how I left Christianity

[sweetmiracle]

Hello, Koin!

I hope I can present my examples respectfully...

I am not sure about the fig tree, but I would imagine it would be an analogy. Other then that, can you provide instances of what you were referring to in these cases?

In the Holy Bible, it teaches how to enslave other races, make women subservient to men,

The Bible is full of references to slavery. God tells the people of Israel to take others as slaves, gives them rules for how to treat slaves. For a small sample:

Exodus 21:7
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....

Deuteronomy 15:12
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee....

Deuteronomy 20:14
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

God also seems to have no problem with killing innocent people. As if the story of the Flood isn't enough...

In Deuteronomy and Joshua especially, God tells his people to "utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain" Deut. 2:34

Judges 21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.
21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.

Joshua 10:40 So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded.

So God told everyone to kill everyone who lived in a city that his people were supposed to occupy, except maybe the young girls, who would be turned into sexual slaves?Is this good for teaching kindness, caring, tolerance? Sounds more like the justification for war used by the leaders of a nomadic tribe who wanted to settle down...

Also, God seems to regularly lose his temper with those who are supposed to be his own, and he takes it out on them in the most horrifying ways, ie Exodus 22:24 And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. Is this a good example?

I was talking to some friends last week about women being subservient to men, and I think the Bible teaches women to honor and respect men, but in the same way the men should honor their wives. In the early part of Genesis, when Adam and Eve sin, it states in Gen 3:16 that "woman's desire will be for her husband, and he will rule over you." I believe that in the original translation, the for was actually replaced with the word against, so it would be woman's desire to be against her husband. This seems pretty accurate today, because women are not willing to be subservient. That being said, I think there is nothing nobler than a woman that is willing to submit herself to her husband. Not because it gives the husband the power, but rather because the woman is putting her trust and faith in her husband's decisions.

One question..why should I put faith in 'his ' decisions? Marriage should be a partnership...we should make decisions, especially important ones, together. I'm not his child, he's not the Grand Poobah.

From Genesis 3:16 "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. " to
1 Peter 3:1 "Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands." women are treated as possessions who have worth slightly above animals.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak.... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. "--I Corinthians 14:34-35

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman." I Corinthians7:1

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, an do ye to them as is good in your eyes. -- Genesis 19:8, said by Lot, a 'righteous man'...


These examples are a very, very small sample of what's in there.

I have one question, which I've asked quite a few Christians but never had answered...

What does the violence and cruelty of Jehovah of the Old Testament tell us about the character of God?

The usual answer is that it's not the God of the OT that matters, but Jesus in the New. But iof they're the same being, then it matters very much.

Not that Jesus was totally peaceful: he talked more about Hell than anyone else in the Bible. And Hell is about as violent and cruel as one can get.

[Norton]

Sweetmiracle,

I'll let Koin respond to your plethera of slavery and women references!

Regarding your question about God being "violent" in the OT, and "peaceful" in the NT.

In a sense, you answered it yourself. You're right, Jesus gets angry sometimes too, especially when religious people are hypocrits and take advantage of weaker people! And lest you think God is only angry in the OT, he also shows a lot of grace there as well and constantly challenges Israel to be a nation of love, compassion, and "shalom".

It's understandable to question the quantity of violence in the OT, but God was dealing with a specific nation, on a national level. In the NT, there is a greater focus on how individuals become part of a group of people (the church) who are not a "nation", but a multi-ethnic group of people that are to influence society by their love. I could try to tease this out a little more, but you're probably getting bored.

Norton

[koin4life]

Let me know if I miss anything, because I undoubtedly will.

The greek term that was used is often mistaking with slavery. It actually has more of the meaning of indentured servent. That is the problem when translators don't get everything right. A friend of mine that studied greek in college told me this one.

As for God killing innocent people. How do we know they are innocent, or is rather an assumption. If we are to believe that God is just, then wouldn't that mean it's more likely that the people were not good people rather than God? Of course, we can't know for sure what the people were like, so we have to go based on historical text, and the biggest text happens to be the Bible. As a side note, looking back through historyat WWI, if the 'Axis' are viewed without their actions, would it seem just for the countries around the world to invade them? When writing a glimpse of US History, you wouldn't say why each country needed to be invaded, only that they were invaded and the US's involvement. Kind of like what we see in the Bible, you see which tribes were invaded, but you only see it from the viewpoints of the Jewish people.

As for marriage, I think it is a dual decision making process. That is the part that deals with "Husbands love your wives." How can you truly love someone and ignore what is best for them? Now, suppose a wife disagrees with her husband about something. If the husband is doing it in a righteous manner, the wife should go along with it. However, if the husband is not acting in a righteous manner, I don't think the wife does need to submit to it, because it is not honoring to God. It kind of depends on if the husband is honoring God through the actions.

Finally, in regards to wives not being allowed to speak. The issue is in the context. In Corinth at the time, there was a lot of prostitution, so the women in that aspect were not looked upon favorably. Therefore, the writer is saying for the men of Corinth not to listen to the women because they are speaking from an unrighteous path. I hope that answers your questions. Let me know if you have any follow-ups or if I missed anything (not yet previously answered by Norton).

[whoosanightowl]

Koin4life,
Wow, you certainly jump to a lot of conclusions about things!

If we are to believe that God is just, then wouldn't that mean it's more likely that the people were not good people rather than God?

Yes, IF you insist on believing God is just regardless of the evidence provided, your conclusions would make sense.

Of course, we can't know for sure what the people were like, so we have to go based on historical text, and the biggest text happens to be the Bible.

I suppose if you want to assume the bible consists of an accurate account of history, this would make sense. But for those who believe it is more a superstitious fairy tale, with a dose of reality for the sake of appearing historical, it does not.

If the husband is doing it in a righteous manner, the wife should go along with it. However, if the husband is not acting in a righteous manner, I don't think the wife does need to submit to it, because it is not honoring to God. It kind of depends on if the husband is honoring God through the actions.

You are assuming things which are not biblical. There were no such provisions made for women to go against their husbands, regarless of his honoring God or acting in a righteous manner. This is just one example of how Christians have been conditioned in how to make something ridiculous appear to make sense.

In Corinth at the time, there was a lot of prostitution, so the women in that aspect were not looked upon favorably. Therefore, the writer is saying for the men of Corinth not to listen to the women because they are speaking from an unrighteous path.

Yet another assumption since this is not biblical either. Once again, the original meaning must be altered in order to justify the bibles obvious intolerance and predjudices.

[Guest]

whoosanightowl, I am sorry if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are pretty harsh towards my statements.

Yes, IF you insist on believing God is just regardless of the evidence provided, your conclusions would make sense.

If you don't believe in God, than obviously my statement is going to be false. If someone else says something that we don't agree with, we tend to assume the peson is wrong rather than us. (we is referring to anybody, not just you and me) Therefore, there can be the possibility that God is just and we are not. Of course, if you don't believe in God, than you probably can't take this viewpoint, and that makes sense.

I suppose if you want to assume the bible consists of an accurate account of history, this would make sense. But for those who believe it is more a superstitious fairy tale, with a dose of reality for the sake of appearing historical, it does not.

Scientists accept other literary works during this time as historical fact, so why would it be a jump to assume the Bible can be one of those works. After all, the Bible can be verified by much more accounts as well as non-christian accounts than the other works during the same period.

You are assuming things which are not biblical. There were no such provisions made for women to go against their husbands, regarless of his honoring God or acting in a righteous manner. This is just one example of how Christians have been conditioned in how to make something ridiculous appear to make sense.

I don't think this is the case. If you are a christian, you are supposed to owner God first and foremost. I don't think you will disagree with that statement. Therefore, if someone is doing something that is not-God honoring, you should not follow it. A good example is the pharisees during the time. They were supposedly the people the jews were supposed to follow. However, their actions were not honoring to God, so people were not supposed to follow them anymore.

Yet another assumption since this is not biblical either. Once again, the original meaning must be altered in order to justify the bibles obvious intolerance and predjudices.

It is called context. Everything needs to be read within the context of the situation. If it is not read, then it will not make sense. I have learned this from people that have doctorates on the subject.

Once again, I don't think the conclusions are that big of a jump. At least not any bigger than saying God doesn't exist so none of it is true.

[koin4life]

My mistake, I didn't log in before my last message. The message before this is mine.

[whoosanightowl]

koin4life,

I'm sorry that I sounded harsh in my last post, it wasn't intentional.

there can be the possibility that God is just and we are not.

Yes, but the Christian idea of what is "just" or "good" comes from the bible, so it would seem that the author of the book (God) would abide by the same guidelines he sets for everyone else, leading by example.

Scientists accept other literary works during this time as historical fact, so why would it be a jump to assume the Bible can be one of those works.

Do the other literary works of that time consist of miraculous happenings as well? If so, I would not consider them to be historically accurate any more than I do the bible, and neither would most scientists.

A good example is the pharisees during the time. They were supposedly the people the jews were supposed to follow. However, their actions were not honoring to God, so people were not supposed to follow them anymore

If that is the case, why were Christians instructed to obey civil authority and children to obey their parents and wives to obey their husbands, and slaves (or servants) to obey their masters, with no mention whatsoever of what would constitute a reason not to obey?

It is called context. Everything needs to be read within the context of the situation.

Oh, right context. That's why the writers of the NT (mostly Matthew) pulled whatever verses they needed from the Jewish scriptures in order to support their claims, simply by referring to them prophesies, which they never claimed to have been in the first place?

Sue[/quote]

[raymond]

Emery said:
"but as for the Christian God, I'm as certain he doesn't exist as Norton probably is that Shiva or Vishnu don't. And once he realizes why he doesn't believe in them, he'll understand why I don't believe in his god"

AMEN, BROTHER!

That was a quote from an big famous Athiest (Not Emery)

[Emery]

Hey, that's MY version of the quote from the big famous atheist!

I think the guy in question is Stephen L. Roberts.

Something to keep in mind, next time you're playing Atheist Trivial Pursuit

[dabid]

I believe a common theme you see is when man sins, creation itself is corrupted in the process....

Hi koin4life,
Is that a fact, or simply a 'theoretical theme'?

The Eden-snake was pretty sinfull, demon-possesed too, and that was before the fall of man.

dave

ps sorry, this is off-topic,(unless Emery is a demon-possed sinfull snake ) but the theory of mans infectious sin has bugged me for years. It's like bird flu in reverse...

[koin4life]

Dabid, in response to man's "sin-virus," I don't know if it is fact or a theme. I just mentioned it because it is an interesting idea. I think the reason the snake could be evil is because Satan was still around on the earth at that time, and he/she/it was evil.

Once again, this is just an approach someone can take towards the Bible. The OT is more of a historical / storytelling document near the beginning, therefore it is tough to get absolutes from it (although not impossible, because each story is based on an actual event.)

[stickmangrit]

koin, you've yet to answer how a society being "bad" justifies wiping out the innocents within it. were the children "bad" too? did they "deserve" the "righteous smite of God" laid upon them? what was they're crime? that the Jews slaughtered every last child, including the infants who were incapable of sin on a base level (babies breathe, and the Israelites slaughtered "everything that breathed") is a horrific thing, and it's extremely telling that these tales are excluded from most Sunday school teachings. as a child i was taught that the Israelites were a persecuted nation, continuously ripped from their homeland by oppressive invaders, but now (in the greater context) i see why they were invaded. according to the Bible they were a blood-thirsty, barbaric lot that neighboring nations viewed as a threat. they were guilty of genocide, the most base, horrific crime that man is capable of, and they did it in the name of their insane god Yaweh. it's a disturbing portrait.

[koin4life]

stick, I can't answer your question because I cannot say why they were killed only because I am not God. You assume there were innocents among them, maybe there weren't any, maybe there were, but you cannot assume that is the case.

[stickmangrit]

yes koin, i can, because babies lack the capability to understand that when mommy leaves the'r field of vision, she doesn't cease to exist. they do not have the physical capability to much of anything beyond eating, crying, sleeping and defecating. they can't sin, because they lack the facilities for reason or descision, and yet they were murdered. and any sin the children could commit would be a result of improper raising, and no real faut of their own. so the innocent children were slaughtered. period. you brought up child sacrifice in an earlier thread. well, child sacrifice is as horrific as it is beacause it is the extinguishing of innocent life for utterly psychotic reasons, kinda like going into a village and murdering all of the babies and young children within.

so in conclusion, there were innocents, because there were "little ones" to be smoted. these innocent children were murdered in the name of your god, Yaweh. and you are standing here trying to simultaneously justify child murder whilst decrying abortion. those are the facts.

[dabid]

stick, I can't answer your question because I cannot say why they were killed only because I am not God. You assume there were innocents among them, maybe there weren't any, maybe there were, but you cannot assume that is the case.

A typical case of christian-denial, one of the main reasons why I am no longer a church goer. I still have one foot in the faith, although often I wish there really where no mad-god like the bible stories constantly refer to...The slaughtering of small children of any age is impossible to justify. I think it would be fair to all christians if God gave a genuine, reasonable explanation.