A Christian Store Denied Him This T-Shirt…

Gotta love this story from Reddit, about an atheist who walked into a Christian store…

They had a t-shirt printer that was used to put verses. I asked if a printing of a Timothy 2:12 shirt was reasonable. Being Christians, they had never looked that far into the Bible, so they looked it up with their handy dandy on site Bible. When they recited the verse (A woman happened to be the reader of the Bible) they informed me of how disrespectful of their religion I was being. I was unsure of how I was being disrespectful by asking for a verse from their Holy Book.

In case you’re curious:

So I really want to know: Why is that disrespectful? It’s not really out of context — not anymore than any other quotation would be. It’s in the Bible. So what if most Christians don’t happen to agree with it?

(Thanks to Dave for the link)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://dbcooper.livejournal.com P.F. Bruns

    Remember, it’s only okay when THEY use it.

    • Dave

      jew

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1019365643 John J. Ronald

    Besides, there are WAY more offensive/crazy verses you COULD have asked for ;-)

    • Eric Drungo

      they’re* 

      • Guest

        no, his grammar is correct.

      • Murphium19

        “they’re*” ???
        What do you mean?

        • Myfsb8

          Grammar Nazi pwned :D

      • Flash1775

        Expand that contraction out to the full words. Would you actually say “They are way more offensive/crazy verses…”? http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

        • http://www.freedomloversacademy.com/ Kristina

          Sadly, I have seen that. I’ve always wondered why people would write it. Thank you for enlightening me! *sigh*

      • Dmacabre

        Maybe this comment was meant to be ironic?

      • Drobi095

        Hahahaha!

      • Edmond

        The contraction that everyone is looking for is “There’re” not “They’re”

        • Guest

          This is not the contraction you are looking for. Move along. 

    • Bubba Tarandfeathered

      Really, we’re quibbling over semantics here?

      • Lugosi2k

        Hey, leave the Jews out of this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=684968309 Charles M Taylor

    Some people don’t like the idea of turnabout being fair play.

  • Mac Mccarthy

    This points to a fundamental problem religions have: Over time, you must evolve into ignoring selected elements of your original religion and its holy words; or else you fanatically stick to them. But those who evolve towards softening their religion’s original harshness are always vulnerable to attack by their fanatics. 

    In the above case, Christians no longer accept this verse, so they ignore it — pick-n-choose religion. But you can find fanatics who will support it and attack your weakneed interpretation. This is the basic problem the Moslem religion is having at the moment…. Most Muslims, like most Christians, selectively ignore elements in their holy book that don’t make any sense any more; Al Qaida (and the Wahabbis) insist every single word be obeyed in strict literalness – the medieval interpretation.

    Religion is a defect in any evolving society – and society must evolve, or die.

  • Dan W

    It’s disrespectful because it’s not one of the passages that particular group of christians cherry-picked, obviously. Because how dare us atheists point out some of the more backward and ridiculous verses of their “holy” book.

  • Casimir

    I hear over and over that that particular verse is taken “out of context” by atheists trying to accuse the bible of being oppressive to women, even though it’s so totally not! (at least, according to Christians.)

    So I suppose what was ‘disrespectful’ was that this person wanted to print the verse without a long-winded block of apologetics afterward explaining that even though the bible says A, it really means the complete opposite.

    Remember: Jesus is king, but Context is kinger.

  • http://lessofthedifferent.wordpress.com/ Yui Daoren

    “The cherries in this bowl are OK to notice. The cherries in that bowl are disrespectful to notice.”

    Life is several bowls of cherries.

  • Lithp

    She probably thinks of it like a “hurr durr you claim to follow a book that says something that stupid” thing, but calling him disrespectful doesn’t change the fact that she does actually claim to follow a book that says something that stupid.

  • http://twitter.com/PeteHullah Peter Hullah

    This is why people like Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas More opposed William Tyndale’s translation of the bible into English. They argued that the people would not understand the meaning behind the words and needed it to be explained to them by priests.

    You can understand where they’re coming from!

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      the thing is that people would understand the meaning behind the words and it’d lead them away from the bible

    • Charles Black

      Simple they didn’t want people back then to read the bible for themselves & see the awful bits for themselves, which would be bad for the church’s wallets.
      Too late for them now of course there is always the internet. 

    • http://newstechnica.com David Gerard

      There’s no more reliable way to deconvert Christians than to get them to actually read the Bible.

      http://newstechnica.com/2010/07/19/atheists-enthusiastically-endorse-abbotts-bible-study-proposal/

      Really simple method you could probably get an annoying Christian to do: get four copies of the (same edition) Bible, read all four Gospels in tandem. “Look at all four perspectives.”

      • morwyn

        The problem with this approach is that so many fundamentalist Christians are functionally illiterate.

  • http://twitter.com/SagDec15 Mr. SagDec15

    So it’s ok to dismiss 1 tim 2:12, but not lev 10:22? they’re batshit crazy today

    • Peter White

      Leviticus chapter 10 has 20 verses so how can there be a verse 22?

  • OakWise

    In all fairness – I am VERY grateful that every christian I’ve met, cherry picks the bible.  Can you imagine if they actually tried to live by it?   Every football player, referee, parkign attendance, gas station clerk, doctor, cop, fireman, utliity worker, etc – ALL DEAD for working on Sunday.  
    Yes it’s sad, but I’m glad they’re hypocrites.   of course I wish they’d abandon this bronze age bullshit, but until that happens – I’m glad nearly all of them are far better people than their disgusting book allows.

    • Dave

      It’s Saturday actually ;)

      • http://twitter.com/thelilghost lilghost

        Actually, according to CHRISTIAN tradition…its Sunday. Yes, it is true that the original, intended Shabbat is Friday/Saturday, however Christian tradition (most, anyway..with the exclusion of Seventh Day Adventists and some other Sabbatarian sects), since Roman times, at least, has dictated that the Sabbath is on Sunday.  This practiced probably started in Rome and may have been enforced, which explains why it has become such a widely held belief/practice. 

        • Cohnwrithe1

          The Sunday comes from Mithraism (sun worshippers), who were pagans.  Yet another thing Christians adopted from pagans in an attempt to fill pews.  
          If you believe in the bible over the rulings of others (ie> if you worship God over Rome), then you’d still go to church on Saturday like your bible tells you too.
          Isn’t it amazing that non-Christians know more about Christianity than Christians?

          • Joseph Evans

            Or the fact that Jesus rose on the “first day,” i.e. Sunday.  The fact that is happens to be the same day that Mithraisans worship is quite coincidence.

          • MarleneB

            Not “adopted” but try *stolen*. As in the supposed “virgin” birth, moving Christ’s birthday to December 25th, ad nauseum.

    • Luke H.

      ya, all us Christians are terrible. but so is everyone else. But thank our God that we can be forgiven for every single bad thing we do. You’re definitely right that we are hypocritical. We always will be, because not a single person is, was, or will be perfect again (excluding our Savior Jesus), so we will mess up and fail to heed to the Holy laws placed before us. Hypocrites = yes, but there’s always room for one more :) † God Bless †

      • Carmelita Spats

        Adults with the capacity for moral reasoning take responsibility for their choices, both good and bad. Your ethical system is is built on a fundamentally immoral canker sore called “substitutionary atonement”. This is an obscene, vile, moral preachment. Christianity is a horribly narcissistic system and one that stunts moral reasoning. Grow up.

  • Sara

    First of all, a Christian who believes the temporarily binding Torah of Moses applies after the New Testament authors claim it’s been fulfilled has serious hermaneutical issues, and is viewing the Bible as a rulebook and not taking the narrative seriously. 

    Probably not worth mentioning on a comment thread, but taking Jesus as the Messiah and covenant renewer seriously and thereby seeing the Torah as fulfilled and no longer in effect is NOT cherry picking. (However, some Christians do in ways, but that’s not worth getting into without specific examples).Secondly, that poster isn’t quoting 2 Timothy 2:12, so I’m confused about that…2 Timothy 2:12 = διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  (I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed)

    A good article to see about women’s crucial role in the body of Christ from an educated Christian perspective would be this:
    http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      it’s not cherry picking so much as it is the picking of cherries

    • Lithp

      Well, drat, I guess you’ve got us outsmarted! Except you then have to ignore all of the verses about the OT laws being an “everlasting covenant.” And no TL;DR link is going to make “everlasting covenant” mean “temporary guidelines.”

    • Anonymous

      The Bible is extremely conflicted about keeping the Torah, as different authors had different opinions. At the two extremes you had the Jewish Christians who maintained that Jesus was an extension of Judaism, and you had the Marcionites who wanted a complete break from Judaism and didn’t include any of the Tanakh in their canon. Some of the Marcionite canon made it into the current canon along with books that were written by Torah-keeping Jewish Christians. The truth is, different books were written by different “Christianities”, and had to be later “harmonized” which compromises the author’s meaning of the text.

      What NT Wright does in that article is “motivated reasoning.” He has a conclusion already in mind, namely that the NT (and the Bible as a whole) is a “unity” and actually produces 1 “right” view. Then, he marshalls the evidence in a way that harmonizes the text across books by any means necessary. Here’s a thought, every fact he cites about the context could be true and it’s still not likely that 1 Timothy is an exaggeration. He’s taking select speculative evidence from history (how much does the author of 1 Timothy know about mystery religions?) and then extrapolating that he must’ve known about it because it allows him more freedom to deviate from the direct meaning of the text to match with something he considers more moral.
      To sum up, just because something can be harmonized in the Bible does not mean that there is a true meaning in common. You can’t start with the conclusion and then search for evidence. Sometimes I think forward progress is inhibited by having to prooftext any advance in morality and ethics into an ancient book that has completely different metaphysics then anyone today has. Even current believers don’t believe in concentric spheres of heaven where demons reign at the lower levels (the Biblical view of “powers and principalities”). You can’t choose historical context in this situation without giving it power universally where it damages other views that need other methods to be harmonized.

    • napoleonsolo

      Secondly, that poster isn’t quoting 2 Timothy 2:12, so I’m confused about that…2 Timothy 2:12 = διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  (I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed)

      You seem to be quoting the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:12 and calling it 2 Timothy 2:12 for some reason.

      Thanks for point out that every single translation and nearly all the commentary is incorrect. I didn’t know we had such a scholar in our midst!

  • Peter White

    The quote shown in the picture isn’t quite correct. The verse actually is about women not being allowed to teach or have authority over men. 

    1Timothy 2:12-15

    12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

    • Anonymous

      paul, who wrote that verse ( in his letter), was a misogynist asshole who thought women were worthless.  Nowhere in Messiah’s teachings were women disrespected like paul.  

      the major problem I have with modern christianity is that the so called followers are god damned hypocrites who’d rather follow paul and the aryan “jesus” than The Jewish Messiah called Yeshua HaMashiach whom they purport  to follow.

      paul was a fool and a false apostle that Yeshua’s own Disciples mistrusted and refused to allow into their circle, they chose a replacement for Judas, and it wasn’t paul.  Peter even had an argument with him about his methods.  Yet paul claims in Galations 2 that he rebuked Peter about his eating with gentile christians, that Peter didn’t like paul doing such a thing.  And that is completely wrong.  Peter was chastising paul for his teachings and completely contradicting Messiah message of love, charity and grace.

      Those that claim to follow Messiah, yet quote paul more than The Master Himself do now know Him, they are following a false doctrine, and it’s very evident how they live their own lives and completely disregard Luke 18: 18-30 and trample on Matthew 25: 31-46.  This is very sad, and in reality has been a main factor of how the world has become today.

      If Yeshua were to walk the Earth today, He’d be called a Communist and be in one of the Occupy camps somewhere in the world protesting alongside the others.

      • Lithp

        Well, Jesus couldn’t be the Messiah anyway. He kind of didn’t do the one major thing the Jews said he would do.

        • Anonymous

          No offense, but I refuse to recognize the name of the aryan “jesus”, to me His Name is Yeshua HaMashiach.  

          However, if you read this link http://www.mayimhayim.org/Festivals/Feast11.htm you will see that Yeshua fulfilled many prophesies, which is why I believe in Him :D

          On this note, I must get to bed, night, pleasant dreams :)

          • TheBlackCat

            Ignoring the fact that you are using the contents of a book to prove the contents of the book right (which is circular reasoning), just looking at the top 10:

            1. His family trees (he has two almost completely different ones) go through Joseph, who wasn’t his father.  There is no evidence even in the Bible that he had any biological relation whatsoever to Abraham.

            2. I don’t see anything in this prophecy about the messiah, it just talks about Judah ruling (which it didn’t much of the time).  

            3. Same as 1, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus’s biological family tree actually appear.  

            4. The prophecy is not talking about the town Bethlehem, but rather to a tribe, which had no relation to Yeshua HaMashiach.  It also doesn’t talk about Yeshua HaMashiach at all, it refers to a military leader who will wage war against the Assyrians.

            5. This prophecy does notappear anywhere in the old testament. If you notice all the references are to new testament verses talking about the prophecy, but there is no indication the prophecy was ever actually made.

            6. I can’t get the math to work out on this.  Besides, the prophecy is pretty specific about things happening which again didn’t happen.

            7. This is a mis-translation.  The proper translation is “maiden”.  Further, the prophecy was about events that were supposed to transpire during the reign of a king who died hundreds of years B.C., and Yeshua HaMashiach  didn’t come close to fulfilling any of this prophecy.

            8. That wasn’t his name

            9. Wait, I thought you said Jesus wasn’t his name?  And once again, the only reference to this prophecy is in the new testament.  Where is there any evidence that anyone living before hin had made this prophecy?

            10. Once again, this wasn’t his name.  And once again, the only reference is in the new tesament.

            So out of the top 10 prophecies they listed, 3 apparently were not even made, 2 are due to mis-translations or misunderstandings, and not a single one was actually fulfilled in full (according to you).

            I could keep going on like this.  Overall Yeshua HaMashiach did an absolutely terrible job at fulfilling the prophecies.

        • TheBlackCat

          Did he do any of the things they said he would?  Besides the acrobatic donkey/horse trick, which was only a small part of a much larger prophecy that he didn’t fulfill the rest of.

  • Peter White

    In that case can you explain what Jesus means in Matthew 5:17?

    ” 17″Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ” 18″For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sdanielowens Daniel Owens

      Peter, Peter, Peter, if you cared you would look it up. How do you explain the apparent contradictions in your own life/own words? By showing that your actions/words should never have been brought into that context in the first place. 

      • TheBlackCat

        Great, patronizing, condescending, vague non-answers.  If the context was so obvious why can’t you just give it to us?
        I don’t have to explain the contradiction in my own life/words because I never claimed to be the omniscient, omnipotent creator of the entire universe, nor have I claimed my life/words to be absolute laws that must be followed on pain of eternal torture.

    • Jorgegoyco

      I’ll give it a shot. The scholars and leaders of the day were doing everything they could to uphold and live out the law. This very complicated law that touched every part of life. Like 600+ laws. They would take every word and study it and then “call out” the ones who were not following it to the “T”. Following the law pefectly was the only wat into Heaven. So when Jesus came, all of a sudden, he was teaching that you were’t going to Heaven  by following the law (actions), but by changing you rheart (attitude, etc.). For example, not killing because it’s illegal vs. not killing because that thought is not in my mind. I am not jelous or angry or hateful. Basically, Jesus “fulfilling” the law meant that he was the amalgum of what the laws were all pointing to…that you can not follow the law perfectly. But Jesus could. Then that gets into the sacrifice that was needed to wipe sin away that before Jesus was a “Spotless Lamb”. It gets pretty complicated, where you’d have to talk some about Adam and Eve and how there was no death before they ate the fruit and disobeyed, and also about Statan and his disobedience, and then maybe about who God is and why He created and all that.

  • Peter White

    If the Torah of Moses is no longer binding then can you explain what Jesus means by the following from Matthew 5

    17″Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ” 18″For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

  • Mysciencecanbeatupyourgod

    This verse is actually the one sited BY THE CHURCH as the justification for it’s chauvinistic policies and its desire to subjugate women. This customer could just as easily been a Christian whose church was debating wheather or not to start ordaining female priests and wanted to voice his opinion against it. (an opinion still shared by the majority of Christian churches.

    Well, I guess exposing mysoginists as the assholes they are does indicate that you don’t respect them.

  • Anonymous

    the churches who subjugate women are ones that follow that misogynist asshole false apostle paul.  The ones that give women complete freedoms reject paul’s “teachings” and teach the truthful Gospel of Messiah in full, which is about love, charity and grace.  Which in and of itself is total forgiveness :)

    • Anonymous

      I wish I would have found a church that actually taught what Jesus preached instead of that OT crap before I’d lost my faith.

    • Bonsaikc

      Really. When Jesus said, “I come not to bring peace, but a sword” and that you must hate your mother and father and brother and sister. All about love and charity and grace. Hm.

    • Anonymous

      How do you distinguish the “truthful Gospel of Messiah” from the other parts of the Bible? Where does the divine inspiration come from to recognize the truth? What makes you, or anyone else, better at doing that than all the other people who have tried?

    • http://www.facebook.com/sdanielowens Daniel Owens

      Paul never said “All women at all time must always follow this command.” Stop acting like that is what he said. It is POSSIBLE to interpret it that way but, the history of interpretation shows that people did not always understand it that way. 

      Even if that IS what he meant, it is ok to change things. Why do people think that teachings cannot change? Is that in the instructions of the Bible or something?

      • Brian-sama

        It may surprise you, Daniel, to learn that there is a large population of Christians who insist that the Bible in its entirety is immutable.  Part of this idea comes from the Gospel of John:

        1.1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

        To many, this suggests that God and the Word (the Bible) are one and the same, and that to change the Bible would be to change God himself.  Considering God is perfection, asking him to change is a tall order indeed.

        Further support for the idea that the teachings of the Bible can’t change comes from Revelation 22:
        18 - I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.19 - And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.Of course, all of this really is just interpretation. Still, when someone’s interpretation leads him to believe that calling for theological progress is the path to hellfire, there’s really not much we can do.

      • Medussa

        Teachings can change?  Really?  So who decides which teaching changes in which direction?

  • Anonymous

    I’m going to guess that “you’re being disrespectful” was just the end result of a slightly more complex thought process. I don’t know how the guy looked at the time but it’s entirely possible that they judged him, from appearances, from the tone he employed, and even from the fact he gave them the verse number but didn’t actually say it out loud, to be an atheist or something similar. Once they decided he was not of their camp, it becomes instantly obvious that the purpose of asking for such an inflamatory verse is mockery, which is why they would say he was being disrespectful. Had he come in looking like this, they may have reacted differently, even though they might have still declined.

    The irony of the fact that certain verses of their own holy book can cause offense and outrage to the very people who claim it to be a perfect moral guide almost certainly went right over their heads.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anthony-Okafor/1759887752 Anthony Okafor

      personally, I think she assumed he was atheist because no “real christian” would be able to handpick that verse and put it on a t-shirt lol

      • http://www.facebook.com/sdanielowens Daniel Owens

        Like you picture! Way to persevere in hard times. As for you comment I think that you are missing something really simple. The motive was offensive and not the verse. The post is flawed because it is playing on his and his supporters ignorance. Please don’t be sucked up into it. Could not someone do the same thing to you? Every TV sitcom that has lasted for more than a year plays off of the reallity that language and relevance insist on. If you don’t have the same relevance assumed in the conversation, then words can mean anything.

        I’m a Christian and don’t mind that you (or anyone else) poke fun at the Bible. It says some weird shit! Responsible, thoughtful and kind people move past these sort of texts. The ones who don’t actually like this sort of publicity: they are standing up for god after all!

        • Medussa

          Daniel, you’re right, something that is important to me could very well be taken out of context and ridiculed.  
          The difference is that nothing that is important to me is being used to deny people their rights, being used as a justification for violence, or has a history of supreme violence against others.  

          The bible is held up as inerrant.  I can’t get married because of it.  Women’s rights to abortion are under attack because of it.  Slavery and witch hunts were justified with it.
          It’s not a simple case of being disrespectful.  If the people in that store, and the majority of christians everywhere, gets to cherry pick what they like and what they don’t, how DARE they refuse me the right to decide that homosexuality is a perfectly good way to choose my partner?

          The disrespect is theirs:  insisting that they get to cherry pick, and no one else gets to.

          • thinking….

            The Bible says many things, and they are metaphors. So in some cases, if studied correctly you will find that the verses are not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically. And also, their are many different versions of the Bible, since it was translated from Hebrew into other languages before translated into English. What many have realized, is that the Bible didnt mean that you shouldnt be homosexual. It was stated like that because it wasn’t customary. So if you go back to the text that mention homosexuality and plug in the words customary or not customary, then you will realize that the Bible has nothing against homosexuals. But that at the time, homosexuality wasnt “customary” or in other words, something that people did back in the day. Hope this helps you out. and for the christians who judge you because of that, let them know that no one can judge you but God. =)

            • Medussa

              thinking, I DON”T CARE IF CHRISTIANS JUDGE ME.  They are hypocrites for it, but there are worse things to be than a hypocrite.  Whatever, they can see the world any way they want to.

              However, a huge majority of christians did much more than that, they donated time and money to pass a purely christian law, and it passed.  Prop 8 was drafted, proposed, staffed and funded by christians, who all acted on the interpreting the bible the way it is currently translated .  Your point is taken, but it doesn’t address the issue at all. Personally, I find nothing offensive about a collection of myths from the bronze age (and believe me I realize they are metophors), or dedicating your life to it (although I will not profess to understand that at all).  I find it offensive that people think it is something to impose on others.

              As long as the bible is used to justify bigotry and discrimination, against queers or women, or slaves for that matter, many of us will continue to point out every hypocrisy, every contradiction, every immoral value it represents.  If you want to rectify the constant attack by atheists against the bible, try understanding our point of view, and challenge the bigots in your own ranks.  I, as a white woman, don’t go around telling people of color to get over their anger at racism, I try to challenge white people to change their racist behavior.  I suggest you try that approach with biblical misinterpretations.

            • TheBlackCat

              “metaphors” That word, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

              So let me get this straight: your reasoning for thinking the Bible isn’t against homosexuality is to replace all instances of homosexuality with a completely and utterly unrelated concept?  On what basis did you decide that these sections were “metaphors” to begin with, and how did you decide they were matophors for this?And as a result the Bible tells us that anyone who doesn’t follow contemporary customs should be killed and will be punished forever in Hell?  That is supposed to make it okay?

        • TheBlackCat

          You keep asserting that we are ignorant about the verse, but you keep refusing to actually explain what is wrong about our understanding of it.  If you are so upset about our ignorance that you have to keep posting on it, then do something about it and educate us.  

          Around here was have seen too many people throwing around vague assertions of “context”, “metaphors”, and other such notions with no backing that we don’t take such comments seriously unless someone can actually back it up.  Your promises that there is some backing somehow somewhere does not hold any weight, we have seen to many people claim this only to run away or post transparently wrong responses when pressed to actually back their assertions.  

          I suspect you will find many people here know at least as much about the Bible as you do, so if you are going to convince them you actually need something solid and substantial.

  • Michael

    If there was a bookshop like that over in the UK and you asked for Luke 19:27 you’d probably get reported and added to some terrorist watchlist or other.

  • http://allusiveatheist.blogspot.com/ T. Ray

    The problem with fundamentalists is not that they are misinterpreting their revered texts;  It’s that that they truly respect it.

  • Anonymous

    The Old Testament is so passée…Everyone knows that Jesus and the New Testament is in vogue these days… :D

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      except when you want to oppress the gays… then the OT totally counts

      • Anonymous

        And if you point out that Jesus wanted to share wealth and food with fellow men, we get heat for accusing him being a socialist! What a world we live in!

      • TheBlackCat

        I always find it ironic that the same people who claim to reject the Old Testament still seem so hung up on the ten(ish) commandments (or one set of them).

        • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Uly

          Well, I’m okay with some of those ten commandments. I don’t want people running around killing other people or slandering them in court.

          Funnily, none of those commandments is “Don’t be gay, yo”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

            or Thou shalt not abuse children

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Antonio-Pe-Yang-III/1361720319 Antonio Pe Yang III

            Well, the loophole I normally hear from apologists is that “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” covers homosexuality

            • Anonymous

              Adultery cannot be committed by anyone who is not married.  Think again.  That may cover 6 states and DC when you are talking about gays, but it doesn’t cover the rest of the country.

              • Erp

                Adultery can be committed by an unmarried person as long as the other person is married.  However the  commandment was specifically about adultery where the woman was married and the man might or might not be (he was ‘stealing’ someone else’s property).  The rules about male homosexuality were taken from elsewhere in the Bible (oddly enough the rule against eating blood which was denounced in multiple places including Acts 15:29 is not considered binding by the vast majority of Christians).

            • Anonymous

              Actually, in some laws adultery is literally defined as “having intercourse with someone who isn’t one’s spouse”. Even leaving aside the legal recognition of same-sex marriages, intercourse is defined as penis/vagina sex

          • Anonymous

            Another “funny” thing is that we don’t need their dogma.  We have laws and the US Constitution upon which to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior.  We don’t need no stinkin buybull.

    • http://conuly.dreamwidth.org/ Uly

      Isn’t Timothy the NT?

      • Anonymous

        Yes, it is. Most of the more enlightened Christians get around it by saying that they are not the words of God, but of Paul. Paul was a raging asshole. Of course, if you ask them why, if that sentiment is not meant to be that of God, they weren’t eliminated from the text, you’ll get a lot of rhetorical dancing and ducking and weaving.

        Try to get a straight answer on if those words (or any number of ridiculous stuff in the NT) should be in the Bible or how they contribute anything of value if they are plainly wrong, and watch the circus begin.

      • Anonymous

        You’re right! My apologies for not checking up on that. I should have double checked Wikipedia first. D’oh!

  • Jake

    The quote was from a letter or a forgery of a letter and neither was nor  purported to be the word of God. 
    Just because something is “In the Bible” doesn’t mean it is the word of God or Christ.
     
    - Whether you believe the narrative or not, and whether or not it is in part or whole fiction, the Bible is a historical document and a collection of allegorical teaching…. it also contains some letters from one person to other people. This letter, apparently, may be a forgery in any case as the guy who it has been attributed to may to have been in prison at the time.So saying – look how terrible Christianity is because *this* awful thing is “in the Bible” …. “Oooh… ooooh…. in the *Bible*” is either misunderstanding the faith and the book or deliberately undermining people’s beliefs. It’s rather pointless and rather childish. So Paul was wrong – so what? It doesn’t mean that Christ was… and Christ’s message was to love your fellow man… which is what Tolstoy based his beliefs on – Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy and based much of his philosophy on that corresponsence and on Tolstoys writing – it’s the message of Martin Luther King, John Lennon and several atheists to boot. I don’t really see the point in mocking it. The t-shirt is disrespectful because it could mislead people into thinking it was actually something supposedly believed or taught by God or Christ and thus Christianity in itself is a bad thing.Fundemental Christians and Fundemental Atheists have a lot in common – they both often seek to indoctrinate their views  and to hell with the facts – and they both make the mistake of treating the compilation of documents we now know as the Bible as some sort of Holy text in it’s entirity – bits of it are, should you believe them, but not random letters.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      random letters… that are in the bible.

      Can you please colour code the pages so we all know which bits “matter” and which are just filler because they had to reach a certain word count?

    • ACN

      Fundemental Christians and Fundemental Atheists have a lot in common –
      they both often seek to indoctrinate their views  and to hell with the
      facts – and they both make the mistake of treating the compilation of
      documents we now know as the Bible as some sort of Holy text in it’s
      entirity – bits of it are, should you believe them, but not random
      letters.

      Ah, it’s about time someone trotted out the “everyone who has  a strong opinion about anything is a fundamentalist” meme.

      If only we all held Jake’s understanding of the “sophisticated” theology! One wherein Paul may not be trustworthy, but whoever the hell the gospel authors were, it’s obvious what message the central (likely mythical) character they all inconsistently wrote about was trying to communicate. Do tell Jake, what parts of the babble are holy books, and which aren’t? How does one ascertain the divine inspiration of the text, and which version of the text is divinely inspired? Sure hope it wasn’t only the autographs, because no one has those.

    • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/ PsiCop

      While there’s something to the philosophy about reading the Bible you’re espousing, there’s a basic problem with it. If we accept as a “given” that some parts of it are more valid and more credible than others, how do we decide which parts those are?

      It’s a very simple question, but it leads to an infinite number of answers. It leads to disagreements among those who revere the Bible. And ultimately it leads to a lot of arbitrary decision-making.

      As for the “Fundamental Atheists” you mention … and which so many other people talk about … there is no such thing. You can’t have a “fundamentalist” anything, without there being some discreet “fundamental” at its heart. In the case of fundamentalist Christians, their “fundamentals” are their Bible and their beliefs about it. Atheists have no “fundamentals” you can point to or talk about.

      Referring to people as “atheist fundamentalists” is just your own way of dismissing them. It’s name-calling, and as such, is childish. Would it really harm you to admit that, perhaps some of these atheists you dislike, may actually have a point about how some Christians read the Bible? The philosophy about reading the Bible that you cited, is a way of doing just that. Couldn’t you have just said, “You know, this guy may have had a point,” and been done with it? Instead of getting upset about it and calling people names over it?

    • Anonymous

      “So saying – look how terrible Christianity is because *this* awful thing
      is “in the Bible” …. “Oooh… ooooh…. in the *Bible*” is either
      misunderstanding the faith and the book or deliberately undermining
      people’s beliefs. It’s rather pointless and rather childish.”

      Kind of like what people do to the Quran, right? Or any other non-Christian faith. Because that’s just childish.

    • TheBlackCat

      This letter, apparently, may be a forgery in any case as the guy who it has been attributed to may to have been in prison at the time.

      Yep, we can definitely dismiss all parts of the bible where the person who supposedly wrote it could not have done so because the timing doesn’t match.

      Of course that leaves out pretty much everything in the New Testament besides a few of Paul’s letters.

        and Christ’s message was to love your fellow man…

      Definitely, it is not like Christ ever openly wished pain or suffering on anyone else, or ever attacked or belittled his own followers.

      The t-shirt is disrespectful because it could mislead people into thinking it was actually something supposedly believed or taught by God or Christ and thus Christianity in itself is a bad thing.

      Uh, the Epistles are supposedly things that Christ supernaturally taught to people after his death.  That is why they are in the Bible in the first place.

      And it isn’t like it is at all out of line with either the old testament or the gospels.  Even the gospels treat women as second-class citizens.  They aren’t as direct about it as the Epistles, but the ways the rules are addressed single out women particularly.

    • Anonymous

      I get what you are saying here, that taking other books besides the Bible and using every word as livable wisdom and insight is not applicable.  But other than a rare handful of other books, most other books do not shape people’s daily lives as much as the Bible does (although there can be arguments for “Fear and Loathing” and “Animal Farm”)

      I think it’s more along the lines that people feel the Bible is a sacred book and someone mocking that book offends them, without them realizing there are scriptures that they are not familiar with that can be flawed in word.

      I think the main issue here is that so many people take certain parts of the Bible and use it to discriminate against others who do not believe in this ancient book as they do.  It’s an exclusionary sort of world they live in, where any findings of certain verses that they don’t happen to agree with because we moved forward in today’s society conflict with other verses that match their position on who they feel is good or not.

      • Anonymous

        The main issue here is that the so called “Christians” don’t want to acknowledge that their main religious text is full of hate, divisiveness, tribalistic nonsense, lies, propaganda, and 95% fiction.  They cherry pick verses upon which to build a worldview that is totally at odds with reality, fact, science, and the last 500 years of accumulated knowledge.  Instead preferring to live in a little tiny world that is black and white with no color, nuance, or complexity.  These are simpletons who cannot live in the real world.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Antonio-Pe-Yang-III/1361720319 Antonio Pe Yang III

      //Christ’s message was to love your fellow man…//

      Uh, right.

      Luke 19:27
      But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.

      Jesus loves me…like my psycho-ex

  • Alanpatton1716

    any one who believes in a book that says a man swallowed a whale would believe anything

    • TheBlackCat

      Hey, don’t diss Pinnochio!

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Antonio-Pe-Yang-III/1361720319 Antonio Pe Yang III

      I happen to know that an adult orca can swallow a full-grown man.

      Just in pieces :(

  • TRUESPEAKER

    RELIGION IS BULLSHIT… THOSE WHO FOLLOW RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT ARE IDIOTS… IS THAT SIMPLE.

    • TheBlackCat

      I don’t think anything is ever that simple.

  • Jake

    Eh?! – dunno about Christ! But I didn’t say those things!!
    I don’t have any theology sophisticated or otherwise. I’m not a bible scholar and I haven’t read loads of it… I thought that “Friendly Atheist” was a nice name and that this would be a sort of friendly thread.

     So I’m really sorry about using the term “Fundamentalist Atheist” and the offence it’s caused. Where I come from it’s just a term that refers to people who feel so strongly about the non-existence of God that they want to persuade others to feel the same. But I understand that to some of you it might be a term of abuse and I withdraw it completely. But I think you’re right it was a bit of name calling, so, sorry.

    I’m not upset about anything, I just thought I’d state something that seemed clear to me and again I’m sorry if I have misunderstood the bible and if that has offended any one – Atheists, Jews or Christians.

    My point is a very simple one: There are bits in the bible where it says things like “And God said…” and there are other bits that don’t say that…. if the book was Tom Sawyer and someone wrote a letter in it who was not Tom Sawyer to a bunch of other people who were not called Tom Sawyer – then no-one would seriously suggest that the whole of Tom Sawyer was the word of the character Tom Sawyer.
    (I haven’t read Tom Sawyer, so I didn’t choose it to make any veiled point – it was just the first book that came to mind.)

    I don’t say that any one part of the bible is more valid than others – I certainly don’t know which bits would be. I don’t say that there is or is not a God. I just thought that it was the case that only little bits of it have “The word of God” in. It’s a collection of all kinds of things, writings from different people – mortal people – about what may or may not have happened. It was never claimed, although you may believe it, to have been dictated by God as an entire book.

    I agree that people cherry pick from the bible on all sides of the argument – but I don’t think I am. I’m just saying that what Paul writes is not a quote of God. Personally, don’t think it’s right to say that if something is in the bible it is to be treated with any reverence and that arguably the only bits that are, would be what God or Christ was quoted or attributed as saying.

    I think I have been misinterpreted as a bible thumper or creationist – I just felt a little sorry for the Christians in the story because it does seem that the t-shirt incident was an attempt to mock them. I don’t see why anyone can’t be a Christian and think that there are things in the bible that are wrong – God never said ‘em whether you believe in him or not.

    Live and let live, I say! – I’m just a guy who woke up with a slight hangover and saw this story on facebook and tried to take the edge off the day by taking part. I don’t even know if I’ve been clear.

    • Anonymous

      OK so I guess you can disregard this if you’re an agnostic (“I don’t say that there is or is not a God.”) but if you are a Christian I have a question:

      You say that there are a lot of things that are not thw word of God. In this you are absolutely correct. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible consists in stuff that is not God giving instructions or otherwise communicating. So my question is: Do you think that the rest of the Bible should be eliminated? Why conserve huge swaths of the book that serve no purpose other than to muddle the message of the deity?

      It would sure make for a much, much thinner book. It would also happily eliminate the psychotic delusions of Revelations, which is a plus.

    • Maps

      Thank you for your humility.

      But it’s a long-held Christian doctrine that the entire Bible, including the Pauline epistles, was inspired by God. So many doctrines of the church and so much of its theology would fall apart if they were to start denying the inspiration of the Bible. What you are suggesting would change the face of Christianity forever if it were to be implemented. In fact, seeing as the Gospels (where we get most of our information about Jesus himself) don’t start with “And God said…”, I’m not sure you could even call such a religion Christianity.

      As for your Tom Sawyer analogy, there are several flaws. First, Mark Twain would presumably not have the letter in the book at all unless it was in some way relevant to the plot. Therefore, 1 Timothy must have *some* significance, or God would not implicitly allow it. Secondly, in the Tom Sawyer book, the letter would obviously be attributed to a character besides Tom Sawyer; Twain would not leave the true author of the letter ambiguous, because that would lead readers to assume it was the main character Tom. That would be a terrible move by the author.

    • Medussa

      Jake, that same bible is being used to deny me the right to marriage.  Sorry if I don’t have a let and let live attitude about it.  

      It all sounds nice and fuzzy, until you see the damage and pain being caused by the bible and it’s followers.  Against queers, against women who want an abortion, against people who have been raped, the bible was used to justify slavery and witch hunts, and used as an instrument of terror in bible camps and children’s youth groups.  

      I was not a “fundamentalist atheist” (your words)  until christians took away my right to marry.  And printed their religion on my money.  You get the point.
      If you disapprove of the anger inherent in some us, I suggest you look at your fellow christians as the cause.

  • Anonymous

    Patriarchal beliefs like the one shown in this verse don’t have any necessary connection with god beliefs; in fact patriarchal beliefs have an empirical basis. We can’t observe or communicate with gods, but men have had to live with women all along.

  • Anonymous

    Hmmmm. I wonder what would happen if “Andy the Gelato Shop” owner printed t shirts. . .

  • http://twitter.com/arensb arensb

    It’s out of context because it only appears in flawed printed versions of the Bible. The True Edition of the Bible, the one that only exists in people’s minds and has all the bad parts taken out, doesn’t have it.

    • Dave

      ROFLROFLROFL, i make myself laugh when i think of eggs.

    • Solidguyinsd

      Are you serious? You mean the “true edition” that has the word homosexual in it when that would DID NOT exist at the time nor did a comprable word. But yet there it is. Is the TRUE BIBLE the one you just get together and vote on and that’s what it says . Flawed printed versions That is hilarious if you want the true bible get a Jefferson bible. Take out all the miracle stuff like virgin birth reserection and Hell which was added later to keep people scared and in line Kinda like the “terrorist are out to get us” scare that worked so well Ask youself this. In the new testament where it has the; “neither the homosexual adulterers sorcerers and all liars” that people condem gays with, cause Leviticus is weak at best, the word adulterers which did exist in Jesus’ time and he spoke about it. “if a man leaves his wife and marries another he is an adulterer “. So in most churches esp those that Condemn gays, say nothing to the on average half the flock who is divorced and remarried that they are not going to heaven Jesus was quite clear on that and I doubt any of Jesus quotes can be called “bad parts” so why are they not raising money to stop these evil divorcees that are really destroying marriage (they got a divorce) and passing laws banning it???? I want a legimate answer from a Christian on this one

      • TheBlackCat

        I cannot even begin to parse this text.  Translation, anyone?

        • Reyjacobs

          “The True Edition of the Bible, the one that only exists in people’s
          minds
          and has all the bad parts taken out, doesn’t have it. “

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jason-A-Quest/100000875744905 Jason A. Quest

        “Are you serious?”  No, he isn’t.  yeesh.

        Has anyone else noticed that the most zealous people (theist, atheist, panentheist, whatever) are also the most lacking in a sense of humor?

      • Anonymous

        It was clearly a joke.

  • Anonymous

    The verse picked could have been worse.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Geo-Whetstine/1620763849 Geo Whetstine

    What is it that brings such joy to the juvinile mind 0f the athirst whenever they find a contridiction within the bible. It’s only an instuctional manual kids. Just a road map to help us find our way. You don’t have to come along.You stay here and wait.But lose the hatred ,the anger,and the petty jealously.It’s really ugly.

    • Saltyestelle

      I suppose it’s because we feel such despair, seeing the way in which some believers blindly follow this magic book…… and seeing a clear example of nonsense in the magic book gives us a tiny jolt of hope, that the rational part of said believer’s brain will eventually reject such nonsense in favor of just being a good human being.

    • thanto_

      Telling women to be silent and have no authority over men isn’t ugly?  Misogyny isn’t hateful?  I don’t suppose you’re old enough to remember, or perhaps you didn’t pay attention in school, but women didn’t get the right to vote until about 50 years ago precisely because of this kind of thinking.  The problem didn’t get fixed until women got angry and started a movement.

      • Anonymous

        More like 90 years. Women’s suffrage was allowed in the early 20th century in most western countries

        • Erp

          Though not till the 1970s in Switzerland (1990 for one Canton).

          Note that some churches that allow the laity to vote in church meetings  (such as whether to spend money on fixing up the church building) still don’t allow female laity to vote (e.g., Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).    Within many US mainline churches this is still fairly recent (1950s/1960s).  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      It’s a road map that leads to the dark ages. Some of us dont want to go there

    • Anonymous

      That’s a good question. I’m not completely sure why I have such a positive emotional reaction to such things, but I have some ideas. 

      I think everyone likes to have other people reinforce their beliefs. I think that my enjoyment is especially strong in this case because I have felt so oppressed by Christianity for so long, and it has been considered socially unacceptable to say anything negative about it. There’s a feeling of freedom about being able to say what I really think. Feeling free after long oppression is a very joyful feeling.

      A good example of the oppressiveness of Christianity is your patronizing post. Calling us “juvenile” and “kids” is about as arrogant as you can get, and that kind of condescending attitude is very prevalent among Christians in this country. Being spoken to that way brings up an immature desire to tell you to “go ____ yourself, you arrogant _____.” Arguing with you would be more mature, and I’ve argued with a lot of Christians. However, arguing gets old, and has not been very productive so far. Satire has a long and illustrious history in such contexts, and has the advantage of not dignifying ridiculous beliefs by taking them seriously. It’s also more fun, and hence a relief from some of the seriousness of religious argumentation.

      I think the sense of joyful freedom and fun is what you are noticing here. It’s strange that you find such feelings to be an expression of “hatred, anger, and petty jealousy.” There are some Christian beliefs that I hate, and that make me angry, because I think they are regressive and repressive and harmful to individuals and to society. If the response of the people in the T-shirt store had been to say “that’s great, let’s make a bunch of those,” I would have felt hatred toward that belief system, and anger toward those expressing it. However, given that they clearly didn’t feel comfortable with the regressive, repressive idea that Bible verse expresses, I think it’s kind of fun to think of them squirming when it’s pointed out to them.

      I can also reassure you that I feel absolutely no jealousy – petty or otherwise – of Christianity or Christians. I do, however, feel anger at the increasing dominance of Christian absurdity in our political system.

      With regard to your claim that the Bible is just an instructional manual or roadmap, and hence it’s understandable for it to contain errors, the standard question is “how do you know which parts of it are errors?” Similarly, why do you think that something written thousands of years ago has the authority to tell us how to live our lives? To characterize the Bible as a collection of attempts by people a long time ago to figure out how the world works and how best to live their lives makes perfect sense to me, and I can accept it as such. However, I’m pretty sure that you mean something more than that. If so, what’s your justification for that belief?

    • Anonymous

      Because the instructions it provides are horrible and continue to do great damage in the world. It’s a better example of what NOT to do than it is a moral guide. Many atheists are ex-Xtians who have some very legitimate reasons to harbor anger toward the bible and its followers. You are right, it is really ugly, but not from the perspective you’re thinking of.

    • TheBlackCat

      “You don’t have to come along.You stay here and wait”

      I find it ironic that someone hung up on a collection of bronze-age stories is deriding people for a “stay here and wait” attitude.  Catch up on the last few thousand years of progress before saying that.

    • Anonymous

      Hatred, anger and petty jealousy? That perfectly describes your god

    • Medussa

      Hello, Geo!  I can’t get married because of the religious intolerance and bigotry of christians!  
      What do you mean, I don’t have to come along?!  I’m being dragged along kicking and screaming!  
      The bible was quoted incessantly during the Prop 8 campaign in California, and the money to support it flowed in from all over the country, all from tax free christian groups.
      Lose the hatred?  Lose the anger?  Yeah, when religion remembers it’s about faith and personal growth (or stagnation), and keeps out of my life, then I will lose the anger.  Until then, how dare you call condescend like that?  
      All you’re illustrating is your ignorance of the damage religion has causd, and causes every day.

  • Moky

    In context, wasn’t it because the women were recent converts so they didn’t have any authority to speak? Last time I read it, that was the context I found, it wasn’t because they were women.

    • Anonymous

      So, there were no recent male converts? And, even if there weren’t, God wasn’t smart enough to say what He really meant? That’s a just plain silly attempt at weaseling out of the problem.

    • Casimir

      If that were the case, then why doesn’t the verse just say that? The fact that it doesn’t means your guess is as good as mine, and effectively anyone can just choose to believe it means what they want it to mean.

      • Anonymous

        That’s part of the point. Xtians claim it to be their infallible moral guide, but they can’t even say what it means in most cases. Bear in mind that its meaning has drifted a good bit through the millennia of translations, and was never a particularly coherent piece of literature to start with. Most Xtians have never studied it, and the ones that have must go through strenuous mental gymnastics to understand it the way they think it’s meant to be understood.
        Nonetheless, there are many scholars of old Hebrew, Greek & Latin that can read and understand the older versions of the material in the bible, and have a good knowledge of the cultural assumptions of the time and period. I’d trust their analysis much more than I would that of a modern priest, layman or apologist. 

    • thanto_

      No, it’s precisely because they were women.  That reasoning is stated in the very next sentence, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 (NRSV) “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
      and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

      Even so, it wouldn’t make sense due to how it’s phrased.  It wasn’t, “I don’t permit *these* women to teach,”  It’s (NRSV) “I permit *no* woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”  No amount of context can change that.

  • Anonymous

    Well, since the determination is to be obnoxious and ignore context, I suppose atheists would MUCH appreciate it if I requested that a t-shirt be made that has printed on it, a quote from Richard Dawkins’ interview with ethicist Peter Singer (available on youtube) :

    “Morally, I, strictly morally I can see no objection to that at all. I would be in favor of infanticide.”

    - Richard Dawkins

    (Oh and, no complaining about context eh! )

    • Anonymous

      OK so here’s 1 Timothy 2 whole, so we can see the context:

      1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
       2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
       3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
       4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
       5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
       6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
       7Whereunto
      I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ,
      and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
       8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
       9In
      like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with
      shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls,
      or costly array;
       10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
       11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
       12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
       13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
       14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
       15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

      Hmmm, context seems to indicate that in fact the verse can be taken for what it appears to be: the babblings of a mysoginist raging asshole.

      So, offer up your context, see if it holds up as well :-D

      • Anonymous

        Hi I_Claudia,

        Please see my response to “nerd heroine”.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

          it’s long and basically says “nuh uh, does not, it only says women cant be priests”

          so “in context” it is just a statement that women are inferior in the eyes of the church and of god, not that women are inferior.

          you see how different that is!

          -facepalm-

          • Anonymous

            Hi Gordon Duffy,

            What do you mean by “inferior”? In what sense? (Yes, I am serious).

            Because, I can say that an employee is inferior to his/her employer, and a child inferior to his/her parents. But does that necessitate that the former is inferior than the latter in terms of *intrinsic value* (value that is independent of social role)? 

            Because women cannot be ordained, that makes them inferior? Does the fact that men are utterly incapable of giving birth (not purposed to serve that function), make them inferior to women?

            Gordon, are you aware of the veneration given to the Blessed (see Luke 1:48) Virgin Mary, Queen of Heaven? That veneration is examplar, isn’t it, of how a woman is viewed as inferior to a male?

            • TheBlackCat

              Lets try this a few other ways:

              Because women cannot go to school, that makes them inferior?

              Because women cannot own property, that makes them inferior?

              Because women cannot be doctors, that makes them inferior?

              Surely you can see the difference between something that is biologically impossible and something that is simply forbidden by rules, right? There is nothing fundamental about female biology that makes being ordained impossible, in fact it has even happened (everyone involved was later excommunicated, but it did happen).  

              So yes, rules banning women from certain professions is, by definition, treating them as inferior.  There is no way around that.

              And you are completely ignoring the fact that the explicit justification for the rule is that women are inferior.

    • nerd heroine

      We’re not ignoring context, context in no way helps this situation. (Unlike the Dawkins quote)

       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. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

      I don’t think asking for that printed on a shirt makes the verse any horrible.

      • Anonymous

        Hi nerd heroine,

        We’re not ignoring context, context in no way helps this situation

        “Helps” in what sense? I was not suggesting the verse is not literal, but rather, qualitative.

        Contexts helps to establish the “with regards to what?”, when we read that women are under the authority of men. A few things to bear in mind:

        - We observe in the gospels, that none of the 12 Apostles (Jesus’ closest disciples) were women. That is why their successors (bishops, presbyters) weren’t either.

        -  Prior to the chapter and verse that is the subject of the OP,  Paul states (1 Tim 2:5-7, RVS-CE): “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.  For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”
        (Notice, the issue of teaching is in connection to the faith, not in connect to say, how to speak Latin or catch fish).

        - Paul to Timothy (a bishop) (2 Tim 3:14-15, RSV-CE)  “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it  and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

        (Paul telling Timothy, a bishop and half-Jew, to persevere [as a Christian] (1) because of who he learned the faith from and (2) because of his knowledge of the [Hebrew] Scriptures)
        2 Tim 2:2 (RVS-CE ) “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses <bentrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”

        This is an instruction concerning the transmission of the Apostolic deposit of faith. The function of the Apostles was to make disciples, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, andof  the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) and to transmit  the deposit to these “faithful men” – who would be ordained as clergymen – who, by their teaching authority (Magisterium –  magisterium = ”teaching authority of the Church”), would instruct the laity.

        If you read 1 Tim 3, you will notice Paul giving criteria for bishops and deacons.

        My point in discussing these things is that, in context, 2 Tim 2:12 concerns the women not having the authority of ordained leaders, and the context of that in turn, is the Church. 

        • Geeforson

          My point in discussing these things is that, in context, 2 Tim 2:12 concerns the women not having the authority of ordained leaders, and the context of that in turn, is the Church.

          And that mitigates the misogyny in what way? It’s an explanation of why women are inferior and therefore unworthy of being in the priesthood… but since it’s just about the priesthood, the assholeishness is okay? So long as it’s only in the context of the Church (the religion as embodied on Earth), women *ought* to just shut up and listen?

          It’s just as bad in context as out.

          • Anonymous

            It can’t even be seen in the context (damn, I hate that word) of the times, given that contemporary religious such as the Roman/Greek pantheon or pagan religions throughout Europe did have female priests.

            • Erp

              I believe, however, that a given priesthood was gender specific (e.g., priests of Vesta, aka Vestal Virgins were women; the pontifex maximus was always a man, etc).

              The Bible can be read in many ways and has always been interpreted.  For instance the bit by Paul that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, etc has been used in modern times to justify women being priests (many Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist/Presbyterian denominations allow women priests); note that all of the original apostles were Jews but there is no requirement that modern bishops or priests be Jews.  The NT also has some evidence that women were very active.  Junia is described as an apostle by Paul (though some have tried to show that Junia was a masculine name or that Paul didn’t mean apostle in the same sense he was an apostle);  Phoebe is described as a deacon (which means servant but was also the name of an office in the early church).  The NT also has the requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife (a requirement notably not filled for bishops in the modern Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches [barring a few bishops who might be widowers]).

        • BinaryStar

          As is nearly always the case with Xtians, you’re splitting hairs, m’dear.

        • Neodymium

          Uh… How the heck can the bible NOT be the sole and supreme authority for christian doctrine and practice?? What other basis is there for a christian existence?

          • Anonymous

            Hi Neodymium,

            You asked: “How the heck can the bible NOT be the sole and supreme authority for christian doctrine and practice??

            Well, apart from the fact that the Bible itself never restricts the Christian to its contents, to think the Bible is the sole and final authority for Christians, is a recipe for theological anarchy. (Ever wonder why there are so many Protestant denominations? 500 years of Sola Scriptura, and there are thousands of them now.)

            Recently, on Facebook, I was in a discussion with a Protestant who was defending Sola Scriptura, and took offense when I said Sola Scriptura stunts consensus (this in turn, was my response to another Protestant who was suggesting that though Protestantism has no unified  magisterium, its nonetheless possible for Protestants to come to a consensus on doctrinal matters that presently divide them):

            Here is the text of my response:
            ________________________
            “ The reason I said “Consensus is stunted by Sola Scriptura” is because even if the consensus method is used, at the end of the day, dissenters can claim that Scripture (not consensus) is the final authority, and therefore they are not bound to the consensus.

            A high-ranking and very respectable evangelical Christian apologist and philosopher does this:

            http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6606No earnest Christian wants to be considered a heretic. But we Protestants recognize Scripture alone as our ultimate rule of faith (the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Therefore, we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture. While one disagrees with the promulgations of an Ecumenical Council only with great hesitancy, nonetheless, since we do not regard these as invested with divine authority, we are open to the possibility that they have erred in places. It seems to me that in condemning Monotheletism as incompatible with Christian belief the Church did overstep its bounds.“Now that’s just one person, regarding one issue (that is not even at the forefront of debate among Protestants! It is rather taken for granted that Christ had two wills.). Now, if we expand this situation out, to include millions of people, and numerous doctrinal points of controversy, a “consensus” in any meaningful sense of the word, would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, to reach. “_______________________*(I had also pointed out the fact, the the Magisterium pre-existed the formal canon, and he wanted me to back that up, to which I replied) :_______________________”There are two ways to approach that question, the historical, and the logical. The historical entails inquiry into Church history. The logical on the other, hand requires nothing more than analyzing Sola Scriptura in-itself. (emphasis added here)Sola Scriptura is internally inconsistent:1. The Bible is the only infallible authority concerning matters of faith and morals.2. The Bible is the final authority concerning matters of faith and morals.*3. The Bible contains all truths necessary for salvation.*4. The only doctrines which Christians are obliged to believe, are those which are deduced from the Bible.—-Is it true that all 27 books of the New Testament are inspired by God? Is it necessary for salvation, to believe that all (or any) of the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired? Otherwise, are Christians obliged to believe that the 27 books are inspired? Taking into account (3) and (4) :If it is true [that all 27 books of the NT are inspired], and if it is a truth that is necessary for salvation (or a truth that Christians are obliged to believe) then this truth is taught in the Bible. But, in fact, the Bible does not teach that the all of the NT’s 27 constituent books, are inspired by God.That determination had to come from the outside — from the Church, in the 4th century. The Bible did not put itself together, it had to be compiled by an exercise of Church authority, an authority to teach matters. pertaining to the faith.”______________________That article that started it (my backand forth with the Protestants):http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/we-dont-need-no-magisterium-a-reply-to-christianity-todays-mark-galli/

            • TheBlackCat

              I can’t help but notice you provide no alternative approach.  So care to actually answer the question and tell us what Christians are supposed to use?

              • Anonymous

                “I can’t help but notice you provide no alternative approach.”

                I do not have to (but in fact, I hinted at an alternative.) However, it is still worth noting, that there is no logical necessity between pointing out that Sola Scriptura defeats itself, and providing an alternative final authority. I do not have to be a non-Protestant Christian to point out the self-defeating nature of “Bible-alone”. I can just as well be a Muslim or atheist and point it out.

                In any case, the alternative is the final authority of the Catholic Church (the very Church that compiled the Bible).

                In Catholic theology, there are three authorities: Scripture, Tradition (that’s tradition with a big “T” –which include such things as infant Baptism — as opposed to tradition with a little “t”, which refers to non-doctrinal/dogmatic disciple/practices, such as crossing oneself from left shoulder to right shoulder, as opposed to the other way around which is how it was once done in the Latin Rite.), and the Magisterium. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are co-equals, and the former is understood in light of the latter. And supreme over them, is the Magisterium — the magisterium possesses final judgement and interpretive authority on doctrinal matters of faith and morals.

                “So care to actually answer the question and tell us what Christians are supposed to use?”

                The Scriptures, in conjuction with the teaching of the Early Church Fathers, decrees of Ecumenical Councils, and solemn doctrinal judgments of the Church.

                Or, for something more practical and accessible, and intended for the laity: Catechism of the Catholic Church.

                • Anonymous

                  Trash theology for trash adeherents.

                • Anonymous

                  mykelb,

                  Wasn’t going to give continuation to this thread — but couldn’t help responding to you …

                  I’m sure your comment will get at the very least one “like”, actual or mental.

                  But calling it ”trash theology” doesn’t affect what I said, my fundamental point:
                  Sola Scriptura is itself, unscriptural.

                  (And I’m willing to bet, that most of the Christians that atheists will debate on the internet, are “Scripture-alone” Protestants, who think Scripture in-itself is the all-sufficient source of doctrine. It isn’t, and never even claims to be. There’s a number of issues in which the Scripture is ambiguous – not to mention the number of issues the Bible is simply silent about –and to dispense of Tradition as many Protestants do is a major contributor to why their  doctrinal interpretations of the Bible  will often conflict. )

        • Liz

          We observe, in the canonical gospels, that the 12 disciples were men.

          There are two very good socio-historic reasons for this that are not just ‘women suck’.
          First, Jesus and his disciples were a travelling group – it may not have been as appropriate for women as for men to travel the countryside with a radical speaker.  Thus, he does have good female friends who can be relied upon, like Mary and Martha, but they do not travel with him.

          Second, due to the constraints on femininity in general at the time, it is possible that women may not have been as interested in his work – even today women are underrepresented at the highest levels due to pervasive sexism in our society.  This manifests because women may not be as well educated or trained as men because it is seen as pointless (women will just go and get pregnant anyway) or because women are sold a construct where intelligence and high achievement are not so greatly valued, as well as intelligent, well trained, professional women finding it hard to get a foothold in the patriarchal system.

          Third, there may well have been more women close to Jesus.  The apocryphal gospels include the gospel of Mary Magdalene, but due to the continuing repression of women, these references were definitely in some cases erased or removed.

    • Medussa

      Lively, does anyone you know consider Dawkins to be inerrant?  Does anyone you know claim Dawkins is so inerrant, it justifies being violent and discriminatory against others and justify it with quotes from Dawkins?  Are there laws based on Dawkins’ teachings?  Are Dawkins quotes printed on money?
      No?  So how does this compare to quotes from the bible?  There is no comparison.  
      If you came into my t-shirt shop requesting that quote, I would definitely accuse you of taking things out of context, and I may or may not print the shirt.  But I would not accuse you of disrespecting Dawkins, because he’s an author, not a god, and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with all or part of an author’s statements.  I wouldn’t threaten you with hell, I wouldn’t insist on teaching Dawkins in schools to prevent that sort of questioning, I wouldn’t insist that acknowledging Dawkins as a truth writer start every city hall meeting, and I wouldn’t take away people’s right to marry, all based on the Dawkins teachings.

      • Anonymous

        Hi Medussa,

        Inerrancy was the not point. The point was context, regardless of whether context does anything to change your general opinion of the Bible.

        Likewise, taking context into account is the responsible way of presenting Richard Dawkins’ statement, regardless if it makes a dent or not in one’s pre-existing general opinion of Dawkins.

        • Medussa

          It is very much the point.  Others here have been tirelessly pointing out that no amount of context changes the meaning of the verse.

          But if the bible is inerrant, then anything at all in it is true.  If the christians running that store don’t want to print it, then they are refusing to print a true statement that is from the very book they quote from when they perpetrate their bigotry.

          Your post was making a hypothetical about a t-shirt with an out of context quote from Dawkins.  Anyone with that shirt would be deemed an idiot.  Anyone with Timothy 2:12 on their t-shirt would be deemed a christian.

          • Anonymous

            “Others here have been tirelessly pointing out that no amount of context changes the meaning of the verse.”

            Who was trying to change the meaning of the verse? If you scroll up a bit, you’ll see that I said I was not suggesting the verse was figurative, but that contextually, there is a qualification being made, on the issue of women being under the authority of men.

            No amount of context changes the meaning of the statement I quoted from Dawkins. It means exactly what it says. However, contextually, there is a qualification he provides, to his support of infanticide.

            • Medussa

              Oh, for chrissakes, lively.  Walk around with the bible quote on your t and you are a misogynist, a christian, and have the bible’s authority behind you.  Walk around with that quote from Dawkins, and you are an idiot, pure and simple.

              If you don’t understand the difference in authority being given to the bible’s teachings and Dawkins’ books, then you are either  being willfully ignorant, and intentionally missing the point here or you’re just an idiot.  That’s just a waste of everyone’s time.  A waste of oxygen.

  • Newavocation

    Instead of  Timothy 2:12, what about 
    Ezekiel 23:19-21 (New International Version)19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

    I bet they don’t teach that one to the little ones in Sunday school.

    • Neodymium

      That’s been my favorite for a long time. 

  • Kalavinka

    It’s a private business– these people should be free to control what products they choose to produce and sell. People should not be forced into doing something that makes them uncomfortable or that challenges an essential basic fact of their nature, particularly not when it involves a t-shirt. You would not want people telling you what to believe, why then do you feel free force your beliefs on this t-shirt shop. Just go buy your t-shirt elsewhere and quit being a douche bag. This is why atheists come off as being azzholes.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=553145445 Gordon Duffy

      the point, you are missing it. What she was offeded by was a bible verse, unadorned.

    • Anonymous

      Wrong.  If you are selling to the general public, you are in business for the general public and are subject to the laws governing business in that state and federal laws affecting businesses.  Get real. There are no private “businesses”.  BTW, I have known a lot more Christisan assholes than atheist ones.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

      Nobody was forcing them to print it!

      Creationists are “azzholes”.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Luis-Alberto/100000744171318 Luis Alberto

    In order to survive the new times,  christians say   some parts of the Bible are true and other are not.  So it is not a sacred book, but a human book.

  • Nena

    The church where I grew up does not allow women to preach, lead prayer, teach bible study (except for the children’s class, because that’s a woman’s place), or even lead singing. They are more backward than you could possibly imagine.

  • http://byroniac.blogspot.com/ Byroniac

    Ezekiel 23:20 would be perfect! ;)

  • Rob

    of course it was being disrespectful. your intent was to mock, not for any sincere belief in that verse. 

    • Anonymous

      Of course it is mocking.  All religions should be mocked and often.  Because they have no basis in fact.  Myth and mysticism and your fears are what drive religion.

  • Verathewaitress

    If you haven’t seen it already, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRLLSCeqiHA is a ridiculous video of a Christian ritual at a Spanish church.  Unbathed churchgoers who made a 500 mile pilgrimage to the church smelled so bad that the clergy invented this incense ritual, where an urn of incense is hurled across the length of the massive church on a rope, guided by six priests.  Abso fucking lutely the CLAZIEST thing you can imagine.  This ritual brought to you by the Roman Catholic Church, exceeding your wildest expecations for absurd shenanigans, world-wide.

  • SecondGear

    The verse is in reference  that women were now allowed to sit “anywhere” in church, don’t interrupt the speaker (because they used to have to sit in the BACK of the room, and couldn’t often hear well, they would get bored and whisper).  With that change, they could HEAR, and  they had lots of questions, so please do not interrupt the speaker, and to wait to get home to ask their abundant question. It’s nothing any more sinister than that.

    So, note to both sides of bashing, just do the research.

    • TheBlackCat

      Uh, is that supposed to be any better?  So men are allowed to ask questions but women are not?  Women are incapable of holding their questions until an appropriate time?  Why do they have to ask their husbands for answers rather than the priest/minister/rabbi/etc?  Why are husbands allowed to ask questions but wives not?  

      And talk about taking it out of context, how does all the stuff about eve being deceived by a talking snake have anything whatsoever to do with not interupting the sermon?  Why is all that stuff in there?

  • Michael lombardi

    Just out of curiosity whats a fine up standing atheist doing hanging around a Christian book store? Were you LOST. I encourage you to buy a Bible and read it. Next time your hunting around for Christians doing something hyporitical try checking out your local food bank or homeless shelter. We get it you hate Christ so you need to valid your beliefs by ignoring the numerous good things Christians are doing in your community (things you will never see on network tv) and find the idiot Christian that validates your own hatred and judgementalism. God loves you anyway.

    • Anonymous

      Mr. Lomabardi, No atheist hates Christ.  Non-belief means we do not believe there was a Christ, so how can one hate something that is a fiction?  Your (and unfortunately too many of your fellow belieivers) are so bereft of logic that you cannot understand that atheists don’t hate religionists or their beliefs, we feel sorry that you have been fooled into believing non-sense that has no credible proof.  If anything atheists hate that you are too ignorant to figure out that you have been duped into a belief system that has no foundation in rational thought, credible evidence, scientific proof, logic or reality.

      • Liz

        atheists can ‘believe’ in the existence of a man called Jesus.  
        a – opposite
        theism – system of thought founded on a divine principle

        Jesus, a man from Galilee, who had followers and taught about love and sharing, may well have believed in the vengeful god of the Jews (if he wasn’t a Buddhist and did exist), but i can’t see any logical problem with paying attention to the recorded sayings of Christ and being an atheist.

  • Dan

    I have his back:
    http://www.zazzle.com/timothy_2_12_bible_quote_shirt_on_black-235613502896084960

    Any customer is a good customer in MY book…

  • Anonymous

    My post to TheBlackCat, will be my last, because I think at this point I’ve said all I’ve intended to say, and I’m afraid if I continue on this thread, we’ll fall into redundancy.

    Take Care –

  • Anonymous

    The buybull is just a bunch of non-sense written for tribalistic jews living in a bronze age era with no modern science, technology, psychiatry or medicine.  Aren’t you glad you didn’t live back in AD 1?  Too bad assholes in America want to devolutionize our sociiety back to the caveman era.

  • Joe

    Ah the bible.  A book written a long time ago in a language few understand, about a magic god who created man, woman and the earth and all it’s animals and plants.  This magic ‘god” is the same man who sent his son, who was bored from floating around on a cloud, down to the earth his father created so he could perform “miracles” (magic, BURN THE WITCH!!!) and then get folks to believe in his messages by promising entarnal life floating around on clouds with family members if they believed and if they didn’t, the non-believers would be cast (by his loving all-powerful father) into a lake burning with fire for all eternity.  Then the son is tortured and killed and years later the church that martyred this son of god, burns women, hangs children and men for being witches and takes their money and property becoming wealthy beyond belief but are sheilded from being taxed because they are a church.  This same magic god just floats around on his cloud and watches while the humans he created destroy the earth he created, kill one another, watches while children go hungry and nations starve, and men in power perform genocide and governments create poisons and weapons that kill and maim it’s citizens, and churches in the name of god, while more churches march with signs saying “thank god for dead soldiers and god hates fags” and powerful, wealthy mega churches “sell god”, and command even the poorest of it’s flock give all they can give so the mega liars and greedy pastors can continue to “spread the word of “god.”  Then those men of god (yeah right) claim murders, suicides, rapes, killing, neglect of children, mistreatment of elderly, the forgotten, the homeless, and many more horrors are all that way because that same “magic god” has given his creations, whom he “loves” free will and that’s why he refuses to raise one tiny magic finger to repair all the damage that his children have done. 

  • The Other Weirdo

    People have a tendency to build shells around their belief structures as though to say, “I will believe this far, but no further.” What they put inside the shell is all the goody-goody bits(a person’s individual personality determines what s?he considers goody-goody) and then they throw the rest into a garbage bin and light it on fire. To them, for example, the bible is only what’s inside their shell. When you point to clearly uncomfortable passages from the *actual* bible, they feel you’re disrespecting not only their religion, but even more importantly, their deeply-held belief *ABOUT* their religion. They’ve gone to all the trouble of cherry-picking the best(what they consider to be the best) bits, making themselves feel good about themselves and then you come along and take their marbles away. To them, that’s very disrespectful.

    Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, though.

  • Robert Hunt

    Just a brief note: all scripture, indeed all literature, means what it means within the context of the community and culture that interpret it and act on it. Because the Bible is an integral part of Western culture the multiple meanings of every part of it, from verses to whole stories and books, can be found littered through our popular imagination. However, these meanings have authority only to the extent that the broader culture, or that sub-culture of which a person is a part, grant them that authority. One thing that our larger culture authorizes is the use of passages from the Bible to make religion (or Christianity) look ridiculous.

    On the other hand, among various Christian churches (sub-cultures) both the degree of authority, and the ways in which authoritative interpretation is controlled and disseminated, vary widely. But never do they authorize using the Bible, or passages from it, to make religion (or Christianity) look ridiculous. Thus from within this particular sub-culture the atheist use of the Bible appears disrespectful. It fails to recognize the limits of authoritative use of the Bible within the sub-culture.

    The problem of our larger culture failing to respect the limits of authoritative use of scripture in religious sub-cultures is endemic. We have seen outrage by Muslims over the perceived “misuse” of the Qur’an, by Jews, and to a lesser extent by others. I suppose the question an atheist might ask (I myself am a Christian) is whether puerile point-scoring within one’s own community is worth the effort of ordering a t-shirt or posting a blog about the result. I would be interested to know from the original poster: has anybody been converted to his point of view through this exercise?

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/DJRVGKGG36KNLNMZAVT4EXOF3M Ed-words

      Maybe not. But it might get them thinking a little.

  • Babyblue_who

    It helps to know, 1 Timmothy 2:12, but as a woman, she probably forgot that we are too submit. It wasn’t taken out of context! It was more likely that it didn’t fit her view of the modern day womans liber rights movement…. I have to say that as a woman I would be happy to wear that shirt!!

  • Fred Gracken

    Wow, for a bunch of people who hate the christian God or all gods im sure, you spend alot of time talking about Him. Maybe you could spend your time wisely, as for me i will continue to worship Christ and bask in His glorious presence.
    We all have to live in the same world and the fact is an overwhelming majority of the population will always believe in God. So get over it and move on , especially since there is no afterlife for you so you better get to living bbecause death is close for us all.

  • Jorgegoyco

    This is silly. Personally, I would have made the shirt and taught about that verse. If you actually wanted to pay for that shirt and wear it, that’s up to you. You’d have to explain yourself to the people who would ask you if you were a Christian and why you were wearing such a strange shirt.
     
    As to what that verse is talking about, well, it’s definitely a difficult one. What I know about studying that verse (and chapter) is that Paul was talking specifically to this church, because later in Corinthians (to another church), he instructs that women CAN speak and teach in church. So it seems to me (and to other Bible studiers) that something was going on at the churches Paul was writing to at the time. Maybe the women were being loud and obnoxious. Maybe they were teaching “with authority” when culturally, that’s not the way things worked. There are several places in the Bible that instruct about cultural and time specific things, like not allowing braids or jewelry or even eating “unclean” animals and not touching a woman for a certain amount of days during the month. Remember context and culture when reading the Bible. Paul at one point says that Slaves should submit to their masters. That’s not an approval of slavery, it’s instruction on what could possibly keep them alive and out of jail.Living out a spiritual life is not always pretty, seldom orderly, never perfect. It’s the same as it was back in Paul’s time. We are humans. We are not perfect. Don’t miss that the rest of the Bible talks about how to get to Heaven. If you don’t believe there’s a Heaven, then that’s kindof the end of the discussion isn’t it.It only takes a short little trip to google and a search for 1 timothy 2:12 to find out this is an often misunderstood verse, but many scholars have taken stabs at understanding it and found that it’s probably a cultural, time specific event.

    Pick on the Quran. It’s worse. And Islam actually wants to take over. Jesus just wants your heart. The Quran says you can hit your wife if she doesn’t have sex with you and somehow calls it merciful.

  • Jerrcuba

    i dont know why they refuse to print that, i think is a good message for some of our drugger, drunker and killer woman. In the bible, phiciology and sometime fisical girl and men are different but with same value.

  • vanessa

    Im sad for everyone taking the time to bash our beliefs and bible. But it does say we will be persecuted; so most of us are used to the idea. Putting our armor on and using our bible as our sword is just part of our job.  I dont know how i got to this thread and I hope I never find it again. ps. i rather be a slave to God and get the rewards in heaven that await me, then be a worldly human that “lives for today”.  Us Christians were not ment for earth!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X