A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Well, this is what the Bible says. Too bad people care.
Great sign. Members of all religions should be confronted with the stupidest aspects of their religions at every possible opportunity.
For me, I think the most depressing thing is that this happened in downtown Chicago and I missed it. I mean, it’s not like there aren’t religious fanatics hanging out on the Magnificent Mile harassing tourists all the time, but I would have enjoyed meeting these particular woman haters. I bet they had some awesome tracts. I have a pretty good collection going…
Also, I don’t think they can make a biblical case for ironing. If they’re going to insist on being literalist, then I think women should be barred from any household tasks that require the use of items that didn’t exist in antiquity; irons, vacuums, washing machines, food you didn’t grow or kill yourself. I mean, I know these things would fall under the heading of “keeping the home” and that, reasonably, they would argue that household chores have changed with the times, but since they don’t seems too keen on the idea of keeping up with the changing times in general, I say we brand them hypocrites for cherry-picking and cut off their electricity. For the good of their souls.
I mean, I know these things would fall under the heading of “keeping the home” and that, reasonably, they would argue that household chores have changed with the times, but since they don’t seems too keen on the idea of keeping up with the changing times in general, I say we brand them hypocrites for cherry-picking and cut off their electricity. For the good of their souls.
LOL. I like.
A: “We’re just keeping up with the times.”
B: “Keep up with the times? Where does it say to do that in the Bible?”
Some strong woman should roll that sign back up, & shove it right up his Butt!!!!
Christianity….. the refuse of civilization………… Why has it not been buried yet?
Because you’re confusing it with religion. The two are polar opposites, kinda like Jesus and the religious leaders he was always at odds with, and for good reason.
John, since you always dismiss all the unpleasant parts of the Bible as metaphors and allegories, I’d like to hear what Paul’s opinion of women is an allegory for. You know, that whole “women shall subject themselves to their husband, never teach, never speak up to a man”. It sounds like very concrete instructions to me – hardly allegorical stuff.
Was Paul just being a chauvinist prick, typical of his time, or is there some deep wisdom in his words? If it’s not allegorical are we actually supposed to follow it?
I wonder if it is possible to disentangle the teachings of Jesus (or at least one version of the mythology of the teachings of Jesus) from the notion of religion. To be clear, this is not a modern notion, and Jesus (the presumably existant man, not the image) must have been well aware of it. And the historical Jesus was almost certainly a Jew, which makes things even more complicated. Yet the revolutionary message of Jesus might be reasonably seen as one of the first major progressive movements in history. Jesus effectively contradicted Pharisee doctrine of unforgivable sin with his message of tolerance, love, and forgiveness.
I am not trivializing or ignoring the horrible statements attributed to him almost in equal part to the reasonable ones, but what distinguished him seems to be, at the time, uniquely loving and nonexclusionary. He was in some sense the first remembered “moral expansionist”.
What do I mean by this term? I don’t mean a liberal or a progressive per se. Rather I mean somebody who expands our awareness and sympathy to a group of people traditionally considered sinners for purely (or at least primarily) bigoted reasons.
Unfortunately, even if this view of his ministry is valid, Jesus certainly did not set the stage for a continuation of The Movement in the future. If anything, it took radicals (who allegedly were returning to their roots, but in actuality were expressing something rather new) to take the next major step in equality. If this version of Jesus has any truth, Jesus himself did not appear to know it. So in this sense, “liberal Christianity” is some fusion of modern perspective and ancient intentions.
As I see it, the proper response to such a figure is to acknowledge both the positive and negative precedents he set. It is not usually fair to blame or credit any one person for the fallout of his or her teachings, especially if it goes against the original intent, but “Christianity” is not the same as Christ himself. Thus I see Jesus (again, assuming he existed at all, and if so at all like he is commonly portrayed) as an incredibly important “moral expansionist” and also one of the most exploited and misinterpreted figures in history.
In the context of John C, I would say that a mystic by heart and raising has (thankfully) found a faith in love rather than hate, and more specifically one that acknowledges the value of recognizing (and loving) dissenters from your personal understanding or values. Faith in general is a very dangerous thing because it tends to encase a belief–good or bad–in stone. And while I certainly don’t agree with all John C’s beliefs (and nor do I presume to be an authority on which beliefs are “good” and which are “bad”), I do think that he is at least “mostly harmless” and at most a (bizarre and slightly annoying) voice for tolerance coming from the more intolerant side of the coin (faith).
I’m sorry if none of this meandering rant made any sense; I am not completely sober at the moment. I mention this not by way of excuse, but explanation. Making reasoned and tempered posts on a blog never requires an excuse.
Thanks Michael, I appreciate your kind words and, in large part echo your same sentiments. Take care.
TRJ…that’s a fairly substantial topic actually. Goes back to the garden, man’s original construct, ie that he/she were originally one unit, not two distinct persons in the beginning. Paul calls it a ‘profound mystery’ in Eph 5:31&32 (speaking of marriage that ‘makes us one’ again). Would require a lot (more than you’d care to read I’m sure) to do your question justice so I’ll just say this in trying to keep it short as I can.
No, Paul is not a misogynist. He is not referring to genders. Remember, that same Paul writes in Gal 3:28 that (since Christ has been crucified and our old Adam natures and identities with Him) that ‘There is now therefore neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, MALE nor FEMALE, for you are all one (equal) in Christ Jesus’. He says essentially the very same thing in his letter to the Colossians as well, that we are to make no distinction any longer between ethnicity, gender, etc, that now, Christ is all and in all (see 3:11).
So when he says those things about ‘woman’s place’ please know he sees us as one and that he is speaking of the soul and the spirit’s relation in that one being, ie restored mankind in God’s ‘very image and likeness’. He does not want what happened in the garden when the soul (Eve) ‘was deceived’ (2 Cor 3:11) resulting in disobedience and ‘death’ (spiritually speaking) to happen again in us. That’s what sin is, a going out of God and His will into our own self will, a sort of self-willing apart from Him and which is still the cause of mankind’s quandary today, he does what ‘he’ wants and we see the sad consequences all around us. He is a sort of rogue, runaway species unaware of his true, heavenly (spiritual) Paternity and consciousness.
So man represents the spirit ‘head’ and woman the soul (but the two are one, not two in God’s sight) and the soul is ‘married to’ (made one with) and subject to its head (Christ) lest it ‘go out’ again and be (spiritually/physically) separated through disobedience, ie sin and ‘death’.
So that means that, according to that interpretation, all marriage is gay marriage.
Nah, just means you need to renew your mind.
It never ceases to amaze me how cryptic the Bible is according to you. Even the most straightforward passages are convoluted allegories which can be interpreted in the exact opposite direction of the literal words.
It seems a rather strange approach by God. The Bible, supposed to be an instrument of spiritual growth and salvation, in fact has lured untold millions in a wrong direction because of this level of intricate symbolism. Not to mention the damage this has done through the ages to women, and slaves, and gays, and Jews. You’d have thought God would see that coming.
“Even the most straightforward passages are convoluted allegories which can be interpreted in the exact opposite direction of the literal words.”
Uh… John C might not be as unique among Christians as we thought…
hahahahhahaha… (gets a breath) hahahahhahahhahahhahhahahhahahhahaha!
Is there context for this picture? Namely, do we know if the person is pointing out the sexism in the bible, or actually supporting it?
The cynic in me is assuming the latter…
Given the snippets of other signs visible in the picture from the same group, I think your cynical instinct in this case would be validated.
Agreed. I’ve actually had trolls tell me to “be quiet” (not sure how you do that online) because I’m a woman. Sadly, the loonies are real. And it ain’t purty, folks.
Well, you’re suppose to be too busy doing dishes, laundry, ironing etc. to go online.
Oh, you’re right, yoav, silly me. I forgot, a woman’s only calling in life is to be like Mrs. Duggar. My goodness, I’m 27 and not even married! Better find an arranged marriage so I can start popping out 20 kids with the same initials. (In case you’re wondering, the Duggars piss me off to no end. Feels good to get on the soapbox now and then.)
I’ve had one do that solely based on my gender and opinions. I called him sweetheart, and told him his ideas were adorable. He called me patronizing. To which I replied I was going for sexist and condescending. I guess I couldn’t even get that right. I haven’t heard from him again. Drive-by trolls are so unfulfilling.
I’ve seen similar signs held by punk-kid atheists, standing next to loud lady street preachers. Hard to tell which are meant to be ironic.
Whenever I hear this story, I have the tendency to be surprised and doubtful, as if your experience as a woman (or whatever minority at that time) can’t possibly be common. Then I remember I had the same point of view before I was an atheist, and that that turned out to be more than a little off the mark.
I suppose people can’t appreciate either subtle or overt bigotry without experiencing it themselves, and to that extent I consider myself to be almost completely in the position of privilege (in nearly every way except religion).
I see what you mean, Michael. I actually don’t really consider myself to be oppressed. I didn’t realize how privileged I am for a long time until experiencing first-hand (rent-a-cops, anyone?) that sexism is still alive and well.
My dad, even though he’s a very conservative Christian, has never made me feel like women should be inferior, and that my mom, sister, and I can do whatever we set our minds to. So I never questioned my equality with males. But he does worry about our safety because of the misogynists out there who try to take advantage of us
The good part is, the job he should be at is available. The bad part for him is, I don’t think we are going to be able to put this Geni back in the bottle. Guys like this are why cults thrive.
Is the guy, holding the sign, actually giving it the bird??? Sure looks like it. And here’s a thought: If we women are judged Biblically lesser than men, does that mean we get a lighter punishment for sinning?
Yes. Our level of Hell involves an eternity of needle-work and scrap-booking.
The really crazy thing about the damnable placard is that it cites three
epistles that among scholars, even conservative scholars, are considered
forgeries in the sense that the books weren’t written by either Paul or
“Peter.” It was a common practice back in the day, so “forgery” may be
too harsh a term. Nevertheless.
Nowhere in the epistles scholars generally agree upon as written by Paul
does he take this misogynistic attitue toward women. Quite the opposite,
actually. And I think it says a lot about those Xians who choose the
repressive and oppresive over the liberating and dignifying. And it is a
choice! They are, imo, complicit in a long history of violence, oppresive
laws and attitudes towards women. Shame, shame, shame. No excuse
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.