February 27, 2009

Christians are Misogynistic?

freddies_dead said: Wow .. just wow .. the misogyny is almost palpable.

My friend Eric just today said on his Facebook page that his "faith is pure and his pimp hand is strong."

But seriously, we are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes, women submit to the husband, and husband submit to God. See, we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven.

Many women don't like what the Bible says because it calls wives to "submit to their husbands."

However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Traits from man and woman equally make up the "image of God"

What about Genesis 2:18 where it says it is "not good" for man to be alone.

How did God treat women? Remember story of Esther?

You then have to ask, How did Jesus treat women? Like the woman at the well or Mary Magdalene or even the prostitute about to get stoned.

As it was said in the last post, "The women described in the Bible are not always homemakers and mothers. Obviously, the biological function of women is to produce children. However, Deborah was both a judge and leader of Israel.(Judges 4:4) Other women were involved in ridding Israel of her enemies.(Judges 4:21) Quite a number of women are described as being prophetesses.(Exodus 15:20,2 Kings 22:14,Luke 2:36) Other women in the Bible were involved in teaching the Word of God(Acts 18:26)"

Countless other verses point to Jesus holding high regard for women.

God's people are referred to as female, not male. In the Old Testament, God's people are the "daughters of Zion." The Body of Christ (including us men) is referred to as the "bride" of Christ and God is said to be our "husband." Whenever referred to by sex, the assembly is described as "she" or "her." (Ephesians 5:25,27)"

In conclusion we have one verse that sums it all up: Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." We all have our roles as the body of the Christ head.






 


bit.ly/misogynistic

60 comments:

  1. "But seriously we are called bride of Christ for a reason, God loves woman. Yes woman submit to the husband and husband submit to God. See we are playing the role of the marriage that will happen in heaven with Jesus and his believers. Stay loyal in Christ and you will understand how exalted you will be in heaven."

    Yet, women are still on the lower end of the "submission hierarchy" which your later attempts at finding woman-friendly passages doesn't make right. Dan, here are some other quotes that show the Bible is mysogynistic:

    http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Union/4089/women.html

    http://www.thoughtzone.net/more-misogyny-from-the-bible/

    here is a real gem:

    "A bad wife brings humiliation, downcast looks, and a wounded heart. Slack of hand and weak of knee is the man whose wife fails to make him happy. Woman is the origin of sin, and it is through her that we all die. Do not leave a leaky cistern to drip or allow a bad wife to say what she likes. If she does not accept your control, divorce her and send her away" (Ecclesiasticus 25:25).

    Dan,

    Don't you get it? The bible is so muttled and self contradictory that you people can pick and choose between the verses to justify their every claim. In the previous post you demand submission. So you quote passages saying women should be submissive. Then we point out your mysogyny. Then you quote scriptures to make it look like women are exaulted. Then I point out that there are many other passages that talk very low of women....at least have the balls to say that you think less of women because God finds them dirty, and inferior. I prefer someone with the courage of their convictions rather than someone who is just going to tell people what they want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "However, submission is not limited to wives submitting to their husbands. We are told to submit to God, governmental authorities, our boss, and leaders in the assembly. We are also told to submit to one another, which includes men submitting women and vice versa. God is a God of order. In a sinful world, submission to those in authority is the only way to maintain order."

    Wow. Are you serious?? Just sumit to authority? Just like that? No qualifiers? Just submit? Oooook. Also, what would a "non-sinful world" look like? In addition, if god is omnipotent and omniscient (prescient) then we can't sin because we don't have free-will to choose anything since God already knows every event before he created the universe. You Bibble-toters amuse me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clos,

    here is a real gem: (insert made up verses) Mwahahaha

    I am not sure if you meant Ecclesiastes but it only goes to 12 chapters. No wonder you are Muslim/Atheist.

    Have you even read the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dan I haven't laughed so hard in ages.

    Like an S&M relationship - if the Christian couple agree to dom/sub roles that's their business. Fortunately the laws of this country wouldn't actually allow a man to take non-consensual control.

    If you like playing "King of the Castle" fair play to ya, fella.

    The "lolz" keep on coming though.

    I have a soft spot for misogynists, granted. So archaic and adorable... (in this society).

    You're funny.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Clos,

    here is a real gem: (insert made up verses) Mwahahaha

    I am not sure if you meant Ecclesiastes but it only goes to 12 chapters. No wonder you are Muslim/Atheist.

    Have you even read the Bible?"

    Dan,

    If you are able to read, I didn't quote Ecclesiastes, I quoted Ecclesiasticus, or the book of Sirach

    http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txs/sirach.htm

    I notice you didn't address any of my arguments....yet you claim to be a debunker. It's your blog, and I don't see much debunking going on. I called you out. Let's have a response.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clos,

    If you are able to read, I didn't quote Ecclesiastes, I quoted Ecclesiasticus, or the book of Sirach

    OH you were quoting Apocrypha, sorry about that. Um, do you know what Apocrypha means? Let me help they are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. Apocrypha is not God's word. Have you even read the Apocrypha? The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today (good tree bears good fruit). I have read most of the Apocrypha and I agree with the Council, they didn't flow like the Bible does and there were obvious contradictions to the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Also, Dan, it reveals your ignorance of "the Bible"...there is no "the Bible". What we have today is an evolved collection of documents. You should read Bart D. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. The above passage I quoted is part of the Catholic Bible...you know, the "original Christians"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Let me help they are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned."

    The four Gospels chosen were themselves anonymous until it was decided to put names on them....

    "The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today."

    Ah, another claim that is stinking of shit. What do you mean by "Guided by the Holy Spirit"? Do you mean the holy spirit showed up, the men noticed, and then this spirit literally walked them through the process of choosing the best documents? Perhaps the spirit commendeered the men's brains like a parasite and did the dirty work itself. Do you mean that the men thought they were guided by the Holy Ghost? Are you just saying they were guided by the Holy Ghost to make your argument sound authoritarian and spooky? What is your evidence for this claim? How do you know a Holy Spirit was involved? How do you know a Holy Spirit exists? These are very reasonably questions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "they didn't flow like the Bible does and there were obvious contradictions to the Gospel."

    The Bible in no way "flows". What is the general "flow" of the Bible, Dan? It is a hodgepodge. Contradictions with the Gospels??? The Gospels contradict themselves all over the place. Which Gospels? There were thirty some.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "The men at the Council of Nicaea were guided by the Holy Spirit to give us the Bible we read today..."

    Hmm the very same men who actively paid tribute to Sol Invictus the Roman sun deity?

    Yeah God moves in mysterious ways it would seem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. to both of you... again:

    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?"

    Sure, but I don't accept hearsay.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Dan

    I don't even believe that an omniscient, omnipotent being exists. So I can't possibly tell you of what its attributes would be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ Dan

    Do you believe that an omniscient omnipotent being could deceive you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Do you believe that Zeus as described could zap you with a lightning bolt?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dan,
    I think you are acting precisely as a man who is dominated by his wife would act.

    "My wife is the provider and I stay home because I can't get as good a job as her and she makes most of the serious decisions, but "I am in control and she submits to my desires!"

    Missionary much?

    Are you spanking those kids?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Your musings have been getting more fractured, more desperate in the recent past, Dan. When cornered, you default to semantical word play, as if it somehow hides the fact that you can't answer the questions being posed to you.

    Your God isn't helping you make your case, Dan. If he was, you wouldn't appear to be failing so obviously...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wem,

    If he was, you wouldn't appear to be failing so obviously...

    Are you certain of this and how can you be certain of anything with your worldview? :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Clos,

    Do you believe that an omniscient omnipotent being could deceive you?

    Nope. If lying is not his character. That is why it's burned into your conscience that lying is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Froggie,

    I think you are acting precisely as a man who is dominated by his wife would act.

    That would be yet another thing you would be incorrect about. Tell me though are you certain of this and how can you be certain of anything with your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Also, nothing about omniscient or omnipotent equals "non-liar".

    You know that.

    You have faith that your God never lies - as according to you he EASILY has the ability to deceive you, even to the point where you are assured that he isn't.

    Well he could, couldn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are you certain of this and how can you be certain of anything with your worldview? :)

    Dishonesty is a sin, Dan. Pray on exactly how much faith you have, and why you appear eager to contradict the things you say you believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan,
    "That would be yet another thing you would be incorrect about. Tell me though are you certain of this and how can you be certain of anything with your worldview?"

    I am never completely certain of anything. All I know is that I have a reasonable expectaion that my logic is valid since it has been valid in the past. It's people like you that think they are infallible that worry me.
    Knowing we cannot be certain builds in a quite a bit of careful thought and consideration about logical decisions.

    In my experience, people that always "know" they are right make a lot of mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
    Care to give an example of how that would work, Dan? Or are you just going to parrot that brainless crap that Sye keeps spewing out?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Clos,

    Also, nothing about omniscient or omnipotent equals "non-liar".

    God equals non-liar though. The basis for morality is the very character of God. That is why lying is wrong.

    He does not EASILY has the ability to deceive you or I because that would go against His unchanging character.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Froggie,

    I am never completely certain of anything.

    Thanks for being honest but I could not sign up to a worldview that renders me uncertain about my love for my wife and children and Mom and Dad and friends. What a cold world you must live in. Does anyone believe in you if you are uncertain about everything? Can you be trusted? Can people be certain of their trust for you or is that a mere variable also?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Reynold,

    Do you admit that it is possible?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Wem,

    and why you appear eager to contradict the things you say you believe in.

    You lost me buddy. What are you talking about? How did I contradict myself. I do fully admit that I do have that ability but at least let me try to correct/explain myself.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Froggie,

    It's people like you that think they are infallible that worry me.

    Yet, another thing you are wrong about. Do you really believe that I think I am infallible? Please show evidence for this conclusion please.

    In my experience, people that always "know" they are right make a lot of mistakes.

    And people that are unsure don't make a lot of mistakes?

    I know with 100% certainty that I love my wife and children and it's sad that you cannot claim the same. Just sad. I will stick with Christianity and a Christian worldview. With it at least there is hope. Do you have a reason for the hope that that is in you...if any? 1 Peter 3:15

    ReplyDelete
  30. God equals non-liar though. The basis for morality is the very character of God. That is why lying is wrong.

    He does not EASILY has the ability to deceive you or I because that would go against His unchanging character.


    Interesting, we have 'free will', but God does not. Being able to lie is surely a prerequisite of 'free will', let alone of omnipotence.

    How can you be 100% sure of what you say there, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  31. I know with 100% certainty that I love my wife and children and it's sad that you cannot claim the same. Just sad

    I always say most theists are by far more cynical than atheists. Dan wants to prove that here.

    I'm just as certain as Dan, of course, that I love my family. The only difference is that atheists, instead of prematurely yelling God, am ever inquisitive in the nature of things, never claiming I have the key to the very nature of things.

    Dan, you do realize that the same attitude of all-knowing intellectual dishonesty was the cause of prosecution of honest scientists like Galileo Galilei?

    If there's no God, it's only normal we don't have omniscience. That's not sad, that just is.

    Now take your bible and find us the cure for cancer in it, that at least, would prove something. Or are you also so cynical to have the key to the world and not to use it?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dan:"God equals non-liar though."

    Are you seriously telling me that an omniscient, omnipotent being couldn't just make you believe that?

    All you have is faith Dan, faith that He tells the truth when he says that he does - because you can never falsify anything that he says about himself.

    Admit that it is a faith position Dan - or provide some proof of God's external honesty that isn't taken directly from something he has said.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Geert,

    Interesting, we have 'free will', but God does not.

    First, please excuse my horible English (does not EASILY has the) and second you do not have free will. You, my friend, are a slave to sin. Unless you are telling me that you abstained from fornication? Are you telling me you do not lie to anyone ever? You never used God's name in vain or dishonored your parents? You are a slave.

    Now take your bible and find us the cure for cancer in it, that at least, would prove something. Or are you also so cynical to have the key to the world and not to use it?

    First, it wasn't God's fault there is cancer. Second the Bible indeed has the cure for cancer. So then the Bible proves quite a bit.

    Or are you also so cynical to have the key to the world and not to use it?

    Buddy I am trying my very best to show you that key that God so graciously gave us. Its like a present wrapped up with a bow and all you have to do is open the gift. Take the gift you proud, proud man...please!

    ReplyDelete
  34. CwC,

    Are you seriously telling me that an omniscient, omnipotent being couldn't just make you believe that?

    Yes, that is what I am saying with absolute certainty.

    Admit that it is a faith position Dan - or provide some proof of God's external honesty that isn't taken directly from something he has said.

    That's easy, it's called The Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan,
    You said,
    "I know with 100% certainty that I love my wife and children and it's sad that you cannot claim the same."

    Ya know what Dan?

    Fuck you.
    You ignorant fucktard.
    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

    Did I say you are ignorant?
    You are an absurd mother fucker beyond belief.

    Did I say fuck you?
    In case I forgot,
    Fuck you.

    One fucking Ray fucking Comfort is enough for me.

    Have a nice day, Butthole!

    PS
    Fuck you :>

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan,
    When you are married 35 years with 5 grown kids, look me up.
    I can tell you, you are never fucking going to make it.

    Until then, you can kiss my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Froggie,

    We have been married under 10 years and our fifth is on the way.

    I can tell you, you are never fucking going to make it.

    And yet another thing you are wrong about.

    So then by your response you admit that it is possible to know things with 100% absolute certainty? If so are you willing to admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    I wish you the best and mean you know harm.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "I wish you the best and mean you know harm."

    Shit, Froggie, run! Dan means for you to know harm!!!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I said: Admit that it is a faith position Dan - or provide some proof of God's external honesty that isn't taken directly from something he has said.

    Dan said: "That's easy, it's called The Bible."

    Erm Dan isn't the bible taken directly from things that God said?

    Your certainty that he isn't a liar, by the way, isn't evidence as we have already established that an omnipotent omniscient being could easily deceive you into believing that he is honest.

    ReplyDelete
  40. If god can't lie, then he isn't omnipotent. God's limited.

    ReplyDelete
  41.      "'Admit that it is a faith position Dan - or provide some proof of God's external honesty that isn't taken directly from something he has said.'
         "That's easy, it's called The Bible."
         Well, it's nice to see you admit that the bible is not "god's word." You were asked for something not taken directly from something he has said. For the bible to qualify, it can't be based on his word.

    ReplyDelete
  42. lol

    Oops, I wish you the best and mean you no harm.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "lol

    Oops, I wish you the best and mean you no harm."

    ;> Froggie, it is apparently safe to come out...just a typo!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Pvblivs,

    You were asked for something not taken directly from something he has said. For the bible to qualify, it can't be based on his word.

    The evidence that you perceivably "seek" is the Bible. Putting presuppositional conditions on the evidence is someone searching for something other then the truth. I gave you the evidence now what you do with it, or what you will or will not accept, is something for that unaccounted for logic of yours.

    ReplyDelete
  45. you do not have free will.

    Interesting, that's completely against your own religion.

    "Slave to sin", hmm. Interesting word game. Does not take away that if God can't lie, he's hasn't got free will and he's not omnipotent.

    First, it wasn't God's fault there is cancer.

    I never said so, but technically speaking, in your world view, he's the source.

    In mine, he's not.

    Second the Bible indeed has the cure for cancer. So then the Bible proves quite a bit.

    Then cure cancer, pretty please.

    The evidence that you perceivably "seek" is the Bible. Putting presuppositional conditions on the evidence is someone searching for something other then the truth.

    It's a book written by people. Of course it needs more evidence. If holy books were enough evidence, you would be Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  46.      "The evidence that you perceivably [(?)] 'seek' is the Bible."
         In this case, the person was looking for evidence that your god really is honest and doesn't lie. Obviously, if he lies and wrote the bible, he can have the bible say he doesn't lie. It's from the perspective of "I don't trust him and think he might be lying" and you sit there and say "I know he doesn't lie because he says so." It doesn't work. For something to be evidence that your god is honest, he can't be able to control it.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Geert,

    Then cure cancer, pretty please.

    Repent and trust in Jesus today and death and disease will not hold any sting anymore. The passage at the top of this blog says, Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

    ReplyDelete
  48. Pvblivs,

    The evidence that you "seek" is the Bible. (better?)

    It's from the perspective of "I don't trust him and think he might be lying" and you sit there and say "I know he doesn't lie because he says so." It doesn't work.

    Oh I understand but like the question Sye posed:

    How do you know anything with certainty for your worldview? Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan:

         When Sye uses that tactic, it means he has been caught in a lie. I do not claim certainty. And your "certainty" is the same type of false certainty that tells suicide bombers to expect (was it 70?) virgins. Since you have posed Sye's question, I have no choice but to conclude that you have found yourself caught in a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Pvblivs,

    I have no choice but to conclude that you have found yourself caught in a lie.

    I have no clue as to what you are talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Dan:

         I am talking about Sye's tactic, which you are employing. He does this when someone catches him in a lie. It's a clear deflection tactic.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Wow ... way to over-react. The misogyny I referred to was all yours Dan. Unless you can show where I referred to the bible.....

    Thought not.

    ReplyDelete
  53. FD,

    The misogyny I referred to was all yours Dan.

    Touché, I used it, as an excuse really, merely to continue the thought process and to drive it home. I had another one from someone else in the past that said the same sort of thing, I just chose yours since it was more recent. Please forgive me in using your quote. I can remove your name and make it more general if you wish.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ok, dan...in what way is Obama a misogynist then? (in reference to that picture of the hat saying: "Women against Misogyny, Women against Obama")

    ReplyDelete
  55. Just Google "misogyny Obama" for a plethora of viewpoints.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Far cry from the rebuke being not firm enough, to being an actual "misogynist".

    Then there's some sore loser because Hillary didn't make it? I don't really see anything in there to back up the misogynist claim. Nothing was done by him as far as I can tell.

    You can find that stuff easily in the bible, only there you people will excuse it.


    Clostridiophile pretty much got you here, to which you replied:

    Do you admit that it is possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal some things to us, such that we can be certain of them?
    What the hell does that have to do with the topic?

    What evidence do you have that such a thing happened? Even if it's possible, it doesn't matter since we've no examples of where it happened. The bible sure didn't work, given how full of errors and contradictions is in it...

    Of course you'll excuse those too.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Reynold,

    Try to Google "Obama is a misogynist pig"

    Look at the Youtube video and I think maybe, just maybe, that spawned the hat but who knows for sure?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I stand by my previous comment. Compared to your bible, Obama is not misogynistic.

    ReplyDelete
  59. tell me out of curiosity where do you get your information on science/s disciplines? is it conservapedia (psst how many theories have they submitted for their peers to scrutinise and correct if necessary) and also where do they get their PHDs? i saw one video of a so called DR in biology trying to explain how biology works (creationist)..... even I knew more about what he was talking about than he did and i only did 1 semester of biology out of 5 years of high school aparently its extremely easy for some to get PHDs in america which is kinda alarming
    see there are certain rules for a scientist to follow in order to get approval for grants and for other scientists to accept (after scrutinising) their theories and from what ive heard from credible scouces in their respective proffessions some of these scientists who are saying well this disproves evolution and proves an ID they havent exactly played by the rules and skipped some very important steps in devising a hypothesis and then conducting experiments to attempt to prove them which is why some have been shunned (see if noone played by the rules we would get all these scientists getting grants for their experiments without actually doing the work) and i dont about you but if i showed up for work but didnt do my job proply i would be in big trouble i would hope that it would be the same for scientists and I would take the information from a person who is a credible person who is an expert in their perspective field who is not biased and says well this does not prove there is no intelligent design when all evidence points to the contrary over a biased person who will not accept evidence that will contradict a 2000 scource (we have kinda come a long way since 2000 years ago otherwise your little computer which you use would not be in existence) now my experience in a religion the storys and fables are there so they may be able to explain why things are the way things are not taking into account how they actually got there
    one more question in genisis god supposedly gets adam to name all the animals right? so why then are we still discovering more and more different species which we didnt know existed or may have evolved to the point of which they are now and therefore having to come up with names for them?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>