New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
Some religious teachings have been described as intolerant or out of date.
In particular the opinion that homosexuals are “intrinsically disordered” has been cited as a major barrier to social acceptance. Yet a loving and benevolent deity would surely not punish someone for eternity on the basis of who they love? Perhaps religion is merely an excuse for bigotry, an all encompassing “it says here” pass to deny one group the equal rights of the majority?
Leviticus 18:22: ‘Do not have sex with a man as you would with a woman. It is an abomination.’
Leviticus 20:13: ‘If a man has sex with a man in same way as with a woman, they have committed an abomination. They are certainly to be put to death. Their blood is on their own heads.’
Romans 1:26-27: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense [sic] of their error which was meet.”
The perception of intolerance is not merely confined to homosexuals or even to homosexual practices. Women are another group who have suffered under religion’s harsh yoke. Women aren’t even a minority like homosexuals.
Generally speaking women in biblical times were:
- restricted to roles of little or no authority,
- largely confined to their father’s or husband’s home
- considered to be inferior to men, and under the authority of men — either their father before marriage, or their husband afterwards.
There were no female apostles. Women were told to behave and do as they were told.
Ephesians 5:23: “For the husband is the head of the wife.”
Colossians 3:18: “Wives, submit yourself unto your husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.”
There has been some controversy as to the position of women within the church with church leaders limiting the highest rank that a woman could attain. It seems as if the attitude that the figure of Jesus had for equality of women and men was not shared or encouraged by the church. At least not until the last century.
The bible and the church have also been called racist.
Deuteronomy 23:3-8: An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee. Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.
Even the parables of Jesus suggest that racial intolerance were the norm. The Good Samaritan is an example: even a member of that race could do good works. The Old Testament is fully accepting of slavery and even has information on how to properly care for your slaves.
Leviticus 25:44-46: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
—
I admit that I am deliberately playing up the negative aspects of religion to get my point across. There is no need for an angry rant telling me that. I’ve done it to highlight how Christianity can be viewed and indeed how it can be put across by some individuals.
Is it any wonder then that some people can look upon religion negatively?
Popularity: 4% [?]
Loading ...
Haven’t we covered this before?
I think Gods Gal and I went round and round over this.
In my opinion this idea of intolerance the is Christian Achilles Heel.
If you cannot see, atheist or theist, that our attitudes towards women have gradually become more and more enlightened over the past 2000 years, you truly are only seeing what you want to see in the Bible.
The Bible is VERY clear on the prescribed role that women are supposed to fill. Most woman in the western world would chafe, to say the least, under the strictures that Biblical law would see imposed.
Consider they way that the followers of Islam treat women. Most Islamic societies insist that women remain covered head to toe! The country that is supposedly the United States strongest ally in the War on Islamo-fascism ™, Saudi Arabia, has by our standards medieval views of women! We decry this injustice! Yet less than 100 years ago women in the West didn’t even have the right to vote OR own property!
Womens Suffrage was actively opposed from the pulpits of the time.
Biblical morals aren’t timeless and perfect. They’re unenlightened and sickening to modern people.
To say otherwise is going through life with blinders on!
Robert
Hover….I wish I had time to stay and debate this today…I have to leave tho and go where there is no internet. But I will have alot to say on this whenn I get back. I feel it is a poor representation of how a Christian feels and one of the main reasons why there is such contention between Christians and non-beleivers. Yes Robert, we have gone round on this, but obviously what I was trying to get accross was not heard…ahem….:p
Robert, you’re expression about how women were viewed in the bible is also shall we say, OFF???! I thought we had made a little headway…I guess we’re still at ground zero. Cya when i get back….
:-l
I was recently discussing a facet of this with someone else.
If we went through a history of atheist dogma and application it is utterly indisputable that just as many abuses of whoever the “them” is within those cultures would, and will continue to surface. The only difference is that political representatives of what was called the church had a longer time span in which to be horrible. If the 20th century is any indication, an atheist mindset will propogate an equal amount of horror in considerably less time.
If we are to assert that ideologies, and not people, kill, then the blame needs to be spread around in a fashion which actually represents the death which those of an atheistic mindset have perpetrated. To not have that balance, to not be able to admit the failings of a certain outlook, is exemplary of the real blinders in this matter. Saying “they’re horrible” without being able to realize that, in matters of destruction “they” are “we” is picking and choosing of the most disingenuous sort.
There isn’t one person who signs on here who isn’t just as closed-minded as any fundamentalist. There are two kinds of perspectivalists: Those who admit it and those who don’t.
Can I ask everyone to re read my penultimate paragraph please.
Robert and GG, you may well have covered it and I may have even joined in. Sometimes it’s worth going over old ground again.
The bible has no ability to retract a statement or to rephrase it to a modern audience. I’m simply highlighting how existing statements can be used to repress a particular group. This could be homosexuals, women or an ethnic group. It could even be people who like wearing clothes made from mixed fibres if you want to be really pedantic.
I am not for one moment suggesting that ALL Christians hold these view or even that a given church holds these views. I am simply stating that the phrases exist and can be used by some individuals or groups to promote certain unwholesome attitudes.
I’m also using the texts to highlight the point that our morality isn’t given to us from a holy text but from our society and our personal stance as an individual operating within that society. Otherwise we’d be stoning gays, owning women and enslaving … Oh I don’t know, pick a colour or a country.
@Jason, Atheist dogma? What’s that? A set of teachings from a higher authority that tells us not to believe in something.
Froggin at the frep jam,
Robert previously posted the definition of dogma. something to the effect of “asserting an authoritative point of view with insufficient grounds”. You import “not” into the matter. You are not saying to not believe something, in fact, you are repeated saying that to mot see and do things your way is wrong. Importing “not” into the idea is trying to change the subject to some opaque concept, not the reality of the moral judgments you make in your post.
The consistent atheist is unable to say that anything at all is right and wrong. These broad assertations regarding morality are tethered to nothing other than what one person or a bunch of people think that they know best. But there is no reason for one to assert that that one group’s ideas are better than another’s outside of preference.
And yet, over and over I read they shouldn’t do this and should do that, and I wonder, as I asked in the last entry…
Should?
Should for you?
Should for you and the people who think like you?
Dogma. The proclamation that X is true even though there is no reason to think the X is better than Y, or Z, or whatever.
If atheism is to be consistent, it would be much more in the model of Ayn Rand, which is nearly the spittin image of what macroevolution is proposed to be.
I win because you don’t. That is consistent atheism, because there is no right and wrong. The only way to make broad statements about this or that being bad or good is either a. they are actually bad or good, or, b. you think they are and would choose to force me into your idea of a line.
Just flavors. Just personal desires. And whoever has the biggest stick.
Gods Gal said:
Pardon me, but how in the world could you possibly ’spin’ Paul in 1 Timothy 2 9-15 to be anything other than misogynistic drivel it is?
Let’s take it verse by verse, shall we?
So, no loud clothes, no wild hair-dos (those lady televangelists are in a heap of trouble) or expensive jewelery (tell me this wasn’t written by a guy! ; ) ) All you gals wanna give up your engagement rings and tennis bracelets? No? Didn’t think so.
So good works = godliness. I can get onboard with that one. Next…
Hey Woman! Sit Down! Shut Up and pay attention to what we Men say is best! (This would play really well at Smith College in Massachusetts.)
Evidently, Paul doesn’t think you woman have anything that you can teach or impart to let alone be in charge of us Men…. and by the way, again, SHUT UP! Moving on…
Oh and you women were just an afterthought. If Adam hadn’t gotten umm well randy, God wouldn’t have bothered with you at all.
Poor sweet innocent Adam, brought down by a Woman, who was taken in by a talking snake!
Even though you ARE responsible for our fall from grace, you CAN achieve salvation if you squeeze out a kid or two, while maintaining your faith in God, who is after all STILL completely responsible for your lot anyway! (sounds fair to me!)
Now it IS my contention that if American woman actually sat down and read their Bibles, 90% of them would feel the same way I do.
And they would be right to feel that way!
Robert
@Jason, Robert did indeed post a definition of dogma. Here is another:
How is a lack of belief supposed to be dogmatic?
Anyway, that is beside the point. In citing the homophobic, misogynistic and racist statement made in the bible I had hoped to prompt people to think about the source of their morals. Particularly in how far removed they actually are from the text that supposedly guides them.
I certainly wasn’t attempting to pass moral judgement on Christianity. How futile an exercise would that be? Christians today are not the same Christians that existed in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the American Revolution or even the Swinging Sixties.
Not so. Having an individual moral framework means that I can claim that any particular action is right or wrong based on my own opinions.
This differs from Church doctrine how?
Perhaps you are reading more into something than is stated? I don’t recall telling anyone to think or act in a certain way.
How can a non-belief be consistent? Your assumption is that Atheism is some kind of moral philosophy. It isn’t. It’s simply belief in one less god that you believe in.
@Robert, I doubt if there are many women in the western world who feel that they should conform to the stereotype woman in her place that the passages you’ve provided describe. Perhaps some women do but I would think them far from the norm. I don’t have enough experience to give an opinion of eastern or middle eastern cultures.
However I am certain that a small percentage of religious males do hold this opinion. Possibly not that small a percentage either.
Having said that doesn’t the “good book” also indicate that men should wear modest apparel as well? Maybe that’s the Quran.
Being intolerant is part of a persons personality, perhaps as a result of how have been treated by others. It has little to do with religious beliefs. Atheist can be as closed minded as Christians.
When someone starts off a sentence with “I don’t see how you can believe …..” that’s a pretty sign of a closed mind.
If a person wants to debate or argue a point they don’t need an open mind. If they want to discussion an issue I think it is best to start with the idea that the other guy could be right. To have a willingness to admit you could be wrong.
@hoverFrog
The point I was making is the sort of strictures imposed on women in 1 Timothy 2 are pathetically laughable by our modern Western standards.
Wouldn’t you agree?
Some theists argue that Paul wrote those lines to reflect conditions of his time.
To which I say: GREAT!!!
So there are parts of the bible that are completely irrelevant and not applicable to OUR world.
Why don’t we all admit that and move on rather than making blanket statements like:
“The entire Bible, every word and phrase, is the complete and inerrant Word of God!”
This is all that I am saying.
Just a little common sense please.
R
@Robert, great, I completely agree. However (ah, such a lovely word to describe a caveat) if but one word or phrase of the bible is wrong then how do you know the rest of it isn’t? Which bits are right and which bits wrong?
Now, you or I may say “fine, the bible is a story, take it or leave it” but there are people who choose to take it literally. Or the Quran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Rigveda, Dianetics, the Tipitaka, etc.
Which bits do you reject?
Now assume that it is the inerrant Word of God. Surely it is a terrible thing to reject even one word of the perfect god?
When any book is taken so rigidly without any sort of flexibility it becomes a liability.
I live in a State where the Supreme Court has decided it is unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of a same sex couple. I happen to agree with the decision. So I reject the Leviticus prohibition of homosexuality.
This is one amongst many other rejections.
Sure it would be terrible, IF a person were to accept the proposition that the Bible is in fact, the inerrant word of GOD, but I am not this person.
Those selections would make much more sense if they weren’t taken out of the context of (A) the immediate text in those chapters, (B) the entirety of the Bible, and (C) the context of the culture and times in which it was written.
@Matt L; ok, i’m listening…please explain how the selections make much more sense (and what type of sense that is - are you saying that the sections aren’t as -ist as they seem? how so?) when taken in context of (A) + (B) whilst also being non-contradictory.
i’m not sure how to take (C). if the quotes can only make sense when judged against prevalent culture at the time of writing, you’re left with a whole new set of problems. is the bible not relevant to us as our culture is so very different? did the abrahamic god not know that culture would change, or is the bible purely a piece of fictitious writing by men? does the bible need updating (which would also suggest one could not believe it’s the inerrant word of god), and if so, does that not suggest the most recent ideas should be given credence (think islam, mormonism etc.). if the bible is god’s word/inspired by and it’s so damn difficult to understand, and there exist such a myriad of interpretations, and it’s such a source for conflict…can we conclude that god cannot be omnipotent as he is obviously rubbish at literature?
:d
ooh, extra question - if biblical morality is to be judged in context of the time and culture of writing, does that not mean that christian morality is just as flexible and non-absolute as non-christian morality?
@ash
Yeah!!! Exactl, what you said dude!!!
R
Hover, please post the entire bible when using quotes from it.
Right you are, guv’nor.
Wait! Which version?
Robert:…I’m back
I didn’t mean to be offensive before I left, it is just that InWorship went quite extensively, two days if I remember right, into the scriptures you brought up, as well as me. I have explained them as best as I am capable of explaining them, and you present it again like it’s never been brought up. It’s a bit frustrating, but if you don’t believe in God or His Word there really is no amount of explaining that you’ll understand…..so sorry if I don’t get into all that again.
Ash, can you show me in the New Testament where you have a problem with what is being said? I must have missed something…actually I missed alot, but could you catch me up please, thanx!
Hi Deb, you aren’t ever offensive….OK never on purpose. Rest assured that I am convinced of your good intentions.
My point (which seems to have been poorly conveyed on my part) is that the morality of the bible isn’t that of current western Christians. Furthermore there are some passages in the bible that can be taken and used by some groups to serve less than goodly purposes. These groups could be right wing female oppressors, the klu klux klan, gay bashers or even worse. Maybe even atheists. :d
hey GG, the angle i was coming from stemmed from previous conversations both on here and other sites. in these convo’s, it has appeared to me that most christians believe in a form of moral absolutism. what i mean by this is the idea that there are some moral laws that should apply to all humankind across all cultures and times, and should always be upheld as ‘correct’, ‘good’ or ‘right’. further, these absolute moral standards can only be explained and inherited within the context of a creator-god existence.
as you can probably tell, i don’t agree.:d
the reason i picked up on what Matt said, and challenged him on it, is that it appears to directly contradict the idea of moral absolutism. the notion that biblical content should be read or understood in
is one that relegates any biblical message or morality to being subjective, flexible and open to interpretation.
consider yourself caught up (from where i was at, leastways)…now feel free to add, clarify or criticise…;)
Hov: I guess I get frustrated, (glad it doesn’t come out in my writing..) LOL
when we discuss a topic, to death, for days, and then a couple weeks later the same scripture or point is brought up like it has never been touched on yet. I’m not speaking of your post, but Robert dear…InWorship, Tam and I and others spent how long on this woman thing???8-|
Yes things were written in a different time and culture. A short synopsis of the women be quiet stuff would be, there were literally hundreds of people stacked into areas and the women to be heard were yelling from the back. IF you study it out, you would see that was basically set up to keep order and let the men be the voice of the family. Yes it was culture, yes the man is the head of the family in our belief system..but I’ll tell ya what, the support of my husband is THE most needed and wanted support in my life. He protects me, he believes in me, he has wisdom about finances and understands things on a much deeper level than I do. I love to have him in the lead. He always let’s me speak my mind and have my ideas, and even fall on my face once in awhile. Never makes me feel less than everything I should be as a woman, wife and mother.
As far as this continuation of trying to fit Old Testament stuff into New Testament era, it just will never fit. Before the cross, it was the age of law. God fulfilled the law,and now we are in the age of grace. When I read the old Testament, I can see how it ties into the new…and go from there. I don’t look at it and say, “Crap, I can’t eat shellfish??????” As a non-beleiver, I’m sure it’s difficult to understand, impossible probably…but believers do understand as it takes on a whole new meaning once you see Him for who He is.
ASH: HI!:-h I always enjoy you!
I believe that God gave us rules to help us live the most productive and healthy lives possible. But then today, even if you follow the dietary plan outlined in the Bible with today’s crud that is put into all of our food….it probably wouldn’t do much good. Just breathing is lethal at times….and not just after a good bowl of chili…;)
I see what you meant now and all I can say is things are definately not the way they were originally intended, but I believe they will be one day.
GG, the idea of my allowing my partner to do anything is laughable. Sure I’m better at some things than she is (opening jars, heavy lifting, mathematics) and she’s better at some things than I am (almost everything social). This is just how we are. The idea that God gives us roles to fulfil that we have to adhere to is offensive to me.
OK, some traditional gender roles fall on Hil as a woman and as a virtue of the fact that my earnings are so much higher than hers. While we both work I’m the one who does longer hours and she gets most of the childcare. Now, if she could earn £30k a year more I’d be quite happy to work less.
How about as a person?
Of course it is wrong of me to try to dictate to anyone how to live their lives. If you are happy in the role that you have in your family then that just great. In my 21st century western perspective though, to have that role dictated to you by a third party is wrong.
Now, you say that some parts of the bible can be ignored. You cite the OT rule of shellfish. Where in the bible does it say that it’s OK to ignore any of the old rules? If you’ve decided for yourself that some rules are just daft and you can ignore them then you are picking and choosing. If you’re picking and choosing and that’s OK then someone else can decide to ignore the restrictions on homosexuality and that’s OK too. How about ignoring the parts about murder? That’s OK?
The bible isn’t a book of law. You can’t go to the House of Lords or the Senate and get it amended. You can’t downgrade adultery to a civil offence or change the rule of eating shellfish so that it isn’t even a crime. There is no higher authority with the ability to edit and update the bible. In fact it is supposed to be the perfect word of god and as such would surely require no editing or interpretation.
Anyway, I’m sure you’ll forgive me for going off on a tangent slightly. Try not to get too frustrated with me. I’m sure you’ve got a point. Keep plugging away and I might even get it one day.
Hov…uh…where do you get this stuff from what I wrote…I’m not saying something write….the attitude in our marriage is not one of allowing eachother to do anything…where did I say that??????We both have a personal relationship with God and He is the center of our marriage. There is no way to explain that in a way you would understand. Does The Hildy not ask your advice or care about your opinion about anything? Do you not discuss major decisions??? Do you discuss your kids? Do you guys just go your seperate ways, then come together at some point and time and say…oh ok..whatever…
Again, as a believer, God gives us guidelines at how we’re suppose to be and it works for us. It is NOT a lordship over you relationship..it is one of mutual respect.
Where did I say that it is ok for the rules to be ignored. Please re read what I wrote there…to me, it all ties in together…Christ Himself was the fullfillment of the law…that may not make sense to you and I would be happy to explain it. I said
Maybe that doesn’t make sense to you…and I need to explain what I mean by that.
You couldn’t be farther from the truth about how I feel on this stuff….I’m not ignoring anything……I’m going to look up some scripture so I can explain this a little better…my brain is mush…and I really want you to understand what I mean here…cause so far…it ain’t happpinin’….I’ll B Back in the morning froginess…:)
oops…I see all kinds of brain mush spelling error…sorry…:(
No problem. I don’t mind getting it wrong from time to time. It sounded as if you deferred everything to your husband and that this was based on biblical teachings. Clearly I read too much into what you wrote. 2 + 2 = 5
So you’re not ignoring parts of the biblical law. Fine. Equally you don’t adhere to everything in it. I think living in a modern world and sticking to biblical law would be almost impossible.
Please explain the part about Christ being the fulfillment of the law. Does that mean that the OT law is finished with? If so then someone should explain that to the gay bashers who use OT scripture to justify their prejudice.
Hi Hov: I finally have a minute to respond to this….
Again, I am going off of what I believe which probably won’t make alot of sense to you…but it’s how I believe.
I read through some scripture and I guess the one that would begin to explain it best would be in Matthew 5. I think it is just as wrong for a Christian to throw out the Old Testament as it is for the Atheist to dwell on it. Alot of Christians want to only belong to a NT church.
Jesus Himself had quite a controversy with the Pharisees over whether He himself had done away with the NT. He healed on the Sabbath, and the disciples ate grain plucked on the Sabbath they didn’t wash their hands the way they were suppose to. God makes it clear in Matthew 5:17, that He did not come to abolish the Law, He came to fulfill it. Big difference. He says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. “The Law” refers especially to but not limited to the Torah, or the first five books of the Bible (Pentateuch) “The Prophets” include the writings of the prophets and the historical books…Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Jesus’ phrase “The Law and the Prophets” refers to the whole of the OT. In this one scripture he contrasts two words: abolish and fulfill. The Greek word for abolish, kataluo, means destroy, demolish, dismatle, do away with….He makes it very clear He hasn’t come to destroy it, and a positive view about the law. He came to fulfill it (Greek word pleroo) to make full fill, bring to completion, finish something begun. You have to use it in context.
The Pharisees in their attempt to obey legalism had limited the application of the law. Jesus wanted his followers to see that the law was way beyond the Pharisees interpretaions. If you read the rest of Chapter 5 you see that Thou shall not kill is more than the act of murder. Anger and lack of respect is included…that is what motivates the act to begin with. Adultery, divorce, retaliation. It’s just not so black and white, and we could probably discuss this one topic for a year or so.
Then there are different kinds of laws as well…civil law, religious law, moral law…it all ties together. Impossible for us, done by Him. I know, tons of questions etc. But right now I’m just trying to explain why we are not any longer bound by OT law.
I don’t know why people choose to warp the Word the way they do. As I have said before, when people use it for an excuse, either to bash gays, or not ever seek Him out…the enemy has a hand in it. It’s not who God is at all…and a very poor representation of Him. I can’t control the world Hov, any more than you can. I’m just one person. But one thing I don’t do and haven’t done is say…well the atheists are God haters because one group said so…so I’m infuriated with all atheists. That’s very biased….not all people “use” the Bible the way you have stated…me for one. It brings me understanding and peace…it’s my source for my path of life…not to hurt someone else with. I know there’s tons of questions…so keep going…;)