The intro from an atheist blogger:
While perusing through Fundies Say The Darndest Things, a user-provided content site where people submit ridiculous and sometimes hilarious fundamentalist views and rants, I found a very interesting quote. The quote comes from David J. Stewart, from Jesus-is-savior.com and addresses the question “Is it okay to divorce an abusive spouse?
And the passage he or she quotes:
Interestingly, and sadly, all we see on the internet and in society today is talk about domestic violence; but NEVER do we hear anything about statistics on wives who refuse to obey their husbands. It is evil. It is just as sinful for a wife to frustrate her husband through insubordination and disobedience as it is for a man to commit domestic violence. I am not lessening the sin of domestic violence, I am emphasizing the sin of wives who rebel against their husbands by not being obedient. I realize this is ancient mentality to feminists today; but it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband. Feminists are eagerly willing to crucify abusive husbands; BUT they won’t even address the issue of wives who disobey, mistreat, and frustrate their husbands. It takes two to tango.
Please understand that I believe a wife who is being physically abused should leave if she feels threatened; but not divorce. Such a wife needs to sincerely ask herself “why” her husband is being abusive–there’s ALWAYS a reason. …”
David J. Stewart, Jesus-is-savior.com [2007-Feb-17]
I’m not particularly religious, so I just don’t understand. I’ll just leave it at that.
Sohum Parlance II 
95 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 5, 2009 at 5:20 am
sohumborn
Wow! O.K. nothing can be said to rationalize with that mindset.
February 5, 2009 at 9:20 am
anon
The “obey your husbands” is oft misquoted and misinterpreted.
The whole of the passage suggests that a man is FIRST SUBSERVIENT TO GOD, then it is natural that while he takes his direction from the SUPREME BEING, a woman is advise to similarily submit to him.
Sadly, most husbands have no obligation or mindset that invites the wishes of a Creator/God.
February 5, 2009 at 9:23 am
KevPod
Athiest resources:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/looking_for_atheistagnostic_bl.php
February 5, 2009 at 9:43 am
Eric Kirk
The whole of the passage suggests that a man is FIRST SUBSERVIENT TO GOD, then it is natural that while he takes his direction from the SUPREME BEING, a woman is advise to similarily submit to him.
Yes, in my studies of televangelism back in the 1980s, I watched one television minister argue that a woman has no right to pray to God directly for guidance, but should instead pray for guidance for her husband or father, and then seek the guidance from them. He said that to pray for direct guidance was witchcraft. I was very curious as to how it would work as it would seem unlikely that God would answer a prayer of which he disapproved, but I never sent off my letter.
February 5, 2009 at 10:02 am
bob
I find it really interesting that all the language mentioned which specifies that women must bend their will to men(obey, submit, serve, etc) comes from the New Testament. While there is much debate about authorship of the OT, all of the “laws” or “rules” or “exhortations” or whatever in the New Testament were written by MEN. Can anyone point to language in the OT which says anything about this. The raver that Eric names at Jesus is Savior.comic likes to point to Genesis 2:18(all the other references i see at his site are NT), which he translates(King James version?) as “god made a help meet” for man after he created “Adam.” I think it’s a total stretch to find subservience or obedience in that passage. And, really, it, too, was probably first written, and then translated by MEN.
February 5, 2009 at 10:06 am
Bodie
You can’t misquote this:
1 Timothy 2:11: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
[… and barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen, making his breakfast.]
February 5, 2009 at 10:13 am
Kym
My husband’s thinking that fundamentalism sounds better than he thought;>
February 5, 2009 at 11:53 am
suzy blah blah
it is 100% Biblical doctrine. A wife is expected by God to obey her husband.
Timothy 2:11: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.”
[… and barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen, making his breakfast.]
There is wisdom and Truth in this when taken metaphorically. But to take the Bible literally is totally ignorent!
February 5, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Joe Blow
Kym says:
It is! Just ask my wife.
February 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm
madi
my wife is my equal partner,friend,ect,we can agree to dis-agree,and i was neve taught that male dominated bullcrap..no justice,no equality nor peace….
February 5, 2009 at 2:43 pm
bob
bodie–you make my point. “timothy” is new testament, written by a man. doesn’t matter if the quote is accurate.
February 5, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Not A Native
I’ve not spent any time in courts where “family law” cases are heard and decided, but the action of physical force seems to be the only objective way to separate the perps from the victims. And no judge can compel a couple to be in a marriage. Maybe Catholic priests can.
Outside of that, it seems couples can and do inflict great dominance and subjugation on each other, with no legal recourse. And many of those couples find it appropriate. So, I see nothing immoral or unethical if one person in a relationship is subservient to another.
Honestly consider your own marriage and as much as you know about your familys and friends. Most married people’s relationships aren’t rooted in anything like equality as a basic principle. In fact, I’d venture that a continuing pursuit for essential equality is a likely cause of relationships ending.
February 5, 2009 at 2:59 pm
olmanriver
sounds like all the women i would want to know are gonna be available later…in Hell. maybe i could start up an afterlife dating service, sort of a myburningplace network site.
February 5, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Joe Blow
s.b.b. says:
Is “metaphorically” anything like “ignorent”?
February 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm
suzy blah blah
the only way to know 4 sure, mr Blow, is to have the wife ask God.
February 5, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Joe Blow
s.b.b. says “have the wife ask God.”
Just exactly how would she do that? Metaphorically?
You seem to be the authority on the “metaphorical ignorent,” maybe you could tell us. Bible understanding that leads to “wisdom and Truth” is rather scarce. So, how do you ask God?
February 5, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Eric Kirk
Can anyone point to language in the OT which says anything about this.
There is plenty of sexism, such as the uncleanliness of a woman menstruating, or having to shave her head if she she’s not Jewish and a Jewish man wants her as a wife. I don’t know if there are explicit passages about submission. I’ll research that.
February 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm
suzy blah blah
mr Blow, could yuo please order mrs Blow to get online, Suzy wants to talk to her.
February 6, 2009 at 7:57 am
humboldturtle
Too many caps, bolds and italics in here for me, but I’ll check back for your “explicit passages about submission”.
February 6, 2009 at 8:40 am
Anonymous
Huckabee on women:
“I affirm the statement on the family issued by the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention.”
What was in the family statement from the SBC? “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
February 6, 2009 at 8:42 am
Anonymous
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm
How the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) generally viewed women:
Women’s behavior was extremely limited in ancient times, much as the women of Afghanistan during the recent Taliban oppression. They were:
bullet Unmarried women were not allowed to leave the home of their father.
bullet Married women were not allowed to leave the home of their husband.
bullet They were normally restricted to roles of little or no authority.
bullet They could not testify in court.
bullet They could not appear in public venues.
bullet They were not allowed to talk to strangers.
bullet They had to be doubly veiled when they left their homes. 1
In the Hebrew Scriptures, women were generally viewed in a negative light:
horizontal rule
Women were considered inferior to men:
bullet Genesis 1:27 to 3:24:
bullet In the first creation story (Genesis 1:27) God is described as creating man, both male and female at the same time: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” 2 This might be interpreted as implying equality between the two genders.
bullet But in the second creation story, (Genesis 2:7) God formed only a man: “…the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs. The term “helper” has historically been interpreted as implying an inferior role for Eve, although some modern interpreters believe that the word can mean a companion of equal status. “…the Hebrew word translated “helper” is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament: twenty of these cases refer to help from a superior.” (3) In Genesis 2:27, Adam later asserts his authority over Eve by naming her: “…she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” In ancient times, one was believed to have authority over a person or thing by naming it.
bullet Genesis 3:16: Adam’s role is to be Eve’s master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term “rule” to describe Adam’s role over Eve: “…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” The Living Bible uses the term “master”. The Modern Language Bible uses “dominate”. By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.
bullet A man could marry (literally “become the master of the woman”) as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.
bullet Genesis 16:2 : Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar: “Sarai said unto Abram…I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner’s command.
bullet Genesis 19:8: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot’s house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can “know” them. This is frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead: He is recorded as saying: “I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes.” Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one’s daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women. More details on Genesis 19.
bullet Genesis 21:10: A man could simultaneously keep numerous concubines. These were sexual partners of an even lower status than a wife was. As implied in this verse she could be dismissed when no longer needed: Sarah is recorded as saying: “…Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.” Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; David: many; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.
bullet In Exodus 1:15-16, the Pharaoh ordered the midwives to kill all Jewish boys at birth, because of the threat that they might pose to the kingdom. “And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.” The girls, being considered less important, were not seen as a threat; they were allowed to live.
bullet Exodus 20 & 21: This is perhaps the most misogynistic pair of chapters in the Bible. A number of verses describe a woman as the property of her father. At marriage, her ownership was transferred to her new husband:
bullet Exodus 20:17 lists the last of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.” It is important to realize that a manservent and a maidservant were male and female slaves. They were not a hired butler and maid. The tenth commandment forbids coveting your neighbor’s house, wife, male slave female slave, animals or anything else that the neighbor owns. The wife is clearly regarded as equivalent to a piece of property.
bullet Exodus 21:2-4: “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing….If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.” A slaveowner was permitted to give a woman to his male slave as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. After serving six years, he would leave, but his wife and children would remain slaves of the slaveowner. Again, there is no indication that the woman was consulted on this arrangement,
bullet Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.” A father could sell his daughter as a slave. Even though a male slave is automatically given his freedom after 6 years, a female slave remained a slave forever.
bullet Exodus 22:16-17: The first seventeen verses of Exodus 22 deal with restitution in case of stealing, or damage to, a person’s property. Verses 16 and 17 deal with the case of a man who seduces a virgin. This was viewed as a property offense against the woman’s father. The woman was expected to marry the seducer. If her father refused to transfer ownership of his daughter to the seducer, the latter was required to required to pay money to her father. The money would be in compensation for the damage to the father’s property – his daughter. It would be difficult for a non-virgin to marry.
bullet Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and one hits a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the man is punished as the husband decides and must pay a fine for their act – not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child. The woman had no involvement. Exodus 21:22: “…he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”
bullet Exodus 23:17 states that only men are required to take part in the feasts of unleavened bread, of harvest and of ingathering: “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord GOD.”
Leviticus: This book deals mainly with the duties of the priesthood, the Levites. Women were not allowed to become priests.
bullet Leviticus 12:1-5 Quotes God as stating that a woman who has given birth to a boy is ritually unclean for 7 days. If the baby is a girl, the mother is unclean for 14 days. “If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days…But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks…” It would appear that the act of having a baby is a highly polluting act. To give birth to a girl is twice as polluting as is giving birth to a boy.
bullet In Leviticus 18:20 adultery was defined as a man having sexual intercourse with his neighbor’s wife. “Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.” Leviticus 20:10 “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Deuteronomy 22:23 extends this prohibition to a man sleeping with a woman who is engaged to be married. If a man has an affair with an unmarried woman, the act is not considered adultery. Married men were free to visit prostitutes. A man who committed adultery did not commit a wrongful act against his own wife, but rather against his male neighbor.
bullet Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.”
bullet Numbers 3:15 shows that a census counted only male infants over the age of one month, boys and men. “Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them.” Females were not considered worthy of being included.
bullet Numbers 5:11-31 describes a lengthy magical ritual that women were forced to perform if their husbands suspected them of having had an affair. A priest prepared a potion composed of holy water mixed with sweepings from the floor of the tabernacle. He proclaimed a curse over the potion and required the woman to drink it. If she were guilty, she would suffer greatly: her abdomen would swell and her thighs waste away. There is no similar magical test for husbands suspecting of having an affair with another woman.
bullet In Numbers 27:8-11, Moses describes the rules of inheritance that God has stated. If a man dies, his son inherits the estate; his daughter gets nothing. Only if there is no son, will his daughter inherit. If there are no children, then the estate is given to the man’s brothers; his sister(s) get nothing. If he had no brother, the estate goes to his nearest male relative. “…If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family….”
bullet Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.
bullet Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can force a woman captive to marry him without regard for her wishes. “When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
bullet Deuteronomy 22:13-21 requires that a woman be a virgin when she is married. If she has had sexual relations while single in her father’s house, then she would be stoned to death. There were no similar virginity requirements for men. “If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid….if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
bullet Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife….”
bullet Deuteronomy 24:1 describes the procedure for obtaining a divorce. This can only be initiated by the husband, not by the wife: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.”
bullet Deuteronomy 25:5-10: states that if a woman is widowed, she would be required to marry her former brother-in-law. This was called a “levirate” marriage. Their first-born son will later be considered to be the son of the deceased husband. The man could refuse to marry her. Women were not given a choice in the matter. ” If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.”
bullet Deuteronomy 25:11: If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man’s testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man. “When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets. Then thou shalt cut off her hand…”
bullet Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to “know” a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the Levite’s concubine so that the men could rape them. Verse 24 states: “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.” The man sent his own concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The man only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.
bullet 2 Chronicles 36:23 mentions the Second Temple which was constructed after some Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women’s court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.
During the Second Temple period, women were not allowed to testify in court trials. They could not go out in public, or talk to strangers. When outside of their homes, they were to be doubly veiled. “They had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves.” 3
February 6, 2009 at 9:00 am
Eric Kirk
I’ve quickly scanned that list, and while almost all of those passages imply inferior status to women, none explicitly calls upon women to be submissive to their wives. I think the point is that the text was not made for women, but intended for men to read.
The first is interesting. God couldn’t find him a dog, so he gave Adam a woman instead.
Realizing that he needed a helper (Genesis 2:18), God marched all of the animals past Adam (Genesis 2:19-20) looking for a suitable animal. Finding none suitable, God created Eve out of one of Adam’s ribs.
Then Eve is specifically told she will be submissive, or more specifically that her husband shall rule over her. The writer references implications, but we’re looking for explications.
Some of what follows are quotes about women as property. Again the implications may be obvious, but there are no specific provisions which directly compel a woman submit to her husband in that list. The first direct address to women (excepting Eve personally) comes in the New Testament, unless the people through the link missed something which is unlikely.
February 6, 2009 at 9:37 am
Joe Blow
Ms. Susy B. B.
I tried a metaphorical order and she didn’t understand one word I said. Sorry.
By the way, your previous statement, “There is wisdom and Truth in this when taken metaphorically. But to take the Bible literally is totally ignorent!” has merit. Was hoping to get you to define what you think “metaphorical” means.
February 6, 2009 at 9:49 am
Joe Blow
Eric says:
regarding submissive wives.
Genesis 2:24, a couple of verses further along says,
“One flesh,” metaphorically speaking, seems to me to indicate ONE. No inferior and certainly NO superior. In other words, EQUAL!
February 6, 2009 at 10:56 am
silence do good
it is my understanding after reading the whole quote of Christs: is that the man must also submit to his loving wife, ya,ll been taken Him out of context. Yah might be wantin to smoke some Good Herb before readin Da Scripture &Love one another in Leaps and Bounds
February 6, 2009 at 11:30 am
suzy blah blah
Was hoping to get you to define what you think “metaphorical” means.
what Suzy is talking about is the use of symbols. To understand the Bible metaphorically is to see that Adam and Eve are symbols. To think of them as having been actual historical human beings, is to take the Bible literally. And To read the Bible literally is, once again —totaly ignorent!
February 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm
suzy blah blah
“That is why a man will leave his father and his mother and he must stick with his wife and they must become one flesh.”
“One flesh,”metaphorically speaking, seems to me to indicate ONE. No inferior and certainly NO superior. In other words, EQUAL!
Seems to me that equal implies at least two… But anyway Joe, the way Suzy sees it is that this passage symbolizes the soul leaving a metaphysical heaven and entering (becoming one with) the physical earth plane. It’s similar to the metaphor that Jesus used in telling the story of the prodigal son. The lost son, the wandering son, the wandering Jew, the lost soul, wandering Cain … etc. all the same reference. It’s not history and shouldn’t be taken literally, it symbolizes the evolution of the soul on the physical plane, and the awakening of higher consciousness.
February 6, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Eric Kirk
“One flesh,” metaphorically speaking, seems to me to indicate ONE. No inferior and certainly NO superior. In other words, EQUAL!
A nice thought, unfortunately overwhelmed by the provisions which treat women as chattel.
it is my understanding after reading the whole quote of Christs: is that the man must also submit to his loving wife, ya,ll been taken Him out of context.
Another nice thought. Can you point to the passage which says that?
February 6, 2009 at 3:04 pm
janelle
Such a wife needs to sincerely ask herself “why” her husband is being abusive–there’s ALWAYS a reason. …”
Perhaps he has spent too much time reading the Bible.
February 6, 2009 at 3:22 pm
heretic
You have to be careful to distinguish passages in which Paul is speaking of his opinions and passages in which he believes he speaks for the divine.
Nonetheless, in I Corinthians 11 and 12 we read “Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.”
It is my understanding as well that in the Hebrew text early in the Bible one of the words used for the divine is a plural word without gender.
And you might reflect on the many passages in Isaiah, and indeed in Paul’s writings, in which metaphors of nursing and labor are used to reflect the care of the divine for the world and the beings within this world.
for now we see as in a mirror, darkly…but then we shall see face to face
February 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Joe Blow
Eric:
“Provisions which treat women as chattel” as you think you see it.
Metaphorically speaking or not, the words say what they say. No nice thought about it. There’s nothing about “chattel” in these versus. They plainly say two different people, a man and a woman, become ONE. Today we equate that with getting married. Follow that thought throughout the Bible and you will find no contradiction when it comes to reconciling male and female energy or ways of thinking and being that allows a husband and wife to become ONE “flesh”.
Suzy’s way speaks to the same issue; basically she says the same thing. The issue of dominant submission is a bogus issue. Actually an oxymoron.
February 6, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Ed
imagine no religion……..please.
February 6, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Anonymouse
My sentiments exactly.
February 6, 2009 at 6:38 pm
suzy blah blah
Suzy’s way speaks to the same issue; basically she says the same thing.
No Joe, don’t put words in Suzys mouth… Lord knows she has enough words in there already..
You see joe, im not talking about teh issue of how the Bible speaks to equal rights for women etc. at all. Or how a man and a women are equal or “one flesh” LOL or whatever, or what/how/why/where the Bible contributes to the abuse of women by their spouses or any of that shit. Suzy is saying that the there are two kinds of knowing and that one is superior to the other. They are both necessary but literal/scientific/rational knowledge is inferior to metaphoric/poetic/intuitive knowledge. Science/technology should be the ‘helpmate’ or ‘helpmeet’ or however you want to say it. They are not equal, that is plain to see upon a little reflection. The inferior should serve the superior. This is a spiritual fact ie it cannot be proven scientifically by collecting data and/or mathematically by sifting statistics. It can only be known experientially. Which is to say found to be true, or not, when experienced by each individual for themselves.
love transcends all,
s
February 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm
humboldturtle
Amen!
February 6, 2009 at 8:36 pm
olmanriver
u gnow It!
February 6, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Joe Blow
Susy, words speak for themselves. Either what you said is what you said or you speak nonsense.
Mind explaining how “experience” teaches you all about the Bible of which you hold so much disdain?
Who or what granted you the authority to speak to “spiritual facts.” You talk round and round like a rabid, ignorent born again preacher! Inferior KNOWLEDGE whether it be metaphoric/poetic/intuitive is still only “knowledge.” It’s only in your head and has absolutely nothing to do with Truth. Of that fact you are arrogantly ignorant.
As far as putting words in your mouth, the thought makes me sick. You might try practicing some of that love you talk about before you start judging of others of whom you know nothing.
February 6, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Eric Kirk
Either what you said is what you said or you speak nonsense.
Scottish common sense realism principles. Not post-modernism.
February 6, 2009 at 9:27 pm
olmanriver
gnostic vs know nothing
February 7, 2009 at 11:08 am
suzy blah blah
LOL! 🙂 Suzy has a post-Scotchist hangover this morning and thats the Truth! –lawD half merci on this common sensation… but like the song says, the old river just keeps rolling… luv yuo Joe.
rolling another one,
s
February 7, 2009 at 11:10 am
suzy blah blah
LOL! 🙂 Suzy has a post-Scotch hangover this morning and thats the Truth! –lawD half merci on this common sensation… luv yuo Joe.
rolling another one,
s
February 7, 2009 at 11:40 pm
suzy blah blah
Eeeeeeep! am i seeing double seeing double?
Wow!!! how’d that happen? How totally weird. when i posted those those this morning neither appeared and i thouhgt theyd gotten eaten so i gave up… now there here –hmmm… is ur bolg on post moderation or something Eric? I didnt realize u were a post-moderationist.
You talk round and round… It’s only in your head … try practicing some of that love you talk about
Now now Joe what would ur wife think? i dont believe shed understand. Or were yuo speaking metaphorically? we need to talk… but please dont call me arrogant and rabid and say that im ignorant or that i make you sick or and that suzy distains the Bible Joe …please dont verbally abuse me anymore Joe, Suzy needs to gnow– are you a man of principals or are you your own authoritist?
i hope this doesnt get ate… or show up twice…
s
February 8, 2009 at 8:39 am
fishbreath
love this blow by blah account.
are you two using a lot of code, cause when i grew up bibilical knowing was a euphemism…. for an activity that uh, well.. caused a whole lotta begatting to happen later.
maybe i am reading this wrong, could we get a missionaries’ position on this?
or for suze, maybe a cowgirls take, and reverse it. that is, if she is of a gno-stick persuasion.
does joe blow have biblical proportions?
have i no shame on a sunday?
February 8, 2009 at 9:53 am
Anonymous
We don’t do the missionary position in our house.
February 8, 2009 at 10:19 am
Eric Kirk
We don’t do the missionary position in our house.
Really? Not even just as a lark?
February 8, 2009 at 11:08 am
fishbreath
a better question for the anonymous might have been to you do it outside the house?
February 8, 2009 at 11:42 am
hornithologist
…as a lark?
from a quick reading of the literature, i do not think that lark’s do the missionary… but singing is very important… here is a kazee kazee kazee kazee zizizizizi t~ kayeekayeekayeekayee trrrrrrrrrr tee t~ wewewewewe fur fur tur fur quit quit quit quit quit quit quit that i am suspecting is a female song.
February 8, 2009 at 12:55 pm
janelle
Oh, thank you fishbreath, I really needed a good laugh today.
Two stories on the two kinds of knowing:
A young woman lay sleepless. She was having a conversation with herself. She was pregnant. For health reasons she had chosen a method with a slightly higher chance of failure. Her mother, grandmother and great grandmother had all raised their young children as single parents after loosing their husbands. Every fact told her that what she would do the next day was right. But she loved children, and she believed she was
strong and she knew that a single parent could raise a child. She could do it, she knew
she could. With that thought she felt relaxed and fell asleep. In the morning she went to her appointment. She shed tears and grieved, but she knew she had done the right
thing. The fact was, she knew that her baby was ok; she had learned something remarkable as she slept. She could only hope that someday she would be a mother again.
A mother took her children to the CR Science Fair. Stopping at a demonstration she remarked, “It seems almost magical.” To which the young scientist responded by describing what was happening. “There is nothing magical about it” he concluded. The mother responded without thinking, “Of course, science is magic explained.” As she walked away she thought, ‘Hmm, that was interesting thought.”
On being ignorant:
1 a: destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b: resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
I don’t know about you, but I know that there is so much knowledge that I will always be destitute of / lacking in most of it. So I’m ignorent and therefore odds are I’ll make mistakes.
The wonderful thing about the pursuit of literal/scientific/rational knowledge is that when we make mistakes we can sometimes learn from them. The scary things are that the more we learn the harder it is to believe that we can make a mistake, and that we forget that sometimes, despite all that we know, what we do with that scientific knowledge needs to be guided by intuitive/emotional knowledge. That does not make intuitive/emotional knowledge superior. Love is often misguided, fear can be overcome with knowledge, anger can be a refusal to face objective facts.
At the expense of sounding ignorant, can someone briefly tell me what post-modernism is?
February 8, 2009 at 2:30 pm
suzy blah blah
OK ok i gnow everyones been waiting 4 Suzys words of wisdom but me and Billy decided to spend the whole day in bed which everyone should do now and then if yuo can find some time… but yet being the good gurl that I AM, LoL –Suzy just hadda come peek at the bolgs and stuff so heres your faithful servant…
NOw, concerning ‘knowledge’ euphamisms and the missionary position and other positions and stuff that is in the Bible,,, the Christian missionaries had a thing against ‘understanding’ (euphemism), they preferred to lie on top of thangs and thats why they promoted that position. As for knowledge, a lot of peeps think that knowledge is a euphemism for fucking but thats only in the latter part of the Bible.
In the beginning… in the first part of Genensis, knowledge is code for
contraception… Becuz you see the thing to grasp is that God did NOT provide contraception for Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden… you see, becuz after He created them He then told them to go forth and multiply, right? And bucuz He wanted them to multiply he didnt tell them about contraceptives, you see, but how is it then that they had no kids til after they were booted out of the garden? Whats with that?
Suzy knows the answer. It was Saten that old sly fox who was hanging out and met them and gave them some condoms –thats what really happened. Saten tricked God into not over populating Eden with a bunch of ignorent rednecks and hippies by giving Adam and Eve ‘knowledge’… or that is to say –contraceptives.
And how does suzy know this? –becuz she is experianced LOL.
So yuo see even though the moderate Church denies it, the post-moderate view is that Adam and Eve were having HOT sex in the garden BEFORE they ate from the tree –. It was lust at 1st sight. Common sense that tells us that a man and a women dont need to have literally met afore to desire sex with each other.
OK, got it? –so they were using contraception and smoking herb of course cuz it was legal back then and they were having a lot of fun but God got pissed cuz Hes a jealous God and doesnt like peeps having fun or sex unless He gets something out of it. He couldnt attract a mate Himself old smelly fart that he is but he wanted kids (the old Hebrew term “kadda” also meant goats chattel etc.) You see God needed someone to make Him some babies so He could work them in His garden for less than minimum wage… but His capitalist plan didn’t work out you see becuz of the devil’s rubbers … so now God is eternally pissed off at everyone and jealous cuz like i said the ignorent old fart never really ‘knew’ any thang and is like in total denial.
i could tell yuo more like the code for abortion but now my coffee is cold and my fingers are gettin tired and Billys calling from the warm bed and i gotta go see — has chryst arisen? Will my lord come again?
suzy wansta know
February 8, 2009 at 3:00 pm
piscesbreath
are you a graduate of the lark in the morning music camp?
synchronistically, in the afterglow of a clever (or not) little post on the mating habits of larks that got moderated (electron dis-assembled) away, i happened to notice a card at….shameless plug…the blue moon. a church bulletin board had a message to the effect that calling out to God in bed on sunday morning is not a substitute for going to church.
February 8, 2009 at 3:16 pm
olmanriver
dear gno-sis blah blah, your hermeneutrics reveal an overstanding that lay christians need to Hear.
February 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Eric Kirk
Janelle – here’s a discussion about post-modernism. But before you spend too much time trying to sort it out you should read about the Sokal Hoax.
I should say that when I was in college I took a class premised on post-modernism and I never knew what anyone was talking about. We didn’t have grades, but I got the equivalent of a B in my evaluations.
February 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm
olmanriver
my nephew was studying deconstructionism and gave me a 12 page paper which was utterly incomprehensible to me. his father is a lawyer and his response was that this language was even more inscrutable than legalese.
February 8, 2009 at 9:13 pm
olmanriver
This thread becomes then a deconstruction of gender bias in the bible framed dialectically in literal vs metaphor, and mental knowledge vs inner gnowsis comments. Perspectives such as sincere analysis, low-schtick pan-ornithologicalism, tantric she-gnosticism, scotch realism, janellian lucidity, and post-modernism are considered.
February 8, 2009 at 10:12 pm
suzy blah blah
what we do with that scientific knowledge needs to be guided by intuitive/emotional knowledge. That does not make intuitive/emotional knowledge superior.
🙂 … but that’s the basic spiritual conflict. The guided wants to be equal to the guide. The creation thinks it’s equal to the creator. But of course that’s absurd. It’d be hilarious if the consequences weren’t soooo tragic.
its totally an ego trip 4 sure.
peace,
s
February 9, 2009 at 6:56 am
humboldturtle
My life: “mental knowledge vs inner gnowsis”.
February 9, 2009 at 11:05 am
janelle
Ah, I see the light. Thanks Eric, I had a annoying habit of dropping such classes after a few weeks.
BTW -The only creator in the first story is the young woman. She dreamed a small smiling child said good-bye.
Love is often misguided, fear can be overcome with knowledge, anger can be a refusal to face objective facts.
Here’s another story:
A woman ducked into a building to use the bathroom. Though familiar with the building, she found it had been remodeled and the bathroom moved. Turning from the spot where it had been she met a person using a cane who asked can I help you? Somewhat awkwardly, she explained she was looking for a bathroom. She was told it was near where the other person was going, so she asked to come along. The person chuckled and said, Of course, shall the blind lead the blind? Yes, please. They shared a chuckle as they turned the corner.
And that’s the truth 🙂
February 9, 2009 at 12:56 pm
suzy blah blah
“mental knowledge vs inner gnowsis”.
That’s Jesus on the cross saying, “not my will, but thy will, be done”.
And thats why i said “There is wisdom and Truth in —1 Timothy 2:11: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” when taken metaphorically”
But to take the Bible literally –barefoot and pregnant, in the kitchen, making his breakfast is totally ignorent!
Humturtle, if you replace ‘the woman’ with your “mental knowledge” then the verse clicks –metaphorically. If one understands that ‘the woman’ is in this verse a symbol than there is no conflict as far as spousal abuse, equal rights etc. are concerned. But to interpret and apply the verse literally is atrocious.
So please people quit taking the Bible literally!!!
Turtle, to make this idea even more clear, replace ‘woman’ with ‘ego’ and then you have —Let the ego learn in silence with all subjection.
That’s the important thing to understand. The human consciousness needs to quit patting itself on the back for all its accomplishments and quit puffing itself up and come down and be quiet so that it can “learn in silence with all subjection”. The inflated ego is an absurd and tragic figure strutting about acting as though there is no higher authority or deeper knowing than its own. That is ignorance! –and it’s fucking things up royally. The human thinks that he owns the world and can do what he wants with it –free will and all that.
But to think that the human is equal to (or superior to) the god is like being totally assed blind. But yet here we are fumbling in the darkness. The (spiritually) blind leading the way. The tiny little human consciousness with its pretentious inflated self image blindly thinks that it is superior or equal to the creator of the Universe… Hello?(!)
February 9, 2009 at 1:09 pm
humboldturtle
I’m a metaphor. I say go for the metaphorical.
But Janelle, “fear can be overcome with knowledge?” Good luck. There’s an awful big part of everything about which I don’t expect to ever know anything, and I don’t even know what it is yet!
February 9, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Joe Blow
Problem is, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that indicates “woman” equals or means “ego” or “mental knowledge” from any “metaphorical interpretation. When you start down that road you was everyone’s time quoting scripture as some form of authority for what you want to promote.
I’ll give you this, though. You are on the right track, just got the wrong party applied to that particular scripture (from a metaphorical point of view, that is).
February 9, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Anonymous
suzy’s words come from a place that we get to after years of such silent indwelling, or inner listening. meditators get to an aha, a living Experience of the Oneness that is duality and so much more. from this gnosis, or direct experience of the Divine, the mind/ego get a little submissive and the words Thy will be done become a living reality as you realize you are not the Doer. this is an ontological shift that comes with realization, and requires maintenance even afterwards. (at least at the lower realization levels).
if more of the gnostic texts had not been burned by the political wing of emerging Churchianity in the first few decades after jesus, we might have preserved more of the knowledge of meditation practices extant during that time.
now, to the faith based i mean no harsh regard, i simply wish to share that there were many books that didnt make it to the new testament. there was a war on those gnostics who thought that jesus came to give us the inner experience of god through direct knowing and that the gospels were a description of the Love that comes from being One with God. having a priest class, or intermediaries to God won out with a belief system that is the dominant christian paradigm. heavily patriarchal, unless you can read metaphor.
battery going. gone. must submit…tee hee
February 9, 2009 at 3:06 pm
suzy blah blah
Joe, please tell, what does the woman is that passage symbolize to you? Or do you take it literally?
February 9, 2009 at 3:50 pm
suzy blah blah
eeeep! ‘in’ that passage, not ‘is’
February 10, 2009 at 10:40 am
Joe Blow
Suzy would like me to tell her and everyone else what I think or believe “woman” means in 1 Timothy 2:11. So, I ask you Suzy B. B., is this a serious question? If you want an honest answer, I’ll give you one. Otherwise . . .
February 10, 2009 at 10:58 am
suzy blah blah
of course i want a honest ansewr JOe… they dont call me Suzy Diogenes Blah Blah 4 nuthin…
Imagine all the poeple living 4 TODAY!
its easy if yuo try
taking a walk in the park with my lantern,
s
February 10, 2009 at 11:26 am
Eric Kirk
Woman means “wife of man.”
February 10, 2009 at 11:44 am
Joe Blow
I could easily answer your questions, “what does the woman is that passage symbolize to you? Or do you take it literally?” with a couple of words. It’s more fun this way, since I’m trying to be serious. First, I think we need to define what it is exactly we’re talking about. To start with Eric posts a comment by an “atheist blogger.” talking about Christian (I use the word loosely) Religious Fundamentalist’s literal or physical understanding of the Bible. Eric says, “I’m not particularly religious, so I just don’t understand. I’ll just leave it at that.” Some of his previous comments in other post might contradict that. Anyway, by definition, neither of these two people possess a clue regarding how to understand the Bible. That said . . .
Second, anyone can pull words, phrases, or Bible verses out of contest to prove just about anything. Where do you think all these religions come from? The issue this blog is ridiculing is about “subjection,” in particular, wives to husbands. In this effeminate country that believes individual freedoms are anarchy, such a thought is heresy. The first verses pulled from the Bible were Genesis Chapter Two dealing with God’s creation and purpose for the first man and woman. The word used was “helper” in the following context: “I (God speaking) am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.” Complement’s partial definition: “something that completes or makes perfect.” Absolutely nothing about God’s purpose for the woman’s submission here. In fact I pointed out how God intended for them to be EQUAL in verse 24. They both “came to be living souls.”
As such you could deduce that God created the first humans called Adam and Eve. Or you could also conclude that God took humans and breathed life into their souls thus creating them in God’s likeness. With that in mind, now to your question regarding 1 Timothy 2:11. The Apostle Paul, an Elder of some stature in the Christian Church made up of many Congregations was instructing another Elder about organizational matters consistent with the social structure of that time. Paul makes the point in the following verses why he so instructs. He says there is a hierarchical structure already predetermined by God and that Eve’s cognitive abilities as compared to the man’s were suspect because she was thoroughly deceived. Simply put, women were not to be teaching men in Church nor were they to be made Elders with authority over men. There is a certain practical wisdom when this is applied from a literal point of view. Something to consider when organizing a Christian church that wants to comply with the teachings of Jesus Christ. From metaphorical or spiritual point of view there is a consistent application one can apply to themselves.
Fundamentally, we are talking about two equal, but distinctly different people, a man and a woman. Men think and women act. The life originates in men and formulates in women. God spoke to Eve through Adam. Men equates, in part, to “mental knowledge” and “desires and feelings” would equate to the woman. When the body is anxious it can’t hear anything the conscious mind is trying to tell it. If the conscious mind is agitated and is motivated by a heart full of hopes, desires and wishes, it can’t hear anything God or the Universe says either.
February 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Eric Kirk
The life originates in men and formulates in women.
That was the belief until a couple hundred years ago. Men provided the “seed” and women were merely a vessel. Of course, we know that’s not true anymore. Half the life originates in men, half originates in women, and then life is formulated within the woman.
Although men got the credit for the life, if something was “wrong” with the child it was often blamed on the woman. Somehow she messed things up.
Interesting feminist book I read in college about women in Hellenist culture, though I haven’t cracked it in two decades – Goddesses, Whores, Slaves, and Wives.
February 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm
suzy blah blah
Woman means “wife of man.”
LOL! –it means a lot more than that 🙂
February 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm
suzy blah blah
Thanks Joe that’s an honest answer. Instead of throwing darts from a hiding place, for a change you presented your position, in part. I admire you for that.
Can you tell me now what the Crucifixion and ascension symbolizes to you?
February 10, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Eric Kirk
Woman means “wife of man.”
LOL! –it means a lot more than that
I’m just talking about the roots of the word. “Woman” evolved from the old English “wifman” which translates as “wife of man.”
February 10, 2009 at 1:47 pm
suzy blah blah
yeah i gnow –it was a joke.
February 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Joe Blow
Eric says:
I preconditioned my comment in the hope of avoiding this kind of statement. Life is LIFE. It is not HALF life. There is NO life in the fertile egg until alive sperm (life) is introduced to it and a connection is made. It’s this kind of Mickey Mouse word parsing got started 200 years ago when women began their move to emasculate men in this country.
But, then we’re back to defining the meaning of the word “life.” Are we alive when we are born or are we alive when we become “a living soul”? If you think the answer is one and the same then I suggest looking at the the answer to Suzy’s question about crucifixion and ascension.
When Adam became a living soul in God’s likeness he gained the ability to communicate with God directly. The story in Genesis is clear on all of this. When Adam sinned his soul died that day and he lost his ability to talk to God. More than that, however, God took himself away and fixed it so Adam could not approach Him anymore. Communicating with God provided LIFE through a living soul for Adam and Eve. God never talked to the woman. Life for her depended upon her obedience to God’s revealed commandments that came to her through the man or her husband. The same is true for you, what ever brilliant idea you get from time to time comes through you thinking process; your brain. That is unless you are able to think and deduce by osmosis.
What Adam lost was regained by Jesus Christ and 120 of his disciples, both men and women. That ability is retained until this day.
February 10, 2009 at 3:07 pm
olmanriver
It’s this kind of Mickey Mouse word parsing got started 200 years ago when women began their move to emasculate men in this country.
joey, joey, joey.
February 10, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Eric Kirk
There is NO life in the fertile egg until alive sperm (life) is introduced to it and a connection is made.
The egg is as alive as any sperm, or any cell in the body. It possesses all of the requisite ingredients, and it reacts to stimuli. It waits until it is penetrated by sperm or is flushed out, but once the sperm enters, it hardens its exterior to bar all other sperm. It regulates its own processes to maintain the necessary balances until it is fertilized, then upon fertilization unfolds into multiple processes almost instantaneously. Arguably, an egg is more “alive” than sperm, certainly in terms of its complexity.
It’s this kind of Mickey Mouse word parsing got started 200 years ago when women began their move to emasculate men in this country.
200 years ago? Who started it? Abigail Adams?
February 10, 2009 at 3:24 pm
humboldturtle
“The story in Genesis is clear on all of this. ”
Story, man. It’s a story.
February 10, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Joe Blow
Sorry, Eric. I wouldn’t expect you to understand. You think like a woman.
You said:
The woman does not contain life within herself, ie. “it reacts to stimuli”. Men do. Sperm is not alive, it is life stimulates, if you will.
Man’s downfall, arguably, was Eve’s desire to have the same relationship Adam had with God. LIFE within himself. So she thought to get Immaculate Conception. You know, like Mary the Mother of Jesus? She thought to bypass Adam and go directly to the Source. It was a lie then and it still a lie now. Being able to think like her husband, get knowledge of good and bad and decide for herself, got her dead.
Why do you think this country if full of millions of bastards?
February 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Eric Kirk
Why do you think this country if full of millions of bastards?
I don’t know Joe. Is it because men like me think like women, or because women think like men? I didn’t realize that Eve was trying to seduce God. Because she wanted sperm, of her own making. Something like that?
Did you know that if a woman attempts higher math her head might actually explode? I read that once.
February 10, 2009 at 3:47 pm
humboldturtle
Oh, Eric. Stop trolling for chicks on your blog.
February 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Joe Blow
Suzy, you see why I try to keep my own counsel? You can’t have a rational conversation with an imbecile. I’ll try to answer the rest of your question on this blog.
You may be a male, Eric. I wouldn’t know. From my personal observations of this blog, there is no way you are a man. Take it for what it’s worth.
February 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, Eric. Stop trolling for chicks on your blog.
I’m hoping Maddow will stop in! She thinks like a man, right?
Maybe it’s my inner lesbian. Ask Joe about it.
Sorry Joe. I’m having another one of those Life of Brian moments.
February 10, 2009 at 4:28 pm
unimpressed theologian
I guess we should thank you for your courage to offer your two cents worth…
but I am not even going to give you a penny for your thoughts
February 10, 2009 at 4:30 pm
olmanriver
blessed are the cheesemakers! wha?
February 10, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Eric Kirk
“Touch of ego on the feminist side of the movement.”
February 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm
suzy blah blah
God never talked to the woman. Life for her depended upon her obedience to God’s revealed commandments that came to her through the man or her husband. The same is true for you, what ever brilliant idea you get from time to time comes through you thinking process; your brain. That is unless you are able to think and deduce by osmosis.
so you r saying that the pre-fall Adam as well as Christ symbolize for you –the thinking process? –the brain??? But then, what about all those not so brilliant ideas? what about the evil thoughts that humans get from time to time –where do they come from? Osmo Sis?
February 10, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Eric Kirk
what about the evil thoughts that humans get from time to time –where do they come from?
From the women, who are supposed to act and not think. When they think, they emasculate the men. Eve wanted to be the Madona. She wanted life within herself, which no woman can have until it’s granted by a man.
That’s where the evil thoughts come from.
February 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Joe Blow
Regarding Suzy’s question about crucifixion and ascension. If you have a Bible, I’m offering 4 sets of scriptures. They are self-explanatory. If you have a problem, I may offer an explanation. I actually have better things to do than cast pearls before Eric Kirk. He admits that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, yet he thinks to ridicule me! And the dumb bastard doesn’t even know who I am. But sure as hell know who he is. Oh, well . . .
My wife ever finds out I’ve been frequenting his whorehouse I’ll be in deep trouble. She’ll laugh me right out of the house. Make of it what you will, Suzy.
Romans 6:3-7
Ephesians 4:20-24
Galatians 5:24, 25
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
February 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm
humboldturtle
Oh, Christ.
February 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Joe Blow
I didn’t see this:
before I made the last post. Jesus spoke of your kind. Had I seen it, my post would have been to tell you, … well, I guess I already named you for what you are.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open.”
I made my point, now to figure out how to use it on my blog.
February 10, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Eric Kirk
And the dumb bastard doesn’t even know who I am.
Matthew 7:16
Obviously blackberries didn’t grow in Israel.
February 10, 2009 at 6:04 pm
olmanriver
Name-calling, personal attacks, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by Joe Blow will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter, without notice.
Diatribe personally attacking the messenger, is not welcome.
joe’s guidelines
February 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm
olmanriver
” ” fergot the quote marks
February 11, 2009 at 9:01 am
Eric Kirk
I’ve disallowed a comment which came in overnight. I’m allowing Joe to call me names because it doesn’t bother me. I disallow the same when other people are called names because I have no way of knowing if it would bother them. If others tell me it doesn’t bother them then I’ll allow it to a certain degree.
If you want to characterize Joe’s comments as misogynist I’ll allow that, but the other word used was unnecessary. I don’t agree that he’s misogynist. Sexist as all hell, but in light of what he has said about women, which is consistent with the way fundamentalist Christianity treats women, I will allow it.
This concept of women “emasculating” men is in fashion now. I’d just as soon debate it rigorously and, yes, ridicule it, because I think the views are archaic, patently ridiculous, and insulting. If women, or men, want to react with more anger than I’ve expressed because it triggers reactions based on life experiences with this crap in their families or wherever, that’s fine. But you can do it without the name calling.
Thank you.
February 11, 2009 at 9:41 am
suzy blah blah
Eric, better watch out for Osmo Sis. She’s been thinking (gasp) and she probably has a scheme. I thought I saw her in Redway again last night. She’ll no doubt show up at your whore house door wanting work.
You can recognize her by the pointed tail and horns. Beware, she’s the kind that Jesus warned us about, the kind that wants you to cast your pearl…
high high woman –she made the water into wine,
s
December 31, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Sohum Parlance’s top 10 topics for 2009 – non-local stories « Sohum Parlance II
[…] Disobedient women viewed as just as bad as their abusive husbands – extreme fundamentalists are always good for a blog […]