron ages so why aren't you still living the lifestyle of that time? Any attempt to marginalize a woman through whatever means, especially religion, is certainly not dealing with the reality of them being as good or in your case better than a man. Please spare us the ignorance of your ancient beliefs, they are quite nauseating. And fiftypercenthollow, maybe you should be tolerant of things you don't understand like an intelligent woman.
The only reason it's in any of those texts is that human literature reflects the human culture that produces it.
There are more women than men in the world
so why don't they change things if they don't like it?
Its not that I do not recognize there is inequality
but – Is it up to Men to make things better?
Women have been trying to become the head of the family since Adam and Eve.
Since Lilith, maybe?
LOL. Adam and Eve is a mythical story. Complete with talking snakes and magic trees.
You mean the mythological humans of the bible?? You do know that outside of the bible, there is no evidence for them-right??
Thank God this doesn't apply to biblical Christianity! Christ has done more to raise the status of women than anyone in history. The New Testament declares "there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, all are one in Christ".
Typically, critics point to harsh treatment of women recorded in the Bible, and Paul's teaching that "women must be silent", and "not teach men", etc. The former merely records the conditions of the ancient world and cultures as to how women were viewed.
In the latter, Paul guides the early church through the burgeoning freedom women were enjoying in Christ. It seems in some churches women were talking among themselves and being disruptive as they began to take part in the workings and theology of the congregation (largely forbidden, until then). They were literally playing "catch up"!
In the second instance, Paul teaches that women should not exert authority over men in spiritual matters. A woman can teach TO a man, but not OVER a man in church function. I agree with scholars that this is due to how men and women are "wired" by God to relate when it comes to spiritual growth (this doesn't necessarily apply to the workplace, etc. only when it comes to spiritual matters). Men and women complement one another in this way. This is so foreign to modern feminist society I probably sound like a dark-age draconian!
Right.
Obey is the same as respect.
Women should obey, and men should respect those who follow their commands.
Nothing wrong here.
I'm not sure how to take your comment. Obey and respect are not necessarily the same things. Children are to obey because of their limited and immature status. But that is not a healthy basis for relationships between men and women. That's why scripture says wives are to *respect* their husbands (and husbands love their wives). This is not mere obedience.
And, this is mostly for us bone-headed men's benefit! We will become mature men and are more like to rise to our potential if given respect. Women have been given spiritual sensitivities that are profound, but those sensitivities seem to be easily exploited (again, in spiritual matters). So men and women complement one another. Love, respect, and selflessness. Those are the ingredients for amazingly abundant relationships!
I was mocking you.
It is ridicules to try to say that the bible puts women as equal to men.
"all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" = total equality.
No one is good but God = total equality
Christ made a way for all to be saved = total equality
Other reference to man and woman relates to order. Just think how great the world would be if women showed respect towards men and men loved women.
It better not apply because God is a Jealous Male Warrior! He kills when he is mad, and you better believe he is the only one! There are no others! He is allowed to impregnate a woman who is engaged to another man too. Seriously! At least start over from scratch. There are so many gods floating around these days (allavhs, jevhovas, krishvnas etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum) and with their deity based mythologies. Can't we just try to be decent human beings? Use common sense? Be logical?
Crom, I have never prayed to you before. I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad. Why we fought, or why we died. All that matters is that two stood against many. That's what's important! Valor pleases you, Crom... so grant me one request. Grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to HELL with you!
I have no idea why, but the things people are posting today make me think of movies!
That's a pretty bad caricature if you're talking about the God of Christian Theism! Hillbilly theology! I would get rid of that straw man you're rejecting if I were you! Just sayin'!
What's your definition of male because it appears your using it in the wrong context for what the Christian God is actually described as. Which consists of both male and female characteristics.
So your god is transgendered? And where exactly can we locate the evidence supporting your crazy claim???
Exactly where I would point anyone interested in coming to Christ..The Bible, duh.
So in other words, it doesn't exist and you're now acting like a silly child caught up in a lie...tsk tsk bad boy!
Lol, your the one saying it doesn't exist look in a book store. I'm pretty sure there in there unless there's been a book burning. Then you'll just have to try harder but no fault of my I can assure you.
You might want to ask the Midianites if they thought the Christian god was good for women.
Ah, the "atrocities" of the Old Testament! I'll ask them when I get to heaven. If they are in hell, then you ask them!
The way you are speaking here, if hell exists it is more than likely you who is going to be there for failing to follow the Golden Rule.
As for women being lower then men....wake up fool, this is 2014, your book of fairy tales has no bearing any more and people who think like you are holding society back.
It's funny that people cry for justice in this day and age from God and when they read the bible they try to discredit it on the fact that it goes against the ten commandments of thou shalt not.. except for the fact that these where no ordinary people the Midianites.. but let's keep crying for justice in America everyone. Maybe our various forms of pleasure and convenience well offer us and answer just like Midian?
Typically, critics point to harsh treatment of women recorded in the Bible, and Paul's teaching that "women must be silent", and "not teach men", etc. The former merely records the conditions of the ancient world and cultures as to how women were viewed.
------
Oh now the OT is no longer the sacred word of God, it's just man's recordation of ancient conditions? The religious are the most hypocritical people on the planet. They will say anything to make their belief system fit their personally desired construct.
You missed the point. The Bible does not condone everything it records (i.e. David's adultery and murder). It tells it like it is (and was).
So morality is subjective in the bible.
How interesting.
So it's no longer the word of god? I see...
So any rationalization to make the szizophrenic Paul look good. FIn one place he says they are freed from the old law, in another that they are still subject to it. When he founded his new religion, Paulianity, which IS the religion you practice, he never realized paople would check his letters for consistency.
Religion has always been and still remains THE principle means of oppressing the female half of humanity, both through inculcating the male half with delusions of their own grandeur and superiority and by inculcating the female half into accepting servitude and inferiority as all they deserve or are capable of.
Females are half the species. So long as half of human-kind is oppressed and denied its full potential, the species can never reach ITS.
I bet you make angry sammiches...
No more vegemite, Please!
It's a toss up which toxicity has damaged the world more: most males or all religions.
"Most males" Well, that doesn't leave much maneuver room for us non-horrible males...
Since Males have always been in charge of religion, it is clearly their fault in both cases.
I know a lot of fancy dancers,
people who can glide you on a floor,
They move so smooth but have no answers.
When you ask "Why'd you come here for?"
"I don't know" "Why?"
There once was a preacher named Spurgy
Who wasn't a fan of Liturgy
But his sermons were fine
So I preached them as mine
And so did the rest of the clergy!
There was a young man from St. Paul
With an organ o're 10 foot tall.
He had a wet dream
And awoke with a scream
As he pole-vaulted into the hall!
Let's put women in charge of everything for a while.
We'll have a 4 day long war once a month, proper child care will truely become a national goal, foreplay will be required by law, dead beat dads will go to prison, and samaches for everybody.
I was wavering in the beginning (those 4 days of war will be hell on Earth)... but then you sealed the deal with sammiches...
Sneaky women always get us with those damn sammiches...
vegemite sandwiches
Vegemite!?!?!?!
Okay, let's not put women in charge of Australia.
I've tried vegamite... It felt like god was punishing me...
Australia did dump their female PM.
Maybe we go back to using it as a penal colony?
Is Scripture Clear About Abortion? by John MacArthur
http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-scripture-clear-about-abortion-121777/
Sorry Topher – not gonna follow you down the abortion rabbit hole today.
Your god aborts millions of unborn children daily via miscarriage. Millions!!! Your god is the biggest proponent of abortion. Why do you go against the will of your god. Blasphemer!
In sha'Allah
Scripture isn't even clear on genocide...
Sure it is! It's spelled out in Revelation 20:11-15.
Isn't that the Revelation that says to hate and kill everyone that disagrees with you?
Don't forget the all important rule for bible study.. pick-and-choose.
And what does it say in other parts of the bible? Here I will paraphrase it for you...."Kill em...kill em all".
Well Timothy said "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" there was no canon, so I guess you'll have to tell us what you consider scripture, as it's can't be the same as he did. You also can't even tell us EXACTLY (and I mean EXACTLY) when the "moment of conception" is, so how about defining that first.
What audacity is displayed from the hypocrite unbelievers that do not want churches ruling over them and their lives, but at the same time want to rule over churches and the lives of church goers.
What idiocy is displayed by the hypocrite believers who have no idea what atheism is... and that we couldn't give a rat's ass about your silly places of cult worship and funny hats of god power... if you keep your ignorance away from legislation that impacts OUR freedoms we will gladly let you go play your silly reindeer games...
Opposing an idea or a behavior is not in any way "attempting to rule over" anything or anyone. You and your church can behave anyway you want.
Not all religions are misogynistic, but it shows that details like that aren't important to you when trying to formulate an argument. You seem like the kind of person that perhaps begins to hate an entire race because you may have had one bad experience from someone within that race: a definite danger to others with such logic, and flawed reasoning!
"Not all religions are misogynistic"
You're right, of course.
However, the Abrahamic religions tend to be.
You got all that character study based on one absolutely unrelated statement Akira made? wow, you must be the worlds greatest detective – or a hack who makes a opinion about someone beforehand. Only two options and it is easy to see which one.. quick, what color undershirt am i wearing. Your answer shows which you are.
incidentally, aren't you showing the same traits you are accusing others of showing? think about it.
"Not all religions are misogynistic"
That is a red herring...the topic is the ones that are.
That is a red herring...the topic is the ones that are"
Calling herrings red is racist!
So you propose we stop churches from ruling over everyone and thus forcing a Theocracy, if we're not allowed to stand against them?? Christians have held society back and Atheists back for far too long...it's time they learned to treat everyone equally, especially when they are taking up land in a Secular country where they don't pay taxes and thus have no say outside of their buildings.
You want your religion respected, keep it out of the public square...stop using it to try to tell others how to live...once the respect for all is shown from your side, we'll have reason to show respect in return.
"So you propose " should have read "So how do you.."
the bible itself is proof that it's just a book written by iron age, desert dwelling men and NOT the word of any god.
Christians should actually try reading their little book of horrors.
Actually I think they were bronze age mystics that started it all
Contrary to popular opinion, the Bible is iron age, not bronze age. You could claim that some origins to the OT started in bronze age, but, then you could say there are even early origins and even earlier, etc.
Mr. Jelks: Thank you. You could not have said it better. Further, with no offense meant to you personally, men have had their time to make it right and have failed miserably. It's time and past that we women stepped up. So, gentlemen, please move over calmly. No fists or words are needed. Your time is well and truly over where religion, our world and our rights are concerned. You need not try to "tell" us anything, anymore. It's our turn now.
The ultimate goal of feminism should be a world where feminism is no longer required. Otherwise, you are just looking for role-reversals and I don't believe one group is going to be any better at it than the former...
good response. But then the tables turn and we are out of God's word. It is a great thing women have to do, but so for men too, relinquishing position. BUT so many men, once I explained God's word in this subject, were so grateful, tired of having to be so awesome and failing ALL THE TIME. WOmen who have done so much but getting no credit or slapped down (I know that one) relieved that it is God we love and serve joyfully and not man (human kind).
I believe the response of feminism is as equally sinful to the offense of shovanism.
Men have certainly overstepped their bounds and have done what God has called us not to do, but then women, in response to that have also overstepped their bounds and also have done what God has forbidden.
I believe the proper response is a call to men for Biblical manhood. One where he leads his family well, loves his wife as he loves his own body, never bickers, and never lords over any in his family, especially his wife, and where he submits himself wholeheartedly to God.
"I believe", "I believe", "I believe". So what ? For thousands years men have sought to impose their beliefs on others. You are no different.
Theo
You just want women to stay in thier rightful biblical place.
You just want women to stay in thier rightful biblical place
------------
I think if MEN had stayed in their proper Biblical place from the beginning, then we wouldn't be having this problem.
Theo: You're funny! Not only are you a bigot, not only have to shown hate and arrogance, but now you think you're superior to women....you're too much. You do know this is 2014 and not 1814-right?
"Shovanism"??? Do you mean chauvinism?
I am not going to deny that Islam has a troubling history of misogyny, because of course it does, but you have not made a very strong case linking that misogyny to Mrs. Ibrahim's case. Islam has a history of punishing apostasy with respect to both males and females.
Also, I find the linking of Mrs Ibrahim's situation with Ms. Kelly's situation to be troubling. Ultimately the two approaches are very different. Any religion should be free to determine whether someone's beliefs and actions are consistent with its teachings and be free to expel those they believe to be a threat to their beliefs. Sentencing to death for apostasy is entirely different.
Further, I question the value of articles like this. It is in fact really insulting when someone stands outside a religious tradition and says, "I know what you folks need to do". This is simply trying to force everyone in the world to accept Western Progressive values. Another word for that is Colonialism.
The bottom line is Bill, if you, or your religion, or your ideology, thinks women should be subordinate to men, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And pointing that out isn't forcing you into anything. Of course you can continue with your misogyny, but don't be surprised when you are called on it for what it is.
Indeed you are free to practice your religion however you like. Just as I am free to scorn you as regressive holdovers from a time long past. Your church leaders can even run for the highest office in the land but we progressives will never vote for a man who sees women as possessions.
[
"Sudan’s penal code criminalizes the conversion of Muslims to other religions, which is punishable by death. Muslim women in Sudan are further prohibited from marrying non-Muslims, although Muslim men are permitted to marry outside their faith. Children, by law, must follow their father’s religion."
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/06/24/sudanese-mom-re-arrested-day-after-being-freed-from-death-row/
]
Again, one woman is being threatened with death from a religion other than her own. And the other woman is being kicked out by a religion she says she doesnt believe in but likes, because the religion says essentially, they dont like her attacks, and dont like her trying to teach others to attack the church, even within their own walls. Pretty sure if you had a business or even if a member of your family was publicly trying to humiliate you/attack you... that you would also politely ask him or her to leave. Here is the reasoning the church gave her. Judge it for yourself:
"The difficulty, Sister Kelly, is not that you say you have questions or even that you believe that women should receive the priesthood," Harrison continued. "The problem is that you have persisted in an aggressive effort to persuade other Church members to your point of view and that your course of action has threatened to erode the faith of others."
So... wait. Are you saying that the penis is NOT an antenna designed to receive wisdom, insight, and leadership abilities directly from God? =:-o
So if I'm not receiving properly i could ask God to tap it and blow into it, sort of like a microphone?
It's mine and I'll wash it as fast as I want!
If the Catholic church has taught us anything it's that the most effective antennae for receiving divine, psychic transmissions is an enormous, gilded hat.
Magic hats and the love of little boys = direct comms with Yahweh-06
Apparently the divine reception improves if the wearer of the hat stations something in front of him – preferably animate, human, male, and from 8-14 years of age. And, because clothing is man-made, it can interfere with these transmissions. So the young male should be without clothing. Better reception, apparently.
Jelks you have your comparison wrong. Apples to Oranges. One woman was kicked out of her church because she was attacking it. Whether you agree with her cause is a different matter. The fact is she was attacking the church publicly, and asking for public assistance and pressure to attack it. She has said publicly that she doesn't believe in the authority or doctrine of the church, but likes the culture and the feeling she gets, so she wants to remain. I am convinced her church would allow her to stay and think/feel however she wants... it is the element of attack which has gotten her into trouble. If a man were to do the same, he would be treated the same. The woman in Africa is a true victim. She believes in her faith, in her right to live it, and by all accounts has been doing so admirably. She refuses to leave it in order to appease sharia law fanatics who would rather see people die than to live free. I see very few commonalities here: Both involve women, Both involve religion, and I think that is where the comparisons end. One is a potential martyr to the faith, and the other is a rabble rouser trolling the church she professes to enjoy and like... but not believe. She is in apostasy or did I miss something?
You forget that this is the Morman church we are talking about here. They have a whole lot of scripture that us non-Mormon's don't have. Certainly my understanding of their theology suggests that women and men have very different roles in their theology. Far different say than in the Catholic or Orthodox Christian faiths where only men may be ordained but non-ordained men and women at least are suppose to be equal in authority and dignity.
I'm an atheist and don't really like religion. Yet, I guess I'm not too offended when a church says that if you don't believe what we teach then you aren't a member of our church. If they beat her for it, I wouldn't support it of course. But I for one can think of many worse things than being kicked out of a religion...
There are no gods, angels or demons. Only the natural world. Everything that happens and everything that doesn't are random events ruled by chance, probability and the mathematics of the Universe, not by divine deities. Religion is a tool for the few to control the many and for despots to rule the ignorant masses with total impunity for the fear, violence and intimidation they inflict upon them as means to achieve submission. The only path to true human freedom is the one without religion.
Everything that happens and everything that doesn't are random events ruled by chance, probability and the mathematics of the Universe, not by divine deities.
-------------
If mere "chance" ruled the universe, then there would be no consistent laws of physics that govern our universe. Chance, does not exist. It is merely a mathematical expression of probability, NOT a ruling or creative force.
“Chance” spoken of in the sense of a mathematical possibility or probability of an occurrence has merit, such as in a coin has a 50/50 chance of landing on heads or tails, but “chance” in the sense of the absence of any cause of events is impossible, for every occurrence is an effect that has a cause. For something to be an effect without a cause is impossible. There are no uncaused events. Every effect is determined by some cause. Even the flip of a coin simply cannot occur without a definite cause. And common sense tells us that whether the coin comes up heads or tails is also determined by something. A number of factors (including the precise amount of force with which the coin is flipped and the distance it must fall before hitting the ground) determine the number of revolutions and bounces it makes before landing on one side or the other. Although the forces that determine the flip of a coin may be impossible for us to control precisely, it is those forces, not "chance," that determines whether we get heads or tails. What may appear totally random and undetermined to us is nonetheless definitively determined by something. It is not caused by mere chance, because chance simply does not exist as a force or a cause. Chance is nothing.
Common sense tells us nothing about the ultimate nature of Reality or the universe, as demonstared by Relativity, Uncertainty, and the tensors of Dirac. The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive. Choas Theory has demonstrated what you have written is utterly false, and has beed debunked by science.
And yet some men speak out of both sides of their mouths. While saying on the one hand that "chance" rules over all, where the only certainty is uncertainty, we still put spacecraft into orbit based on unchanging laws of physics. If there were nothing predictable based on the permanent laws of physics, then you would hasten to set foot in your car to go to work every morning.
To speak of uncertainty in the context of mathematics is one thing, but to say that it is absolutely true that there are no absolutes is the height of ignorance.
That's absolutely not what I said. You clearly have no clue eith what I was tlking about or what your are talking about.
Maybe I did misunderstand you.
In your rebuttle, you seemed to be attempting to prove to me that "chance" could actually be some "ruler" or creative force by citing various theories along those lines. But chance as a mover or motivator doesn't exist. If it did, then we wouldn't have any fixed laws through which this universe operates, and we do.
You have probability ranges for each event. There are no absolutes. If you wait long enough, a highly improbable event can happen. And YOUR point was that "common sense" tells you something ultimatley important. It doesn't.
"You have probability ranges for each event. There are no absolutes."
----------------–
Is it an absolutely true statement that there are no absolutes?
there absolutely is no god.
@ Theo: you claimed "for every occurrence is an effect that has a cause". Okay, so what is God's cause? What caused God? And what was the cause of whatever caused God. And so on ad infinitum.
Let me guess: god is the exception to your ironclad rule? Okay – if we make an exception for god, then we can logically make an exception for the universe having no cause.
What you are telling me then is that you believe in infinite regress.
We know that our universe is not eternal because it is found to be mutable. And nothing that is mutable is also, somehow eternal. Therefore, our universe had a beginning. We also know that infinite regress does not exist, so our universe began from a single creator – not an infinite series of them, since an infinite series of causes with no beginning is impossible. That first cause, we call God.
@ Theo – you have based your argument on a number of premises that you simply take as fact, without first establishing them. What evidence to you have that the universe isn't eternal? Or that things which, to our observations, appear mutable, are in fact eternal. Or that something with the characteristic of 'mutable" cannot also possess the characteristic of eternal existence. And, of course, sen if what you posited were to be established, the logical leap does not follow: therefore god. And it certainly does not follow: therefore, the Christian God of the Bible.
Proof:
1. The physical universe exists.
If it's a false illusion, then it isn't an illusion.
If it's a true illusion, then someone or something must exist to have that illusion.
2. Nothing can be self-created.
The idea of self-creation is by all logic, formally and analytically false. It is self-contradictory and logically impossible. In essence, self-creation requires the existence of something before it exists. It is a logical and rational impossibility, because for something to create itself it must be before it is. This is impossible...
3. Every physical ent.ity (natural ent.ity) is contingent.
However concrete physical reality is sectioned up, the result will be a state of affairs which owes its being to something other than itself. Every physical state, no matter how inclusive, has a necessary condition in some specific type of state which precedes it in time and is fully existent prior to the emergence of the state in which it conditions. There is not one example in the physical universe of a physical quanti.ty that explains its own existence.
4. Contingent ent.ities are not eternal.
Contingency necessitates a beginning, (effects do not occur without a cause) therefore a contingent ent.ity is not eternal.
5. Since contingency exists, then a causal chain exists.
Since it is impossible for something to create itself out of nothing (out of nothing, nothing comes), every effect is determined by a cause. That cause is in its turn determined by another cause. Hence, a causal chain.
6. Infinite causal chains do not and cannot exist.
An infinite series of causes with no beginning is a contradiction because it cannot explain how the causal chain exists in the first place since causal chain by definition must have a beginning.
Causal chains by definition are a series of causes and effects, and you cannot have an effect without a cause.
7. Since a finite causal chain exists, then a Prime Mover / First Cause exists.
The very existence of a causal chain necessitates the existence of a prime mover, a first cause, otherwise the causal chain would not exist.
8. The Prime Mover / First Cause cannot be contingent.
Since infinite causal chains do not exist, the First Cause was itself uncaused.
9. Since the Prime Mover / First Cause is not contingent, it is self-existing.
Since logic dictates that nothing can be self-created, anything that is uncaused, has the power of being within itself – not self-created, but self-existence. That is, dependent upon nothing else for its existence.
10. A self-existing (not self-created) enti.ty is supernatural.
Since all physical (natural) enti.ties are contingent, then a self-existing, non-contingent ent.ity that is also spaceless, timeless, and immaterial is supernatural. This, we call God.
As always Theo,
You were wrong at #3. Everything after that is invalid.
@ Theo – did you even read what you cut and pasted?
#2 – nothing can be self-created.
Okay, either this premise is true, or it is false, correct? It's can't be true and false. So, if it is true for the first part of your argument, it must be true for your entire argument. Twist and turn as you might, that premise must be true.
Ipso facto, God had a creator, since nothing can be self-created.
I ask again – what created your god.
Or, if you can carve out one exception to your premise, then logically, your premise is false, and the universe can be self-created.
Next?
whippstippler7,
God isn't self-created, God is self-existent. That is, He depends on nothing else for His existence.
Leo – why is it that believers must resort to these silly semantic games? i understand the power of childhood indoctrination. God was created – he is self-existent? What exactly does that mean? It means that god created himself, contrary to your second premise.
Try a dose of intellectual honestly.
The beautiful thing about gods is that they can possess any trait their believers want. Thus they can decide that their god didn't need to be created, averting the whole something coming from nothing argument. This is why men can say that their god doesn't want women in leadership roles within their church: God doesn't want it because they don't want it. The only shocking thing here is that people still fall for this stuff.
Too bad Theo, as usual you're wrong again.
There are particles that come (virtual particles) and go with no "cause". You're also applying a principle from INSIDE this universe to what would have been external to it, and you have no way of knowing what principles apply there, incuding "causation" which requires TIME, and you have no evidence spacetime existed apart from this universe.
Just in case you've forgotten....the Bible and the Quran were written by men. All versions of biblical text that showed women in equal roles were either edited out or altered. What was and was not to be included in the Bible was decided by male church officials under orders of a male Roman Emperor at the Council of Nicaea. Quoting from the Bible on the status of women is proof of nothing.
Revisionist history at its best.
History is always a process of revision. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you something.
Or convert you.
One teensy weesy problem. You failed to mention how exactly it's "revisionist".
Your as'sertions have the same weight as "the moon is made of green cheese".
No, you mean pseudo history at its best. The Canon of the Bible was not determined at the Council of Nicea, and the Emperor had less influence over it than many believe. Constantine prior to the Council favored the Arian version of Christianity, but it was the Trinitarian version of Christianity that emerged from the council.
Ultimately the Canon of the Bible was settled over time by gradual acceptance of the New Testament books. For the most part, the Arian and the Trinitarian Christians probably agreed on most of the texts of the Bible through the later years of the Roman Empire. For the most part most of the books that were suppressed (as opposed to simply not making the cut) seemed to be Gnostic in conception.
Ultimately some synods in the early 5th century settled the canon of the Western Bible for the next 1000 years. Because no general Church council established the Canon, Martin Luther and other Protestants were able to remove a number of books from Canonical status. Thus the Protestant Bible lacks those books while Catholic Bibles still have them.
Yes. You can read the proceedings of the Council of Nicaea as they cooked up the "trinity". It's pretty hilarious.
and Christians love to deny where their tainted, flawed little book came from. It's the exact word of their god didn't you know? LOLOLOL
I would go a step further. Quoting the bible in regards to any subject proof of nothing. IN fact in most cases you can use the bible to back both sides of an argument, which in my opinion makes it virtually useless.
If you want the Bible to be a tool to prove or disprove something, then yes: it's useless. That's not what it was intended for, though.
Somebody should tell Christians then because they constantly quote the bible as if it is proof of something.
By non-unanimous VOTES.
"made in the image and likeness of god" ... except when it's not convenient. As we all know that the Lord of 600 se'xtillion stars really cares about how much relative circulating testosterone and estrogen humans happen to have.
Irenaeus (ca. 185 CE), Bishop of Lyons (France), “There actually are only four authentic gospels. And this is obviously true because there are four corners of the universe and there are four principal winds, and therefore there can be only four gospels that are authentic. These, besides, are written by Jesus’ true followers.”
Heh heh heh. And THAT is why he/they cut down the number to 4, (by order of the Emperor).
"What was and was not to be included in the Bible was decided by male church officials under orders of a male Roman Emperor at the Council of Nicaea"
-----------
That's only true if you're a Dan Brown fan. History, however, tells a much different story.
The Old Testament was pulled together into the Canon that we have now by the scribe Ezra in the 400’s BC. (Nehemiah 8, Luke 1:70, Romans 1:2, Acts 3:21) By the time John completed the book of the Revelation in 94-96AD, the New Testament books were completed and had already been widely circulated as scripture. The New Testament was not compiled by any church council or by any decree of a ruler, rather, the apostles themselves dictated what the Scripture was (Ephesians 3:3-5, 2 Peter 3:1-2, 15-16, Jude 17-18, Galatians 1:1-2, 12, Hebrews 2:3-4, Acts 2:42).
No book is in the Bible that the Apostles themselves didn’t approve, and all of the authors approved by them are in the Bible – no more, no less.
It was only later, in the 100’s AD when the Gnostics began circulating their own texts and claiming apostolic authorship, that the church decided that it became necessary to weed out all heresies that desired to creep into the canon, so they developed a standard test to determine the canonicity of scripture, but remember, this standard was solely meant to weed out heresy, it was not intended to “create” the canon of scripture – the apostles had already done that, and it ended with John’s book of the Revelation.
Your assumption about the uniformity of early christian beliefs and when/how the gnostics were involved is whoefully out of date...
How are the facts that I stated out of date? And for that matter, how can a FACT be out of date?
"How are the facts that I stated out of date? And for that matter, how can a FACT be out of date?"
Let me answer a question with a question – how is it that almost all of the literary finds in modern acheaology are from non-orthodox groups?
And I'll answer your question to my question with a question... If your mom was an ironing board, and your dad was an iron, how many pancakes would it take to cover a doghouse? Six, because motorcycles don't have doors!
Pancakes! Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
OK – so you don't have an answer so you resort to foolishness?
Whatever works for you – I was trying to have an intelligent coversation...
OK – so you don't have an answer so you resort to foolishness?
Whatever works for you – I was trying to have an intelligent coversation...
---------------–
Well, I didn't see the correlation of how archeological finds being attributed to non-orthodox groups have anything to do with the Apostles themselves mandating what consisted of the New Covenant?
Akira,
Jesus is God (Trinity), and said to the woman after she sinned in Genesis 3:16 – "…Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
Theo: "It's true. I am the Chosen One, only I can destroy him, but in order to do so, I need to know what Tom Riddle asked you all those years ago in your office, and I need to know what you told him. Be brave, sir. Be brave like my mother." [Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince]
Theo – if there was uniformity of belief in early christianity, we would expect to see more "orthodox" writings in the archeological records but what we find instead are mostly non-orthodox writings. This implies that there many, many different beliefs in those early days. The idea that gnosticism and the other non-orthodox christianities were only a later invention/heresy is a fallacy.
In Acts it recounts ALL the things, (in Stephen's speech), in the OT we know never happened, historically. Therefore using it to reference ANYTHING as "historical" is utterly worthless and circular.
Ok so the book you take to be the word of god was not written by god, nor a man claiming to be the son of god, nor even during his lifetime. It was written by men decades or centuries after the supposed incident took place claiming divine inspiration. Then another group of people write books claiming divine inspiration, but we can't trust them because they were written too long after the events took place... So let's VOTE on it... What could possible go wrong.
My point exactly. Rabbi translators....really? King James HATED women. So we can and have studied out the bible in depth. Many over the centuries have written the truth, but have been hidden away, many of them men. If you would like to have links to this truth you can go to godswordtowomen.com and also on FB. Bless you and in your truth finding. It has blessed me and those around me with the truth. Freedom for all in all in Christ
Are you really the most blessed woman? That is really boasting, isn't it.
You are using truth incorrectly. You have BELIEF it is truth, but it is but one of an infinite number of possible truths.