Some Imam's Viewing Women

 

An imam of the Islamic regime declared: “Women are animals created by Allah to serve men — like cows, sheep, or horses, only made to look human so they don’t scare men.”

- @YossiBenYakar pic.twitter.com/MbqGNIZVF2

— Imtiaz Mahmood (@ImtiazMadmood) October 4, 2025

Pope Francis SLAMS the Quran for Promoting Domestic Violence!

Bad Exogesis - When Billboards Tell Lies

I recently came across a post on Tumblr in which many pictures of  billboards covered with verses in the Bible was posted. The verses are meant to be shocking in such a way that people will come to the conclusion that the Bible couldn't be from God. The verses are presented without context and just attributed to God although many of the verses is not quoting what God said. Let's look at each billboard one-at-a-time and see if we understand what the verses are actually saying. When I quote the Bible it will be from the NIV.

Psalm 137:9

⁸ Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
⁹ Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks. - Psalm 137:8-9

I wonder why people don't seem to ever criticize the Bible in context. God is not commanding anyone to grab babies and bash their heads against rocks! When people make this argument I wonder if they really had bothered to read the chapter. The problem is the speaker is not God but a Jewish exile in Babylon who saw his world collapse around him and he wants God to end the exile and restore Jerusalem. He wanted his oppressors to pay. If you were in his possession you would probably want the same thing, but God is not talking or condoning this. We see here plain emotion - human emotion. The speaker wants revenge on the Edomites who were joyful at the disaster that befell Judah and vengeance on the Babylonians.

1 Timothy 2:12

 ¹¹ A woman^[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;^[b] she must be quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. - 1 Timothy 2:11-13

Rather than rehash a lot of what I've already written, here is a more exhaustive post: An "Evil of Christianity"

 Deuteronomy 22:28-29

²⁸ If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, ²⁹ he shall pay her father fifty shekels^[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. - Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Yup, here is the go to scripture for those who want to say that God condones rape in the Bible. People who butcher the scripture in this way are ignorant to what is being commanded and why it's being commanded in that context. My brother-in-Christ, Mariano Grinbank wrote a wonderful blog post a few years ago that just shows this argument for the farce that it is. Read his essay at the following link: 

Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 4 of 6

 Leviticus 25:44,45

⁴⁴ “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. ⁴⁵ You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ⁴⁶ You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. - Leviticus 25:44-46

Here is a passage usually used as a proof text that the Bible condones slavery.  It doesn't. Rather than rehash the awesome points Mariano brings up in one of his brilliant articles, here is a link:

Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?

 Jeremiah 48:10

 ⁹ Put salt on Moab,
    for she will be laid waste^[f];
her towns will become desolate,
    with no one to live in them.

¹⁰ “A curse on anyone who is lax in doing the Lord’s work!
    A curse on anyone who keeps their sword from bloodshed!

¹¹ “Moab has been at rest from youth,
    like wine left on its dregs,
not poured from one jar to another—
    she has not gone into exile.
So she tastes as she did,
    and her aroma is unchanged.
¹² But days are coming,”
    declares the Lord,
“when I will send men who pour from pitchers,
    and they will pour her out;
they will empty her pitchers
    and smash her jars.
¹³ Then Moab will be ashamed of Chemosh,
    as Israel was ashamed
    when they trusted in Bethel. - Jeremiah 48:9-13

Obviously the passage is talking about war and judgement on Moab.  God is merciful. He gave the Moabites plenty of time to stop their idolatry but they did not. I think the violence of the passage is what the posters of the billboard were trying to use to provoke and emotional  response but in its historical context, it is appropriate because the judgement that was coming was going to be severe.

 Ezekiel 9:5

 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, “Bring near those who are appointed to execute judgment on the city, each with a weapon in his hand.” ² And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.
³ Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the Lord called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side ⁴ and said to him, “Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”
⁵ As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. ⁶ Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.
⁷ Then he said to them, “Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!” So they went out and began killing throughout the city. ⁸ While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, “Alas, Sovereign Lord! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?”
⁹ He answered me, “The sin of the people of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, ‘The Lord has forsaken the land; the Lord does not see.’ ¹⁰ So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done.”
¹¹ Then the man in linen with the writing kit at his side brought back word, saying, “I have done as you commanded.” - Ezekiel 9

 Exodus 21: 7-8

⁷ “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. ⁸ If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself,^[a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. ⁹ If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. ¹⁰ If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. ¹¹ If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money. - Exodus 21:7-11

 Slavery? Really?? For Americans, slavery is a very touchy subject provoking all kinds of emotions like anger and guilt. But American Chattel Slavery and Slavery in Ancient Israel were not the same thing in the slightest. I would suggest reading Mariano's entire essay on slavery. Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery?

 Ezekiel 21:31-32

³⁰ “‘Let the sword return to its sheath.
    In the place where you were created,
in the land of your ancestry,
    I will judge you.
³¹ I will pour out my wrath on you
    and breathe out my fiery anger against you;
I will deliver you into the hands of brutal men,
    men skilled in destruction.
³² You will be fuel for the fire,
    your blood will be shed in your land,
you will be remembered no more;
    for I the Lord have spoken.’” - Ezekiel 21:30-33

I think the problem is that people really don't look at their sins as being bad enough to deserve judgement and death. Yes, we are that bad. What ever joys and happiness we experience isn't because of what we deserve but because of God's mercy on us. This passage is about the judgement deserved about Jerusalem and God using the Babylonians to do it. And it happened just like night follows day in 586 BC.

 Numbers 25:4

1While Israel was staying in Shittim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, 2who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods. The people ate the sacrificial meal and bowed down before these gods. 3So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.

4The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of these people, kill them and expose them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the Lord’s fierce anger may turn away from Israel.”

5So Moses said to Israel’s judges, “Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor.”

6Then an Israelite man brought into the camp a Midianite woman right before the eyes of Moses and the whole assembly of Israel while they were weeping at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 7When Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, the priest, saw this, he left the assembly, took a spear in his hand 8and followed the Israelite into the tent. He drove the spear into both of them, right through the Israelite man and into the woman’s stomach. Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000. - Numbers 25:1-9

Just because you are one of  God's chosen people doesn't mean that you are exempt from judgement. The verse is about the leaders who lead Israel into idolatry and away from God who had just so recently delivered them from Egypt and provided everything for them. I mean think about it: How could they not be judged so harshly after all of that Don't forget they also received mercy because God did not annihilate them all!

FacePlant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

I wonder why Harry McCall even bothers to make arguments using the Biblical text because he never bothers to get the text correct. Who edits the Debunking Christianity anyway? Why does he think that Paul's writing is misogynistic? Is that what the text really saying? Can he substantiate his conclusions? Nope.

The first mark for Paul against women is that THEY ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken from Adam (who alone is created in the image of God). In 1 Corinthians 11: 7b – 9 Paul states this fact: “…he (the man) is in the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”


That does not mean that women are less than men or that women are not created in the image of  God. Paul would have agreed with Genesis 1:26-28

²⁶ Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,^[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” - Genesis 1:26-28

God created men and women in God's image. Genesis 2 gives the details  of how God did it. Paul is not contradicting scripture. Paul is, instead, discussing the roles of men and women  not ontology.  McCall did not show how Paul's words elevates men over women.  Let's look at  what Paul wrote that shows how this works out even clearer (I wonder why McCall does not quote the whole passage?)..

² I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. ³ But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,^[a] and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. ⁶ For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
⁷ A man ought not to cover his head,^[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own^[c] head, because of the angels. ¹¹ Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. ¹⁶ If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. - 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
Think about what the order of roles that is being stated.Woman submits to man. Christ submits to God. Paul believed that Jesus is God therefore Jesus is not inferior to God. 

¹¹ For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. ¹² It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, ¹³ while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, ¹⁴ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. - Titus 2:11-14

Therefore, extending the parallel that Paul is using, women are not inferior to men. And what about verse 13? Paul was not explaining that women were inferior in any way.

Secondly for Paul, when in a worship service all women MUST keep their faces veiled so the glory of God will be revealed in the men in attendance of whom God created alone in his image: “But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head.” (1 Corinthians 11: 5 - 6)

Verse 13 kills McCall's whole argument.

Simply put, all women must keep their ungodly faces covered with a veil if their hair has been cut short (shaved) or – if they don’t have a veil – then let them use their long hair to cover their faces. For if there are angles in the worship service, these angles would be shocked to see any woman worshipping with their face uncovered taking away the glory of God found only in men: “Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11: 10)

So why did Paul say "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16)? Simple: McCall is wrong.


For Paul, all men must keep their hair short as to display the glory of God: “For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” (1 Corinthians 11: 7) and “Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11: 14)

More importantly, in Paul’s view all women are the deceivers descended directly from Eve who alone listened to the serpent then mislead Adam: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” (1Timothy 2: 14)

The Bible does not lay the blame of sin on Eve, But Adam. Eve was deceived. She was innocent. Adam had the responsibility and the failure. 

¹² Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— - Romans 5:12

This being the case, Paul demands: “Let your women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also says the law. And if they will learn anything let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14: 34 - 35)

This cannot mean that women are not supposed to ever teach or preach in the Church. I've written more about at this link and you should also read here.

And

“Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (I Tim. 2: 11 – 14)

Thus all women have two strikes against them over and above Original Sin, and these two curses have been pasted to ALL women just as Adam and Eve’s collective disobedience has been pasted down on all humanity:

Um what curses?  

A. Women ARE NOT created in the image of God, but have been taken out of Adam making them forever inferior to men thus requiring them to cover their faces while in the worship assembly.

Already shown that this is not true. 

B. Women are weak and gullible in that only the woman was tricked by the serpent, who in turn deceived the man. Thus for Paul, all women are simple minded and gullible and should NEVER be given the chance to mislead men again.

The woman were gullible while the man outright rebelled against God. He knew better,. I admit that many people look at this point the way that McCall presents it, but that is not what the Bible says.

In the so called Lord’s Prayer, Jesus made an emphatic statement: “γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς” (with γενηθήτω in the aorist imperative) that God’s will (θέλημα) must be done in Heaven as upon earth.

Yes. And just what is God's will that will be on Heaven as it is on earth?

²⁶ So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, ²⁷ for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. - Galatians 3:26-29

Now when we put this statement in with Paul’s theology of women, sadly women bear a huge curse above men that can NEVER be forgiven either here on earth or in Heaven!

Um no. Not even close. It's only through Christ that we - male and female - are free. This isn't the point women are less than man. Just the contrary and McCall has failed to demonstrate that the Bible says women are inferior to men.

Harry McCall 

Please Pray for Harry McCall



Debunking Christianity: Why Women Especially Should Reject Christianity

Facepalm of the Day - Assuming that God is Limited To A Gender

Recently I had been "challenged" by Ryan Anderson on a previous blog post regarding God's gender. You can  read the post and the comments at this link: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/secular-outpost-20-questions-for_26.html. Grant it the post has nothing to do with the complete confusion of categories and logical fallacies included in the sophomoric concept that God is limited to human conceptions of gender. It appears that Ryan Anderson wanted to find something to argue against the posts in which I talk about God with the pronoun "He". Ryan Anderson complained:

I guess we don't have better noun than Father. Why no reference to "God the Mother"? Mother would certainly describe many of it's alleged qualities...

 His contention is that the Bible never applies feminine terms or imagery to God. Ryan Anderson refused to open his mind and really look at what the texts say. It doesn't take long to find a lot of material demonstrating that God has no gender as humans do and that both male and female imagery is applied by scripture to help us understand who and what God is and is not.  Here is a good link to an article on this subject written by a Christian.

Bible Verses They Never Taught You in Sunday School… | Purging my soul…one blog at a time.

People think that because the Bible is such an ancient text that it prescribes and condones sexist attitudes for men and and against women. Unfortunately some go as far as accusing the Bible of misogyny. The history of the church and God's people is filled with various examples of such stupidity and mistakes. This is because of our sin not because of our God - Jew and Christian alike. Such attitudes are not Biblical nor pleases God. God is described using female imagery showing that without femininity humanity is incomplete. Sure the ignorant my counter that if I'm right than its because of Christians coming along and changing everything that was Jewish. Completely wrong. Here is a link to an article discussing the feminine imagery of God from a Jewish views of scripture!

Visions of the Divine Gender in Textual Imagery By Esther Shkop

 Dr. Esther Shkop wrote:

One can only be impressed by the majestic beauty and profound emotion which Jewish sources, especially in the Prophets, conjure through the use of feminine imagery. The numerous and various strong feminine images more than balance the masculine ones. While we must remember that the Divine is beyond form and gender, human language by necessity conceives even the most Abstract in visual images. The multiplicity of feminine images alongside the masculine, and the context in which one or the other is used requires close study and (often mystical) understanding. Careful analysis of the Hebraic texts will reveal that religious experiences and the immediacy of God are to be found in the world of women no less than in that of men. It would be a tragedy - and a travesty - to "castrate" the language, for it would then remove God from the experiential milieus of both men and women, rendering us mortals mute, unable to commune with or communicate about our Creator. 

Silly, Atheist, God is for everybody. I totally agree with Dr Shkop on this. I think it's important to look at a few (not all) of the references she and the other referenced article are using.

1. Genesis 3:21
2.  Jesus Washing the disciples feet is noteworthy because in the first century only slaves and women did that work. This is what made the act so noteworthy given the status of slaves and women.
3. Jeremiah 31:20
4. Isaiah 42:14
5. Isaiah 46:3-4.
6. Deuteronomy 32:18
7. Isaiah 49:15
8. Isaiah 66:12-13
9. Isaiah 66:9
10. Isaiah 42:14
11. Matthew 23:37

You have got to love the following written by Dr Shkop:

Yet we must realize that God does have a name, the famous Tetragrammaton, or four-lettered name of Hashem - which is made up of the letters yud-heh and vav-heh. The ineffable name of Hashem is a contraction of the Hebrew verb, to be, in past, present and future, and is therefore often translated as The Eternal. However, in the Hebraic source this name is written as a feminine noun - and signifies the aspect of rachamim, which, as indicated earlier, is quintessentially feminine. Thus every blessing and prayer we say, every evocation of the Eternal Presence [Kabbalistically called the "Shechina" ] is in fact an evocation of the feminine concept - the unconditional love of the Creator. 

 The Bible presents men and women as ontologically equal and necessary to one another, but neither equivalent nor interchangeable. We need each other to fulfill the purpose of humanity and together we are the image of our Creator. God is neither male nor female and to try to cast those categories on the infinite God shows that one has no idea who God is.

²⁹ Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." - Matthew 22:29

FacePalm of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why I HATE Christianity

Here is a post hows a major issue. The article discusses why its author hates Christianity...not dislike...but hate. People who take this viewpoint think that they are being rational.  Let's look at the reasons given and really explore the logic and rationality behind those arguments.

I recently wrote a post on my blog explaining why I HATE Christianity which received over 3500 hits in one day, so I thought I would also submit it to DC to gauge the reaction here. I have put some of the Christian responses, and my counters at the bottom of the post. Enjoy!

There are many reasons why I hate Christianity--and yes, I do literally hate Christianity. Why?--because of the negative doctrines it promotes, and the resulting "moral laxity"--which the Christian philosopher Pelagius pointed out long ago. Let me explain by offering the following analogy.

Pelagius was not a Christian. He was a heretic. He denied that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. That isn't Christian. There have been two past posts discussing how bad the
"moral laxity" charge really doesn't hold any logic -  just blind emotion.


The following would be a life situation for many, and is analyzed from a Christian perspective:

Christians believe they are born bad, and cannot help but to do bad things because they are "born sinners." (Original sin) Now, a Christian man who says he loves his wife still beats her because she doesn't do as she is told. She forgives him for hurting her every time, because that is what her religion tells her to do. The man beats her because the same religion tells him he has authority over her, and he cannot help but to do bad things, so he does them thinking he can't help himself--but it's ok, because his god will forgive him. Until one fateful day when a beating ends in death, and he kills his wife with his bare hands.

What scriptures would a Christian stand on to believe that one the husband should abuse and beat his wife and that the wife should take it? Book, Chapter, and Verse? None. If a husband abuses his wife she should leave to protect himself. My prayer would be that he would seek to change and stop. When people make such a silly argument I wonder if it is out of ignorance or dishonesty.  How can someone read the following and come away thinking that the Bible says the husband can treat his wife any kind of way and please God.

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. - Ephesians 5:28

or

 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. - 1 Peter 3: 7

THIS IS WHY I HATE CHRISTIANITY. I hate the fact that this religion tells people they are EXPECTED to behave badly.

God does not expect us to behave badly. He expects Holiness.

 I hate the fact that there are NO CONSEQUENCES for their bad behavior in this life or the next for believers as long as they sincerely say "sorry" to Jesus. What about the victims?? What compensation do they get under the Christian system? None.   There is no justice for victims of Christian crime--unless it is through secular laws. Therefore, Christianity in and of itself is IMMORAL and UNJUST. This is the biggest reason why I HATE Christianity.

So let's get this straight: You will choose to go to hell, give up a personal and close relationship with God, because another sinner that you judge to be worse than yourself (and you are no better than they) finds the same forgiveness and love you reject. Yup, that's logical.

If people believed they could do the right thing the first time, and took responsibility for their own actions instead of having "Jesus" do that for them, the world would be a much better place to live in.

People who turn their lives to Christ don't get to avoid consequences. They are forgiven because of Jesus not for anything we have done. No one is good enough on your own. How many of the commandments have you broken? I'm not talking about adultery or stealing or murder...what about lying? Honoring your parents? Putting God first in your life? You know you have failed....no matter how much you have tried on your own. If you have broken any one of them you have broken them all. What about the victims of your sins and mistakes? How do you deal with the consequences? How are you going to pay for that? You and I are just as guilty of sin as anyone. The difference is that Jesus is the propitiation for those who put their trust in Him. What is your propitiation?
______________________________________

Christian response: You won't accomplish anything by hating anyone. Also, no studied Christians believes these things. You should read through the Gospel again and get to the core of Christian faith. No one likes an ignorant preacher- Christian or Atheist.

My counter: You are quite mistaken, as you can accomplish a great deal through hate--if you are hating the right things. Think of what could have happened if the world had not "hated" Hitler for instance. If more women "hated" their abusive husbands, maybe so many of them would not have had to die at their hands.

What is more powerful and accomplishes more: Love or Hatred?

And I have studied the religion EXTENSIVELY--I have taught it for 14 yrs at university level. The core of your philosophy is a convoluted version of "love" as illustrated above, and "forgiveness" for any heinous deed--which, as Pelagius noted long ago--leads to moral laxity. The proof is in the pudding so to speak, where we have a disproportionate amount of Christians in the penal system. You know, men who beat their wives to death--that actually get punished instead of being let off the hook.

So  most of the people in the penal system are both Christians and are in prisons for abusing their wives? Really? Got any numbers to substantiate that? This isn't the kind "love" commanded in the Bible. I mean just because there have been people who failed to live up to this love doesn't mean Christianity is wrong.

Another Christian response: Yeah, but if people don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. The woman is going to get beaten whether she does the dishes or not. There will always be a reason for the violence. The only realistic solution is to leave the source of the violence and abuse, be it a spouse who promised to love and cherish until death do they part or an all-loving God who promised even more.

Huh???!!! I hope no one would actually try to pass that as a response.

My counter: So, you are saying that beating a woman for not doing the dishes is justified because she is going to get beaten whether she does the dishes or not.

 No, I wouldn't.

 Thank you for pointing out another "beef" I have with Christianity--that being, women are treated as second class citizens, and even worse, they are treated as chattel--because that is how the Bible depicts women--as possessions. To people that follow the Bible, women are chattel--they were not even worth counting as "citizens" in the census taken by Moses in Numbers.

Sure. That's why Jesus had female disciples and women were the first witnesses to the Resurrection...oops....those points go against that the Bible tells men to mistreat women...sorry. When a man mistreats and abuse a woman it is because he is a sinner who needs Jesus not because he is a born-again Christian following The Bible.  If Cathy Cooper has been studying religion for such a long time it apparently wasn't Christianity she studied.

And without Augustine's "original sin" there would be NO NEED for Jesus either. And without the "sin" there would be NO NEED for women to be beaten by men who believe they are "sinners." Therefore, we are better off without the original sin, as we have no need to be redeemed from it--leaving no excuse for "being bad" other than our own choices. If you choose to beat someone to death it will then all be on you--and you must take the consequences.

That is why unrepentant wife beaters go to hell. Don't go to hell with them. Misogyny is really evil, but it is also a symptom of a larger problem: Sin. We are all sinners even if you are not a misogynist. God holds us accountable for following his law. If you sin - like abusing your spouse - you  will be held accountable. If you can't change and fully repent God will clean you up and fix your brokenness if you surrender to God and quit your hatred.

____________________

These are just a few reasons why I hate Christianity--there are many more.  I would love to hear how others feel about it as well.

Cathy Cooper

One must have better reasons than this to hate and reject God. It really boils down to the problem of evil.  A final word:

¹⁴ What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! ¹⁵ For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
    and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”^[f]

¹⁶ It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. ¹⁷ For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”^{[g] 18} Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

¹⁹ One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” ²⁰ But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”^{[h] 21} Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
²² What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? ²³ What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — ²⁴ even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? - Romans 9:14-24
Debunking Christianity: Why I HATE Christianity

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

David Wood posted an article about a book describing how Muslim marriages should run.  He not on;y points out a passage from the Qur'an many Muslims use to tell them that they should beat their wives and wives should allow themselves to be beaten. I realize some people might read this and not follow the link so here is the Qur'anic passage:

Qur'an 4:34—Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

The book the article that David writes about attempts to explain how would someone live this out:

Page 45 contains the rights of the husband, which include his wife’s inability to leave “his house without his permission,” and that his wife must “fulfil his desires” and “not allow herself to be untidy ... but should beautify herself for him ... ”

In terms of physical punishment, the book advises that a husband may scold her, “beat by hand or stick,” withhold money from her or “pull (her) by the ears,” but should “refrain from beating her excessively.”

Yup, Marital bliss alright. The truth is that not all Muslims would agree with that. But like David Wood observeed:

I hate to break this to everyone, but if Tarek Fatah rejects what this book says about beating women, he's not a "moderate" Muslim. He's not a Muslim at all, because he accepts Western values as a higher source of morality than the Qur'an.

Answering Muslims: Islamic Bookstore Sells out of Violently Misogynistic "A Gift for the Muslim Couple"

Biblical Condemnation of Rape and other Acts of Misogyny Part 2

Mark, you provided detailed comments and I think that they deserve a well-reasoned response that does not adequately fit in a comment box. So I'm putting my response into a new post. My responses are in red.font with the same rules as the previous post. To all those who may be reading this, this is the a continuation of line of conversation. Feel free to read the links that come before this post.

Atheism and Rape - YouTube
Biblical Condemnation of Rape and other Acts of Misogyny
 
I appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into your answer, even though I disagree with much. Like an Eskimo meeting a Zulu, it may be hard to appreciate each other’s position, but hey, a culture clash is always mutually educational.

I agree that such exchanges are very educational and helpful. I especially appreciate Mark's attitude. 

I  appreciate the conversation and the way Mark has conducted himself. No ad hominem to be found. I can appreciate that he does not  toss insults instead of why he disagrees. A lot of people could learn a lot from him, although I too disagree with much of what he has written.

I think that in order to say that FGM is objectively immoral (as opposed to subjectively immoral), you have to unambiguously show that God prohibits it. Other wise you’re just saying that if God is silent on an issue that I disapprove of, then he forbids it, and if he is silent on an issue that I approve of, then he approves it. In other words; subjective morality!. Like you say pointing out that God does not mention FGM does not equate with saying it is right - it just means that you have no objective basis for saying that is wrong.

I disagree that we don't have any way of knowing what God thinks of  female circumcision (aka FGM) because the Bible tells us that only males were supposed to circumcised. I'm dismayed that during the course of his follow-up comments, Mark did not explain why Genesis 18 and Romans 4 do not address the purpose of circumcision. I argued that it has no way of condoning female circumcision and excludes it as a way to honor God - no, more than that. It's against God's character making it immoral.

The background is this: Apologist William Lane Craig stated that atheists don’t have objective morals, which is quite a ballsy claim.

That's not what he argues. He argues that they can't consistently explain where those moral values come from. Please listen the following lecture so that you can hear what Dr Craig actually says:

Is God Necessary for Morality? by William Lane Craig - Apologetics 315

He reasons that “objective morals are morals that are valid and binding independent of human opinion” and “god’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in form of divine commandments which constitute moral duties”. So in other words, there is no role at all for human interpretation of the bible, because then it is not “independent of human opinion”.

I disagree. If we don't understand what the Bible is saying then we don't know what the divine commandments are. For example, how do your children  follow the rules you set, if they do not understand those rules. We know what the Bible says. It's clear. It's when you want to apply your own opinions and not just obey what you know it says is when we have issues.  For example, how many ways can you interpret "Do not steal."? How does your opinion affect the meaning of that commandment? There is no reason why it should. We choose to obey God or we choose to sin. I don't think the Bible requires opinion to understand what God means. If you get stopped by a police officer for speeding, does your opinion matter as to whether or not you get the ticket?  Nope. Why should divine commandments be different.

So, like me, you may feel strongly that FGM should be immoral. However, by WLC’s reasoning, you need “a divine commandment” that is “independent of human opinion” to say that FGM is immoral, and the bible doesn’t give you that.

Yes it does. If you are not a male descendant of Abraham, you don't have to be circumcised. If you are forced to be circumcised and told that it's in service to God, then you have been lied to. Immoral! End of story.

By WLC’s definition, nothing that is not explicitly permitted or forbidden in the bible has an objective moral basis.

I would like to see Mark or anyone provide such a statement from Dr, William Lane Craig. 

So your reasoning that FGM is immoral becomes as subjective as an atheist’s, no matter how strongly you feel it. And it’s not just FGM that has no “biblical” objective basis, but also environmental protection, organ transplantation, IVF and age of sexual consent.

So Mark admits that an atheist has not objective basis for condemning female circumcision other than his own subjective opinion. Right? As for the Christian Theist, I managed to demonstrate that the Bible does condemn female circumcision. And as for environmental protection, who says it's immoral? As for what God thinks about it, read Genesis 1:28

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” 

"Rule" includes to protecting and taking care of the earth. Who says organs transplantation is immoral? The Bible doesn't. And as for the age of sexual consent, the Bible tells us that a person should not be having sex until they are married. Our society has flipped that and has tried to change that and that is one reason why western ciivilization is in the state it is in. Imagine what would the world would be like if people stuck to their own spouse and married with the intent of raising any children that resulted? No need for abortions or divorce or any of the unpleasantness dragging our world.down straight to hell.

In my opinion, the value of a moral system is determined by its aim. The aim of biblical objective morality is to maximize obedience.

Who says that? Where in the Bible does it say that? I mean I agree that many churches are ran that way, but that's not what the Bible says. 

⁴⁰ Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time.- Deuteronomy 4:40


¹¹ For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.- Jeremiah 29:11


The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.- John 10:10

And there are many other scriptures which can be brought to bear here.

However, the aim of secular humanism’s morality is to maximize community health and happiness. Now that’s a moral system that is useful!

I agree with Dr. William Lane Craig that without God, there is no way to maximize community health and happiness. Truth is the fact that society has wised up in some ways - more fairness to women for example - but that's not going against God but better aligning ourselves with God, but falling away in others.

Just to go through the examples of misogyny that I quoted, I think you are using special pleading to avoid their nasty implications. I feel like the guy in that Monty Python skit trying to return a dead parrot – what’s in plain view is not being recognized.

I disagree. Since Mark has been kind enough to defend his examples of misogyny - and not just assert it, let's jump in.

1) Calling a woman unclean for a normal bodily function is certainly misogynistic. Did the men have to be kept isolated if they cut themselves and bled? There’s a vicious double standard at work. Telling women that their periods make them impure and unclean, and ostracizing them for weeks would damage anyone’s self-esteem. Have a moment’s pity for the poor girls with menorrhagia, whose periods can last up to three weeks. They would have spent almost all their adult life alone

I wonder if Mark is aware of all laws regarding how men can become ceremonially unclean? Just read Leviticus. Ceremonial uncleanness is about the right to take part in religious ceremonies. The reason for putting menstruating women outside the camp (and not into the wilderness) was for sanitation. They didn't have the same level of cleanliness we do today. I also don't think that we can say that this applied to when they lived in cities but when they were wandering around for 40 years. I also would ask if Mark, or anyone, could show the rate of menorrhagia among Hebrew women during that time? I mean if God keep their shoes from wearing out, and miraculously feed them manna and quail, I think keeping the women from getting menorrhagia would be minor thing.

2) I’m sure that Isaiah 3:16 doesn’t refer to all women – just the ones whose spirit hasn’t been beaten down. A woman with self-confidence? Who, God forbid, dares to flirt? Or wear accessories? Burn her, I say!! (In this case God was merciful, and gave them scalp lesions. He must have been in a good mood that day).

Isaiah was not saying anything of the sort. The women were not being punished for flirting. Why couldn't they just flirt with their husbands? No where are women told not to love themselves but are told to put their confidence in God, just like men are supposed to do. Sorry, Mark, the passage just doesn't say what you said it does. 

3) You seem fond of defending bible verses by saying that economical realities of the time made what seemed cruel an act of mercy. Let’s overlook the fact that economic realities could have easily been changing laws by say, giving women the right to work and to own their own property. Let’s also overlook the fact that even if it was a mercy, women were never given a choice or a say in the matter. No, my issue is that your claim that these were economic realities of the time is false.

I don't know why God didn't just give women the right to vote and own property.  It's not what he chose to do. I think you may forgetting that at the time this law was given, Israel was living in a nomadic existence. No one owned land or property. 

Let’s look at Egypt in the biblical times. Only several hundred kilometers away from Israel, but centuries ahead in terms of treatment of women. Things weren’t perfect, but women could own property, borrow and lend money, attend markets, ask for divorce and make wills. Some women became craftswomen, and received pay equal to men (the Western world still hasn’t caught up to this). They even created female teachers and philosophers (if you want to know what the early Christians thought of female Egyptian philosophers, Google Hypatia of Alexandria).

Hypatia was not even contemporaneous to the laws we are discussing here. I'm not sure why Mark brings her up. As for the status of women in Alexandria, did slave women have the same rights? Nope only  women who were royalty had that kind of privilege. Only less than the "1%". While the laws God gave Israel were applicable to everyone! Don't romanticize the ancient Egyptians so much.

So the fact that women could have their vows annulled by men had nothing to do with economic realities and everything to do with the fact that the bible was written by Galilean hillbillies. Even by the standards of their own time, they were rednecks.

Um, at the time Israel had gotten this Numbers, Israel had not reached the land of Israel, not even Galilee. And if you are one of those who think that most of the Torah was written in Babylon during the Exile, saying that numbers was written by Galileans is still wrong (anachronistic at best). I think the reason for the law also goes back to the roles men and women are supposed to have...such that men are the head of household - and that makes them responsible and accountable. Economic realities is part of it, but not the whole story.

4) On 1 Timothy 2:12, I’ll just point out that the Quiverfull movement today uses this verse to deny women education and the right to control their own destiny.

I wonder if Mark read the link to the previous post I wrote explaining exactly what this passage means. I know some morons use this verse to deny education to women, but that is not what the Bible says. And how does Quiverfull movement's delusion rebutt anything I said about 1 Timothy 2:12? It doesn't.

5) I’m sure that the Bible approves of monogamous, heterosexual sex in a marriage, but that is only a small slice of the phenomenon that is human sexuality. Everyone’s sexuality is unique, and we all have differing sexual needs. If someone approved of vanilla ice cream, but banned all of the other 300 flavors, wouldn’t it be reasonable to say he was anti-ice-cream?

Since God created sex and gave sex to humanity as a gift, don't you think God would know the best way to enjoy that gift? And no, I would not think that banning 300 flavor of ice cream but one mean that one has to hate ice cream - especially if other 299 flavors were poisonous and ultimately harmful  no matter how good they taste. God is looking out for us and wants what is best for us.

I agree that Oholah is an allegory for Samaria, but it’s still a sexist allegory. There certainly were women who were like Oholah in biblical times. They achieved financial dependence without giving themselves in marriage, and controlled their own destinies. They had a healthy sexual appetite, and were liberated enough to follow it. They dared to enjoy material possessions. All without harming anyone else. They were the first feminists of biblical times. If Oholah really existed, I would have liked to [have met] her. I’m sure she would have been an amazing woman.

Why does having "healthy sexual appetite" mean having sex with anyone would  have sex with you instead of enjoying sex with your spouse only? Ezekiel 23 does not describe women who are just liberated and happily determining their own destinies, it's telling us about women who are destroying themselves.

And like what all patriarchal men would like to do to feminists, she was abandoned, humiliated, mutilated, raped and murdered. I imagine the crowds of men were cheering when they heard the end of that story. After all, if Ezekiel didn’t think he could rely on misogyny to make his point, why tell the story?

If men who hear this story cheer it is because they missed the point. Mark conceded that Oholah is an allegory for Samaria. Oholibah stood for Jerusalem. People who heard this story understood that they were like prostitutes with reference to how they  belonged to God and they were lusting after other gods. In effect they were giving God - the one who had brought them out of Egypt, loved, and protected them as His special people - the finger (you know which one). They should have been inspired to repent if they understood the story - not to hate women. You do realized that even today women who live like she did end up abandoned, humiliated, mutilated, raped and murdered, right?

You say Oholah deserved punishment for prostitution. But nowhere does Ezekiel suggest that money was her motivation. However, in several lines he says that she was motivated by lust “for mounted horsemen, all handsome young men….whose genitals were like donkeys and emissions were like horses(!)”. Fair enough, sounds like a confident girl with a healthy libido. I interpret Oholah to be a mistress of multiple men rather than a street-prostitute.

How is being the mistress of multiple men better than being a street-prostitute? Which one would you want your daughter to choose to be? Personally, I don't want my daughter to be neither.

Anyone, the reasons Ezekiel uses to demonize Oholah is that she dared to be lusty. Oh the horror! Solomon can have 1000 wives, but god forbid a woman enjoy sex with more than one man.

Men are also forbidden from enjoying sex with more than one women. There is no problem with that.Solomon was condemned for doing that. It was the start of his down fall.

1) You’re right; the Bible doesn’t suggest that the Benjamites were righteous men. But the plan to carry off the dancers of Shiloh wasn’t hatched by the Benjamites, but by the elders of all the tribes of Israel. I think the bible usually implies they were God’s favored.

The elders of Israel were not congratulated on their action. The Bible merely records it.

And when the fathers of the kidnapped girls came to the Israel tribal elders, the elders told them “Do us a kindness by helping the Benjamites out, so that all that pussy can be put to good use” (I may be paraphrasing that last line a bit).

Again the Bible does not tell us: This pleased God, go and do likewise.

Of course, the Benjamites were never punished for taking the dancers of Shiloh, and all the men lived happily ever after.

How do you know that the men involved were never punished? Just because the Bible does not record what happened to these men - the Benjamites nor the other elders of the tribes - does not mean that they did not pay for their sins. I see a lot of people take this line of reasoning. Jesus said something we should remember:

²² Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” -  John 21:22

 

2) I think that by the time the Midianite virgins were rationed out like cattle, the war was already over.

Are cattle allowed to mourn for their dead relatives? No? The Midianite captives were. I think that Mark is reading a lot of  his own presuppositions into the accounts as to how these women thought and felt.

3) Perhaps your ‘re right, and David’s wives were given to his son rather than his neighbor. I’m sure that makes all the difference. It must have been all a big hoot for the lucky girls.

The part that’s missing from that verse is where the women were asked their opinion or permission. Evidently the biblical authors didn’t think they should have a say in whom they slept with.

They were wives of the King. In that day a woman expected to sleep with her husband. The point of the story was that David was getting payback for what he did to Bathsheba and her husband. When we do evil there are always consequences. Sometimes God takes those away when we get forgiven and sometimes we still have to live with them.

To finally wrap up:

Immoral behavior needs to be taught as much as moral behavior. If you don't think children need to be taught how to steal, just read Oliver Twist. Children develop their own personalities, with personal proclivities towards moral and immoral behavior varying from child to child.

In Oliver Twist, he had to learn to steal without being caught - not how to steal. Besides that is a fictional story. I would love for someone to point to a child who has never had to be corrected for  lying or stealing. Every person has immoral proclivities. And unless someone tells you, you have no idea what is right and wrong in many respects.

Once again, this variation provides a survival advantage for our species. A book called "Nothing To Envy" described life during the famine in North Korea. One haunting statement by a defector was:
"the kind and generous, the ones that shared, the ones that wouldn't steal.......they were the first to die".
Evolution has bequeathed impulses that we describe has right and wrong, but both give survival advantages in different situations. In times of plenty, like what we live in, stealing is considered wrong, and not needed for survival. In times of famine, only the thieves survived.

Crediting evolution for the impulses to know right and wrong is a tricky thing. What do you do with people who don't see right and wrong the way you do? Is something wrong with them? Why can't they see it? Are they less evolved than the rest of us? Is someone who would steal cable less evolved than someone who would not?  Why should those who don't see anything wrong with lying to certain people, murder certain people, or steal from certain people be allowed to live and procreate to pass on their messed up genes? Why? Why not?

What had happen' was.....: Biblical Condemnation of Rape and other Acts of Misogyny