Would a ban on all public religious representations and displays ease religious hatreds and violence?

Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
230
Likes
357
“No human mind can accept the dogma of divine despotism and the doctrine of eternal justice at the same time; they contradict each other, and it takes two brains to hold them. The cardinal is right: freethought does logically lead to atheism, if by atheism he means the denial of supreme authority.”
Voltairine de Cleyre
Personally, I agree with CS Lewis.
I don't think that free thought lead to atheism by the simple fact that you can't believe in thoughts and believe, at the same time, that your way of thinking isn't the product of a creative mind.

If I believe in free thinking I presuppose that I have a will and I can take decisions for myself since i'm a spiritual being and it fits with God's existence.

If I believe i'm the product of chaos, I can't trust my thoughts since i'm predetermined by my genes and random chemical reactions inside my brain.

I was atheist until it couldn't make sense for me.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,592
Likes
6,992
Okay but I want to know your opinion :

Do you think that the golden rule implies that you should accept injustice and refuse to fight when your oppressor refuse peace ?

How do you practice justice without firm measures?
Whether or not god intervened on the earthly plane has nothing to do with him accepting injustice when he alone has the power to punish or reward after death. That is the ultimate justice. Isn’t it?

Anything done by god on earth runs straight up against free will doctrine and makes god himself fickle - why choose one thing to intervene in and not the million others he possibly could?
 





Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
230
Likes
357
Whether or not god intervened on the earthly plane has nothing to do with him accepting injustice when he alone has the power to punish or reward after death. That is the ultimate justice. Isn’t it?
And nobody really knows what could happen after this life since Jesus said.

"And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"
Matthew 10:14‭-‬15

Anything done by god on earth runs straight up against free will doctrine and makes god himself fickle - why choose one thing to intervene in and not the million others he possibly could?
But what makes you think that free will means you have the right to break the law and escape God's judgment ?
The Bible is pretty clear about when God intervene and why He intervene.

Ps: I guess I will never have my answer about golden rule as a justification to accept oppression.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,592
Likes
6,992
And nobody really knows what could happen after this life since Jesus said.

"And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!"
Matthew 10:14‭-‬15



But what makes you think that free will means you have the right to break the law and escape God's judgment ?
If he’s judging you upon death how are you escaping judgement? And if he’s judging evil on earth before then why pick and choose? The whole thing the way you guys chose to explain or conceptualizenitnis irrational.
 





Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
230
Likes
357
If he’s judging you upon death how are you escaping judgement?
Physical death isn't a real death as Jesus said.

And if he’s judging evil on earth before then why pick and choose?
Under the law, the consequences of sin was death.
Under the new covenant, a spiritual principle has been modified by Jesus' death so we could be forgiven of our sins.
Now, as long as we stay in our sins, we're condemned and separated from God and can die twice (physical+spiritual death)
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,592
Likes
6,992
Physical death isn't a real death as Jesus said.


Under the law, the consequences of sin was death.
Under the new covenant, a spiritual principle has been modified by Jesus' death so we could be forgiven of our sins.
Now, as long as we stay in our sins, we're condemned and separated from God and can die twice (physical+spiritual death)
Ok well none of that is addressing what I actually said...

You asked if god should not address injustice. I told you he already does after death.. now your claiming he does not after death? I’m either not understanding or you are switching things up as we go - which is what I suspect.
 





Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
230
Likes
357
Ok well none of that is addressing what I actually said...

You asked if god should not address injustice. I told you he already does after death.. now your claiming he does not after death? I’m either not understanding or you are switching things up as we go - which is what I suspect.
I'm saying we weren't under the same convenant. That's why I've cited Jesus talking about Sodom and Gomorrah earlier.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,814
Likes
4,669
Lol nonsense the “justice” system under Catholicism and up until the Renaissance ( but even after that in some places ) was burning people at the stake after torturing confessions out of them.
Catholics burned people at the stake for not being Catholic. There's nothing biblical about that... or Catholicism, really.

Corpses under glass, anyone?


It's not a miracle, mind you, that he has failed to decompose--
POPE JOHN XXIII
In 2000, Pope John Paul II had him exhumed to be declared “blessed,” part of the progression to sainthood. The airtight coffin had left him virtually undisturbed, and the embalming team wanted to keep it that way.​
After the pope’s internal organs were removed...​
... and analyzed, the body was placed in a stainless-steel tub for several weeks in a solution of formalin and alcohol, then neutralized for several weeks. His body then undertook a series of baths in assorted solutions for months at a time, including various mixtures of ethanol, methanol, phenol, camphor, nitrobenzene, turpentine and benzoic acid.
Finally the body was bandaged in linen cloths saturated with a solution of mercury bichloride and ethanol. Then a second team ensconced him with wax on his face and hands. The entire process took about a year.​
The Church decided not to rebury Pope John XXIII, instead putting him on display for pilgrims. More than 25,000 people visit St. Peter’s Basilica every day, and many faithful still believe the incorrupt state of his body is a miracle.​
The Congregation for the Causes of Saints, a legal body inside the Vatican that analyzes witness accounts and oversees the legal measures required for sainthood, failed to recognize the pope’s bodily condition as a miracle — perhaps because the airtight container does not count as an act of God.​
Creepy.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,814
Likes
4,669
Ok..

And why does a wife need to submit to her husband while her husband gets to submit directly to god? Why do we need an intermediary? And a flawed one at that since all humans are flawed/sinners. How can you entrust a woman’s life to a sinner?

This is why women were not allowed to sit in church, teach in church, speak in church etc. yet women are the ones responsible for raising boys into men. And you can’t say the husband was automatically a reliable worthy person to obey since he is human and flawed like all of us.
I understand your position jo, but your position isn’t really in line with what the Bible says.

Submit onto your husbands. Submit:
1.
accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

According to that you should be following your husbands atheism, but you don’t so you are not submitting to him.

What if your husband is unworthy of submitting to? Women weren’t allowed to read or go to church so how would they know? And in a bible that believes most people are sinners and unworthy that means a whole lot of women would be submitting to men that would lead them to hell. The Bible doesn’t allow for divorce so what exactly were they supposed to do?

Why do men submit directly to god but women submit to men? The more steps between someone and the ultimate the more likely the message will be deluded/corrupted - it’s like the game telephone.
Women weren't allowed to go to church? Think you may be confusing with islam.

Paul did advise women to keep a low profile----- ".. because of the angels." Gen 6 problems, many think, and I tend to agree that it should be considered (at least), in that light. It gives a completely different perspective. As for the rest, we are told that "... your sons and your daughters will prophesy." That requires vocalization, of course, so... we're back to context.

The bible isnt a novel-- its a textbook to be studied. Non-canonical (preferably, those cited in the bible) and historical writings (Josephus) add an extra dimension, as well, for those truly interested in understanding. I remember reading the OT in church when I was a kid and being horrified that the sins of the father were passed down to what.. 5 generations? I understand it much differently now.
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,592
Likes
6,992
Women weren't allowed to go to church? Think you may be confusing with islam.

Paul did advise women to keep a low profile----- ".. because of the angels." Gen 6 problems, many think, and I tend to agree that it should be considered (at least), in that light. It gives a completely different perspective. As for the rest, we are told that "... your sons and your daughters will prophesy." That requires vocalization, of course, so... we're back to context.

The bible isnt a novel-- its a textbook to be studied. Non-canonical (preferably, those cited in the bible) and historical writings (Josephus) add an extra dimension, as well, for those truly interested in understanding. I remember reading the OT in church when I was a kid and being horrified that the sins of the father were passed down to what.. 5 generations? I understand it much differently now.
Should have said sit separately in church, my mistake. Point still stands.

And no, they were not allowed to speak in church, Paul made that clear.

How exactly do you reconcile the edict about the sins of the father with what actually is portrayed in the Bible? I can not. And it’s more than 5 generations, women have been held liable for eve ever since.
 





Joined
Jun 4, 2017
Messages
3,814
Likes
4,669
Should have said sit separately in church, my mistake. Point still stands.
I'm not familiar with that one either.

This ignores what I said...
And no, they were not allowed to speak in church, Paul made that clear.

And it wasn't an edict-- he told his audience 'judge for yourselves... if anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.'

And this...

How exactly do you reconcile the edict about the sins of the father with what actually is portrayed in the Bible? I can not. And it’s more than 5 generations, women have been held liable for eve ever since.
Sarcasm, noted.

It's not something I reconciled, emotionally, nor is it anything I'm going to argue from that standpoint... you'll find it insufficient or irrelevant, whereas I find it fascinating.

Like I said-- context.

People can say Eve got the blame all day long, but if you read and study the text yourself, you'll see that
a.) Adam was there the whole time-- he ate, not because he was deceived, but because she did, and​
b.) the whole of humanity is operating under a nasty Curse-- the fallout is not supposed to be pleasant-- so, arguing the details is kind of silly, when you take that into account.​
You may think that isn't fair, and you wouldnt be alone-- but that's another matter, entirely.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,458
Likes
5,856
"Eventually" is not true... people can maintain equal relationships where one partner is not an authority above the other. If you can't maintain that basic standard of mutual respect and treatment then there's probably a problem.

Either the man or the woman can lead in various situations if the need ever happens to arise but it shouldn't stay that way with one partner overshadowing the other's autonomy and becoming controlling... Anyway, one person taking the driver's seat every once in a while in certain situations if necessary is in no way equivalent to the idea that women have an obligation to "submit" to their husbands who supposedly have inherent authority and superiority over them simply because they were born male.

An equal relationship is not a matriarchy nor is it a patriarchy. Don't you get the concept of equality? One person should not be above the other person, neither one has inherent authority over the other. Anecdotal observations mean nothing.

Wow, what lovely stereotypes you've got there lol. It's not accurate to real life.
No, they are not stereotypes.
I had to live in a matriarchy growing up. My sisters followed my mother's example of how to patronise their husband. Their marriages all broke up. I had a lot of good examples from Christian women that helped me break that cycle.

The most unhappily married woman in my current church is the one who struggles to submit (her husband does not want to lead + she is strong-willed).

There is a massive difference between submission and subjection. The former is a choice for the wife, the latter is forced on her.

Yes some abusive husbands pretend that domination of the wife is justified, calling abuse submission. How churches manage to fall for that (and pressure wife to remain with unrepentant husband) is beyond me.

A while back my church's pastor gave his position on abusive marriages, and he said the wife and children should go until the husband can prove he has changed. He didn't endorse permanent separation, he was meaning on a practical level. (Personally I think the man should be forced out but that is the finer details.)

He is a Gen Y man. I hope all younger pastors are bringing his more compassionate viewpoint *into practice*.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,458
Likes
5,856
I understand your position jo, but your position isn’t really in line with what the Bible says.

Submit onto your husbands. Submit:
1.
accept or yield to a superior force or to the authority or will of another person.

According to that you should be following your husbands atheism, but you don’t so you are not submitting to him.
No, submission does not extend to having the same worldview/ belief as your husband.
Directions for wife of non-believing husband verses 1-2, more generalised verses 3-6. 1 Peter 3:1-6
Immediately after the verse for husband, if followed would make him a wonderful man indeed.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Eve was to be Adam's helper, not servant or slave. It is sinful mankind that has created the dysfunction and chaos between husband and wife/ battle of the sexes.

What if your husband is unworthy of submitting to? Women weren’t allowed to read or go to church so how would they know? And in a bible that believes most people are sinners and unworthy that means a whole lot of women would be submitting to men that would lead them to hell. The Bible doesn’t allow for divorce so what exactly were they supposed to do?
1. It is very hard when he wants to do things that I cannot approve of. e.g. watch questionable movies.
I will not stop him from watching them, but I will not watch them. I have read several books specifically for Christian wives of unsaved husbands which advise submit to husband UNTIL that means breaking God's commandments. God is to be obeyed first.

2. Illiteracy was incredibly common for both men and women until fairly recently, it wasn't just women. That would be a factor in the extreme subjection of women in allegedly Christian churches and homes throughout history.

3. Women weren't able to go to church - where did you get that idea? In the Roman Catholic church and most churches until recently church leader roles were only for men, but were women ever prevented from attending Roman Catholic church/ other churches? If yes, I certainly never heard about that!!!

4. The bible states ALL people are sinners.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


It is an individual's own faith or disbelief in Jesus which means if their eternal destination is Heaven or Hell. Neither man or woman can blame each other for that decision.

5. The divorce position is strongly debated amongst Christians. I come from a very imperfect family, I have the opinion there are some sins equally bad as adultery. e.g. p***philia (yes, I knew a sexually abused woman whose mother stayed with her husband because abuse of their daughter wasn't technically adultery) and domestic violence (I saw some of that while growing up).

Unfortunately not enough was said about this difficult topic in the bible to make boundaries extremely clear. I think it is very easy to say "NEVER EVER" until you live through it yourself.
When does domestic abuse become "bad enough" to permanently separate/ divorce for?
In the Age of the Internet, when does adultery become adultery?
Why do men submit directly to god but women submit to men? The more steps between someone and the ultimate the more likely the message will be deluded/corrupted - it’s like the game telephone.
Men and women are both to submit to God.
Women are to submit to their husband (only - we aren't told to obey every single man on earth).
Men are to take leadership role in the church according to bible commandments.

Your last sentence sounds like you believe the Catholic and the Christian viewpoint is the same thing. On this issue the Catholic church departs from the bible. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between men and God, no other person stands in between.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Men referring to mankind, therefore to women as well.
 





mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,093
Likes
12,032
No, they are not stereotypes.
Yes they are by definition... you yourself even pointed out that there are exceptions to the supposed rule. The stereotype is an oversimplified and inaccurate idea of a person based on a singular trait. And they're not true either.
I had to live in a matriarchy growing up.
Lol I don't think you know what matriarchy means. Regardless, a matriarchy is not a equal relationship... I'm surprised that you still fail to grasp the concept of equality. One person in a romantic relationship should not have authority over the other person. It's not a parent-child relationship... it's an equal partnership where both parties respect each other as equal and do not place one person above the other in authority or worth. Your anecdotal opinion is not indicative of anything and it's also off topic.
The former is a choice for the wife, the latter is forced on her.
It doesn't matter if you "choose" to place yourself beneath a man (because your god says you are required to) or if the men force you to do it... it's still putting women in a subordinate position and giving men inherent authority based solely upon their sex... it's still an unequal, sexist idea. And it also makes for an unhealthy relationship where it's even easier for abusive behavior to occur and be justified by abusers. The idea that men are allowed to have authority over women directly leads to the removal of women's autonomy.
Yes some abusive husbands pretend that domination of the wife is justified, calling abuse submission.
By definition, If a woman is submitting to a man, that means that the man is dominating the woman. The man is allowed to exert his will over the woman (domination) and the woman is supposed to yield to his authority over her (submission). Even if he is using his "authority" in a non-abusive way... it's still domination because he is controlling the woman.

If a husband sees himself as above his wife in a hierarchy and believes he has the divine right to authority over her, that is a harmful and sexist mentality... even if he treats his wife in a nice way and wants what he thinks is best for her or whatever.
How churches manage to fall for that (and pressure wife to remain with unrepentant husband) is beyond me.
They fall for it because the idea that men have been divinely granted authority over women is an inherently sexist concept... And since that concept is seen as acceptable, it leads to many churches having entrenched sexist beliefs where they take the idea to it's logical end. Even the watered down view of this idea still fundamentally sees women as inherently below men. And naturally, when women are seen as lesser than men, people will treat them as lesser and won't recognize their autonomy.
A while back my church's pastor gave his position on abusive marriages, and he said the wife and children should go until the husband can prove he has changed. He didn't endorse permanent separation, he was meaning on a practical level. (Personally I think the man should be forced out but that is the finer details.)
Okay, good for him. But why is it so hard to just say "It's perfectly okay to leave an abusive relationship... it's not wrong to cut ties with your abuser and you do not have to leave your options open for them to change in the future"? Why can't he endorse permanent separation?... there's nothing wrong with separating from an abuser and taking yourself out of a harmful situation. Why would you ever return to someone who mistreated and harmed you... even if they claim to have changed? If the person truly changed and you decide to go back, that's your choice but it shouldn't be an obligation.
 





Wigi

Established
Joined
Aug 24, 2017
Messages
230
Likes
357
If a husband sees himself as above his wife in a hierarchy and believes he has the divine right to authority over her, that is a harmful and sexist mentality... even if he treats his wife in a nice way and wants what he thinks is best for her or whatever.
If a wife consent hierarchy, in what way it becomes harmful and sexist?
If, as a woman, you're not consenting hierarchy, it's between you and your husband.
You can stay unmarried aswell but the question is do you want to please God or yourself?

If you want to please yourself, why you're bothered by a religious doctrine ?

When I take my Bible I don't see Jesus arguing that women are to please the needs of men, it's simply written that the man and the woman should become one flesh.

But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand."
Matthew 12:25
 





Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
3,592
Likes
6,992
No, submission does not extend to having the same worldview/ belief as your husband.
Directions for wife of non-believing husband verses 1-2, more generalised verses 3-6. 1 Peter 3:1-6
Immediately after the verse for husband, if followed would make him a wonderful man indeed.

7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

Eve was to be Adam's helper, not servant or slave. It is sinful mankind that has created the dysfunction and chaos between husband and wife/ battle of the sexes.


1. It is very hard when he wants to do things that I cannot approve of. e.g. watch questionable movies.
I will not stop him from watching them, but I will not watch them. I have read several books specifically for Christian wives of unsaved husbands which advise submit to husband UNTIL that means breaking God's commandments. God is to be obeyed first.

2. Illiteracy was incredibly common for both men and women until fairly recently, it wasn't just women. That would be a factor in the extreme subjection of women in allegedly Christian churches and homes throughout history.

3. Women weren't able to go to church - where did you get that idea? In the Roman Catholic church and most churches until recently church leader roles were only for men, but were women ever prevented from attending Roman Catholic church/ other churches? If yes, I certainly never heard about that!!!

4. The bible states ALL people are sinners.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.


It is an individual's own faith or disbelief in Jesus which means if their eternal destination is Heaven or Hell. Neither man or woman can blame each other for that decision.

5. The divorce position is strongly debated amongst Christians. I come from a very imperfect family, I have the opinion there are some sins equally bad as adultery. e.g. p***philia (yes, I knew a sexually abused woman whose mother stayed with her husband because abuse of their daughter wasn't technically adultery) and domestic violence (I saw some of that while growing up).

Unfortunately not enough was said about this difficult topic in the bible to make boundaries extremely clear. I think it is very easy to say "NEVER EVER" until you live through it yourself.
When does domestic abuse become "bad enough" to permanently separate/ divorce for?
In the Age of the Internet, when does adultery become adultery?

Men and women are both to submit to God.
Women are to submit to their husband (only - we aren't told to obey every single man on earth).
Men are to take leadership role in the church according to bible commandments.

Your last sentence sounds like you believe the Catholic and the Christian viewpoint is the same thing. On this issue the Catholic church departs from the bible. Jesus is the ONLY mediator between men and God, no other person stands in between.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Men referring to mankind, therefore to women as well.
If men are submitting directly to god while women are submitting to their husbands then yes someone is standing in between. This has nothing to do with Catholics and the Virgin Mary. The problem is the same in the Catholic Church as all other Christian churches since they use the same holy book.

The command is submit onto your husbands, not submit unto your husband unless xyz.. the quote you gave doesn’t give instruction for a wife of an unbeliever. I’m not sure why you posted it.

And the pastor you reference told the woman to leave until “he’s changed” - abusers mostly don’t change but they are very skilled at convincing their women they will or they have, until the NEXT TIME. And when the women leave they are in the most danger so that pastors advice was very very Bad and dangerous.

It should have said sit seprately at church - which was a practice common in almost every early church as well as many churches today, it’s based on the Jewish tradition. And no, I’ve never been to a Catholic Church where this was currently done.

The Bible didn’t speak more of it because it wasn’t important to the people writing it. We have thousands of years of history to validate this position. In some places it’s still legal to r*pe your wife. Domestic violence only started to be taken seriously a couple decades ago (like twenty years). And the Bible has been used to justify all this. Which is extremely problematic for me.

God says we are all sinners, he says most are unworthy and then he entrusts Womens eternal souls to those same sinners. There are many men who are entirely incapable of managing their own lives yet alone the lives of their wives and children.

I understand that you had a difficult upbringing, I did not really. My parents loved each other very much and did whatever they could to give us a good life. They were/are good people. They raised me with very strong morals and led by example. But they were a partnership - my mother did not “submit” to my father, he was bipolar and if it wasn’t for her he would have been lost. The last email he sent me before he passed said as much. When one is weak the other takes the lead, when both are good it’s shared. That’s a healthy relationship. My own marriage mirrors it and we have been together almost twenty years. Happily.
 





DevaWolf

Established
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
256
Likes
433
I do not have my wife submit to me, we are equals. Nothing has been taken from me because she is free to do as she pleases, we work together as a team and she fills in the blanks in my life as I fill in the blanks in hers.

I do not understand men who want to dominate women, it's much more fun if she chooses me every time of her own volition. If I forced myself upon her or demanded she be lesser than me, she would not give me the same joy.
For a God that says people have free will to submit to him or not, it is very strange that he demands women submit to their men. But it makes sense if you follow the idea that women were made for men, and men were made for God. It gives me the impression that the only free will that counts is the will of the men, the women should listen to the men after all. Yet they will be held accountable before God in the same way men are. Something does not add up here in my eyes.