Comments on: The Defense of Irrationality http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/ Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalm 137:9) Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:15:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Brian http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-48 Brian Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:26:25 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-48 There are some arguably strong women in the Bible, yes. Miriam is arguably another. But these women stand out only because they are among the few women in the Bible who are anything more than baby factories. E.g. the wife of almost every patriarch, Jesus' mom, John the Baptists' mom, and so on. Baby factories. On the other hand the vast majority of the important figures in the Bible are men. Pretty much all the prophets were men. The 12 Apostles were all men. Jesus was male. God himself is male. Why? Because the women are too busy being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen to do anything important. See <a href="http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/womenbible.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> (at the bottom) for a nice list of Bible verses that list women as inferior to / property of men. If you study the history of the cultures in which these books were written, it's very clear that women held a very low position in society. Women in Greece and Rome at the time of the Jesus stories were a bit better off than women in ancient Judea, but not by much. The stuff in the Bible is no worse than what everyone at the time believed. But it's no better than it either. It's a reflection of primitive people and their primitive morality, which we've long since grown past. Look at Muslim societies today; that's what Biblical times were like for women. If not worse. There are some arguably strong women in the Bible, yes. Miriam is arguably another. But these women stand out only because they are among the few women in the Bible who are anything more than baby factories. E.g. the wife of almost every patriarch, Jesus’ mom, John the Baptists’ mom, and so on. Baby factories. On the other hand the vast majority of the important figures in the Bible are men. Pretty much all the prophets were men. The 12 Apostles were all men. Jesus was male. God himself is male. Why? Because the women are too busy being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen to do anything important.

See here (at the bottom) for a nice list of Bible verses that list women as inferior to / property of men.

If you study the history of the cultures in which these books were written, it’s very clear that women held a very low position in society. Women in Greece and Rome at the time of the Jesus stories were a bit better off than women in ancient Judea, but not by much. The stuff in the Bible is no worse than what everyone at the time believed. But it’s no better than it either. It’s a reflection of primitive people and their primitive morality, which we’ve long since grown past. Look at Muslim societies today; that’s what Biblical times were like for women. If not worse.

]]> By: Anon http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-46 Anon Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:14:39 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-46 Also. read the Biblical books of Ruth and Ester. Also, take a look in Judges about Deborah. Anything but slaves. Also. read the Biblical books of Ruth and Ester. Also, take a look in Judges about Deborah. Anything but slaves.

]]> By: Anon http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-45 Anon Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:13:18 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-45 No. It never says women are property. Not that I've read anyways. No. It never says women are property. Not that I’ve read anyways.

]]> By: Wesley http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-44 Wesley Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:57:34 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-44 You're just proving my argument about picking-and-choosing. You don't agree with the "women as property" lines in the Bible, so you ignore or deemphasize them; and since you do agree with gender equality (I'm assuming), you emphasize those portions which sound more like what you agree with. You’re just proving my argument about picking-and-choosing. You don’t agree with the “women as property” lines in the Bible, so you ignore or deemphasize them; and since you do agree with gender equality (I’m assuming), you emphasize those portions which sound more like what you agree with.

]]> By: Anon http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-43 Anon Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:51:05 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-43 This is true. However "1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife." 1Cor 7:1-4 Clearly this is mutual ownership. What I was quoting before was Eph 5:22-33. But I didn't quite get all of it. And when taken in context with the other verses, I feel that it clearly shows that women were not slaves. This is true. However
“1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife.” 1Cor 7:1-4

Clearly this is mutual ownership.

What I was quoting before was Eph 5:22-33. But I didn’t quite get all of it. And when taken in context with the other verses, I feel that it clearly shows that women were not slaves.

]]> By: Wesley http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-42 Wesley Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:59:24 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-42 "<i>However, the next few verses always fail to be quoted. “So too, husbands, love your wives, for just as Christ is head of the church, so too are you the head of your wife ”</i>" I don't see how that makes it any better, as it explicitly says again that the husband is the "head" of the wife, just as Jesus is the head of the church, meaning the wife must obey a husband's commands. That line just admonishes men to be benevolent masters. And the Biblical argument doesn't change the fact that people pick-and-choose what they want to believe from the Bible. “However, the next few verses always fail to be quoted. “So too, husbands, love your wives, for just as Christ is head of the church, so too are you the head of your wife ””

I don’t see how that makes it any better, as it explicitly says again that the husband is the “head” of the wife, just as Jesus is the head of the church, meaning the wife must obey a husband’s commands. That line just admonishes men to be benevolent masters.

And the Biblical argument doesn’t change the fact that people pick-and-choose what they want to believe from the Bible.

]]> By: Brian http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-41 Brian Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:37:47 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-41 A wife being obedient and a husband being loving doesn't balance out. Similarly no matter how much you love a slave, the slave is still a slave. There's nothing about women that requires them to be led or ruled by a man. That notion is and has been the cause of horrible evil in the world. In response to homosexuality being evil, would you also say that murder is bad, but a murderer isn't evil? I would say that a person who does bad things is a bad person because of their deeds. (But I don't think being gay is bad.) A wife being obedient and a husband being loving doesn’t balance out. Similarly no matter how much you love a slave, the slave is still a slave. There’s nothing about women that requires them to be led or ruled by a man. That notion is and has been the cause of horrible evil in the world.

In response to homosexuality being evil, would you also say that murder is bad, but a murderer isn’t evil? I would say that a person who does bad things is a bad person because of their deeds. (But I don’t think being gay is bad.)

]]> By: Anon http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-40 Anon Tue, 15 Apr 2008 05:47:41 +0000 http://godhatesfraggles.net/2008/04/14/the-defense-of-irrationality/#comment-40 On the comment of enslaving women and killing those who dare to lift a hand on sabbath. Jesus came as a fufilment of the OT law. He said "Love the Lord God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." So with all the laws and punishments, they kinda left. I mean the legalistic parts. I mean, there are always consequences for actions, it's stupid to say otherwise. But yeah. And on the topic of enslavement of women. Bible does say Women, submit to your husbands. However, the next few verses always fail to be quoted. "So too, husbands, love your wives, for just as Christ is head of the church, so too are you the head of your wife " So basically, love your wife to the point that you will die for her. And on the topic of hating gays. This is a human problem. Humans often confuse the act with the person. Bible says homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say that the people are evil and to be hated. Unfortunately as humans we tend to personafy the act. If those are the right words. However, I will concede that if your religious beliefs held that you got fridays off, in this society you would be entitled to fridays off. However I should think that you'd be required to make up your lost time on days when you are allowed to work. On the comment of enslaving women and killing those who dare to lift a hand on sabbath. Jesus came as a fufilment of the OT law. He said “Love the Lord God with all your heart with all your soul and with all your strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.” So with all the laws and punishments, they kinda left. I mean the legalistic parts. I mean, there are always consequences for actions, it’s stupid to say otherwise. But yeah.
And on the topic of enslavement of women. Bible does say Women, submit to your husbands. However, the next few verses always fail to be quoted. “So too, husbands, love your wives, for just as Christ is head of the church, so too are you the head of your wife ” So basically, love your wife to the point that you will die for her.
And on the topic of hating gays. This is a human problem. Humans often confuse the act with the person. Bible says homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn’t say that the people are evil and to be hated. Unfortunately as humans we tend to personafy the act. If those are the right words.
However, I will concede that if your religious beliefs held that you got fridays off, in this society you would be entitled to fridays off. However I should think that you’d be required to make up your lost time on days when you are allowed to work.

]]>