The Gripe with Christianity:

[Leanne]

I didn't realise it was supposed to be a poem. I thought it was just a wank with / markers.

[shemthepenman]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

You're going to hell nibbed :o

No, I'm not.

No man can pluck me from God's hand
once I asked Jesus in my heart.
God said I was graven in His hand.
I like to believe good stuff.
But your comment made me smile.
I thought of orange extension cords
and heavy garden hoses all dirty and tangled.


I love you shemthepenman.
I hope your day is lovely today.
The sky is wonderfully blue here
and there's these bright white billows
drifting, making room for new ones.

nibbed

Of course you love me, you're only human. 

Just to be sure, I don't really think you are going to hell. Nor would I wish that nonsense on anyone. And if there is a heaven, which I am almost entirely certain there isn't, I have no doubt you'll be going there. I was only highlighting the seeming contradiction of believing the literal word of the bible which states women should be silent and should not teach or have authority over men, while simultaneously talking quite a lot. Also curious how, being a woman and believing in the literal word of the scriptures, do you square all the blatant sexism in the bible? 

Namaste

---

oh and I suppose I am obliged to say something about rowens' poem. I think it's a rule or something. Yeah good one rowens another load of old rambling nonsense. Keep up the same tired rubbish that was already an embarrassing cliche of literature 50 years ago.

Hare Krishna

[rowens]

The second part goes with the first, if not in sequence. Someone has a son who we call something different even though his name is supposed to be the same. Although he gets less than us, he then goes on to get more than we've ever had. To something we've never known, so've yet to understand.

[nibbed]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

You're going to hell nibbed :o

No, I'm not.

No man can pluck me from God's hand
once I asked Jesus in my heart.
God said I was graven in His hand.
I like to believe good stuff.
But your comment made me smile.
I thought of orange extension cords
and heavy garden hoses all dirty and tangled.


I love you shemthepenman.
I hope your day is lovely today.
The sky is wonderfully blue here
and there's these bright white billows
drifting, making room for new ones.

nibbed

Of course you love me, you're only human. 

Just to be sure, I don't really think you are going to hell. Nor would I wish that nonsense on anyone. And if there is a heaven, which I am almost entirely certain there isn't, I have no doubt you'll be going there. I was only highlighting the seeming contradiction of believing the literal word of the bible which states women should be silent and should not teach or have authority over men, while simultaneously talking quite a lot. Also curious how, being a woman and believing in the literal word of the scriptures, do you square all the blatant sexism in the bible? 

Namaste

---

oh and I suppose I am obliged to say something about rowens' poem. I think it's a rule or something. Yeah good one rowens another load of old rambling nonsense. Keep up the same tired rubbish that was already an embarrassing cliche of literature 50 years ago.

Hare Krishna

Hi shemthepenman. I respect your feelings about your faith. The Scripture is very lovely and makes a wonderful guide book for a believer's life. I didn't want to explain why I disagreed with your comment yesterday because I didn't want to sound argumentative or sound remotely like a know-it-all, because I definitely am not. I have been trying to change the way I write to reflect my true self and often when I write I sound very uppity, stuck-up, or have a seemingly poop-tee-do and la-tee-da way about me, which is quite the contrary of who I really am. I am a very friendly, loving person (though not perfect) who is often misunderstood with my pen.

I held back from telling you the Scripture you were referring to was a portion of a letter written by the Apostle Paul to Timothy. This was at a time during the establishment of the early church when groups of believers were meeting here and there. There's a lot of history involved in this time, including a great deal of persecution and turmoil. There were troubles, divisions, and disorder among early believers. Paul himself, before his conversion, was involved in killing Christians. This letter was written by Paul after his conversion, to encourage the young preacher, Timothy. During that time some of the things that Paul discussed in his letters were a result of some issues arising in the early church. The words of Paul were given as a guide to that early church because uprisings, troubles, and issues were happening within the church body. I believe Paul's letters were included in God's Bible because of who Paul was, what a great change was made in his life, and how he walked with God. Also his words can be used as a guide to keep things that are happening within the church, in-check today. The words were written by a believer to a believer, about believers, to keep Godly order within the assembly of believers. As a believer, they are still important today. So the portion you shared were words given for believers to follow within the church of other believers. You are correct that I should not teach or usurp authority over a man, if he is a believer. I am given full authority to share the Gospel with a lost world, those without Christ. If you have ever heard the wonderful account of the woman at the well, it might better help you to understand. She was the first Christian Missionary. (John 4)

I hope what I have written has not offended you, or sounded bossy, that is not my intent. I wish I had words to describe what a loving Lord I have here, in my heart. How kind and gentle He is to me. How I can run to Him, especially when I have no one else to run to. How real He is. But I can't describe it, I just don't have the words. I just know what He did for me, what He is doing right now, and I am ever thankful. I'm bawlin' like a baby as I write this to you, because I am touched and He is so lovely.

I hope rowen has a better understanding of true Christianity for the poem that is being written. Often if I write about butterflies or plants or some other creation, I must do research, because I just don't know. The best information comes from seeing a butterfly in flight or observing the felt on the belly of a bumblebee before you can really write about it.

Best wishes to you, too, shemthepenman

[shemthepenman]

That is a very thorough answer. Thanks.

Unfortunately, your explanation doesn't nullify the contradiction. Nowhere in 1 Timothy does Paul suggest his instructions are specifically for women to be subservient only to believers, but simply, in general, women should not teach or have authority over a man. In fact, given the context of the letter, it would appear that, quite the contrary, Paul is specifically opposed to the idea of women teaching/preaching to non-believers/sinners.
And yes, I have read the story of the Samaritan from John, but that only compounds the problem. Because it seems to me, in order to believe in the literal word of the bible, one needs to do an awful lot of interpreting, navigating the inconsistencies. Paul says women shouldn't be teachers... John recounts the story of the Samaritan woman converting other samaritans. One cannot believe both of those things to be literally true without some interpretation. It is, therefore, my conclusion that because you clearly have a deep belief in God and you want to tell people about it, you have chosen to interpret Paul's letter as not applicable to you, using the Samaritan story as a crutch for that interpretation. Now, could a scientist, who also has a deep belief in God, not read genesis where it is said that God created the universe in 7
days, and think to himself "that's obviously a metaphor" or apply some other reasonable interpretation in order to square it with what he knows about the universe (he may conclude that god measures days differently, etc.)? It seems to me, that this is just as valid as choosing not to read Paul's words ("women must be silent") literally.

But, that's just how I see it. I've never known anyone who says they believe in the bible literally, before. It seems very peculiar to me. Quite fascinating.

Thanks again.

Sam.

[ellajam]

shem said:

Now, could a scientist, who also has a deep belief in God, not read genesis where it is said that God created the universe in 7 days, and think to himself "that's obviously a metaphor" or apply some other reasonable interpretation in order to square it with what he knows about the universe (he may conclude that god measures days differently, etc.)?

[QDeathstar]

If a man discovers evidence that contradicts Gods Word that is merely evidence of the Devil at work. The earth was created in seven days, the earth is at the center, and God created man. Women are to be silent. Evidence to the contrary is evidence of evil. Of Satan.

There are no metaphors in the bible, metaphores are lies.

[RiverNotch]

I always thought -- I think, as the elder theologians thought -- that God speaks through the material world in much the same way he reveals himself to us through various immaterial means; that there is synergy (as there is between the human soul and the grace of God) between the physical and the spiritual, and whatever evidence "contradicts" contradicts only according to our limited understanding, and not according to the deeper truth at hand.

On a tangent: my beliefs are generally still evolving, so if I have previously said anything sectarian to offend, I apologize. My ultimate, ethical goal when it comes to dealing with the Church is to unite, not to exclude, and at times I forget that.

Not a tangent: yeah, the first part of the piece does sort of read like a wank with slashes, although starting from "...pleasure" down to the second section it sort of gels. What makes it really read like a wank is that this "gripe" is, as a lot of us have noted here, kind of immature, unformed -- drunken, sure, but its drunkenness isn't highlighted anywhere in the poem, and if it's only highlighted via some exterior piece, then it might be best to show us said piece as well. It gels in the second section by showing us a narrative that may be the source of the speaker's gripe (if it's "the" gripe, then it should be universal, reaching even towards the most devout, yet still sane, Christians -- I imagine it would be something about how the world sucks or all life is struggle or whatever), so if no exterior piece is shown, maybe develop this second section?

[QDeathstar]

What's wrong with having a wank? I think the poem as a two piece metaphore work of the devil works.

[RiverNotch]

What's wrong with having a wank? I think the poem as a two piece metaphore work of the devil works.

It's a wank that, by my read, reaches for the authority of a philosopher, but has the corresponding depth of a sophist. For those who might have more involved gripes with Christianity, that might be a little annoying.

[nibbed]

Pope Francis has repeatedly stated that the position of the Catholic Church is that the existence of God is not contradictory to the Big Bang, evolution OR climate change.  I know, you born again types think the Pope is the devil incarnate and consider Catholics to be terrible idolators who even have the audacity to have a different Biblical canon (you know, one not censored by the Reformation -- which is another word for pogrom against Catholics), but there are around 1.2 billion of them in the world getting on pretty well with atheists. Many of them are scientists.  In fact, around 70% of the world's scientists identify as religious -- but that doesn't stop them from understanding that Genesis is an allegory intended to explain difficult scientific concepts to primitive people thousands of years ago (probably by aliens ).

As for your heaven, nibbed:  "A beautiful mansion on streets of purest gold where the walls are made of jasper and there's a tree that bears the manner of every kind of fruit. The gates are made of pearl, big giant doors made of strong, solid, luminescent, pearl."  That sounds like the sterile, cold and vulgar imaginings of a capitalist demagogue -- certainly not my idea of heaven.  But then, my life isn't defined by the pursuit of material goods to the exclusion of all else -- maybe that's why the Protestants really hate Catholics.  

Or is it because Pope Francis is Hispanic, and therefore obviously a criminal and a rapist?

Hi, Leanne.

I can feel your heart and your passion through the words you just wrote and other times when you expressed words concerning faith. Heaven is so much more than just the stuff of gold and jewels. Without writing a novella, I was trying to describe the lovely appearance of heaven, just a small part of what it will be like. The most wonderful thing about it is that it holds the people I love. I have a great hope that when my time comes, those I love whose earthsuits are now buried in rows at the cemetery, will be there to meet me and take me for a stroll on a street made of purest gold. I want to sit under the tree of life, near the crystal river with my mum, who will have a whole perfect mind and a beautiful glorified body, I will get to know the soul I never enjoyed, because her mind was plagued in illness. My brother will be there, too, and we will be happy and laughing, forever. We won't have any pain in our hearts or feel any more sickness. No one can hurt us, ever again. My hope (faith) is that I will join them and the others there whom I love, when I take my last breath. Most of all, my Lord will be there. The One who has helped me through this hard life, the One who has protected me thus far and has never left me, nor forsaken me. The One I can cry out to when I am down or alone, the One who sacrificed Himself, for me. I am not a protestant, I am a Baptist. I don't hate Catholics. I actually love them. I just don't like the institution of the Church of Rome and how they believe you must get your salvation through a church and not a personal relationship. It contradicts the Truth of the Gospel. I have many friends who are Hispanic, too. If anything I have experienced concerning sharing faith, there is more animosity and hatred toward those of us who proclaim a simpler Gospel, but Jesus said that would happen. I just want to love people, and I want to be loved, but I understand when I share my belief it may not be embraced and I may not be loved, but i want to love people, regardless.

All the very best to you, beautiful precious Leanne

nibbed



rowens,

thank you for opening up your heart and thoughts.
I saw it as a poem because it was filled with ideas
and concern. I thought each of the slashes were the ends
of lines and imagined the whole piece in verse and stanza.


nibbed

[rowens]

There is no religion or philosophy rising it above its mundane realm where any heightening only happens through confusion.

---

By it, I mean the poem.

[Achebe]

Why should the implied subservience of women nullify the validity of the Christian bible? The truth is not what it is because we like it.
The Truth is the Truth, even if it means killing children for Baal, who is the one true God.

---

Also, compared to heretical victims of smallpox who were therefore also burned at the stake, Yeshua didn't suffer all that much.

[QDeathstar]

There are a lot better reasons to nullify the validity of the Christian bible besides the implied subservience of women. The fact that it fits too well with the social norms of the time, for instance.

---

There is no religion or philosophy rising it above its mundane realm where any heightening only happens through confusion.

---

By it, I mean the poem.

Scientology?

[Achebe]

Yes, but the most common opposition to the Abrahamic religions is based on morals, not reason.
The bible explains nothing, and we know it came to be written. End debate. Whether women have souls or not is an irrelevant objection.
Allahu Akbar

[shemthepenman]

Why should the implied subservience of women nullify the validity of the Christian bible? The truth is not what it is because we like it.
The Truth is the Truth, even if it means killing children for Baal, who is the one true God.

No... that isn't what i said nor the point I was making. 
Nibbed interpreting Paul's words (non-literally) contradicts her claim that she believes in the literal word of the bible. My point is, if one is going to use all the tools of language, metaphor, simile, subtext, allusion, context, and historical context, in order to read Paul's words "women must be silent" non-literally, then why hold so dogmatically to a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story, for example, when those parts seem in most need of interpretation—being counterintuitive, anti-scientific, anti-what-we-know-to-be-true-about-the-world, and flying in the face of a tidal wave of a priori and a posteriori evidence.
I am not saying that one can't believe in the literal word of the bible; I would, however, suggest most female Christians who profess to believe it haven't taken a vow of silence; and yet still choose to ignore scientific descovery and bang on about how evolution is "just a theory" and think the world is 6000 years old... all I'm saying is, pick a lane! You can go on thinking god made the universe in seven days and that fossils were put there by the devil to test us, all you like... but, if you're a woman, you also have to acknoledge, for it is written, you've got to keep that nonsense to yourself.

[Lizzie]

My grandfather was a Baptist minister; my grandmother wrote his sermons. That's the way it was back in the day.

In other news, I hope a supernatural being never tries to have a close, personal relationship with me.

[nibbed]

Why should the implied subservience of women nullify the validity of the Christian bible? The truth is not what it is because we like it.
The Truth is the Truth, even if it means killing children for Baal, who is the one true God.

No... that isn't what i said nor the point I was making. 
Nibbed interpreting Paul's words (non-literally) contradicts her claim that she believes in the literal word of the bible. My point is, if one is going to use all the tools of language, metaphor, simile, subtext, allusion, context, and historical context, in order to read Paul's words "women must be silent" non-literally, then why hold so dogmatically to a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story, for example, when those parts seem in most need of interpretation—being counterintuitive, anti-scientific, anti-what-we-know-to-be-true-about-the-world, and flying in the face of a tidal wave of a priori and a posteriori evidence.
I am not saying that one can't believe in the literal word of the bible; I would, however, suggest most female Christians who profess to believe it haven't taken a vow of silence; and yet still choose to ignore scientific descovery and bang on about how evolution is "just a theory" and think the world is 6000 years old... all I'm saying is, pick a lane! You can go on thinking god made the universe in seven days and that fossils were put there by the devil to test us, all you like... but, if you're a woman, you also have to acknoledge, for it is written, you've got to keep that nonsense to yourself.

 

shemthepenman, I wasn't interpreting Paul's words at all. You must take the portion you used in context, when it was written and the scene in which it was written, including why it was written and to whom, then Scripture must be proven with more Scripture. There's no interpretation when I say that it was a letter written to Timothy from Paul. It was indeed, a letter. There was no interpretation when I said Paul's writings were written as a guide for believers dealing with other believers. As a believer I am not to purposely teach other Christians who are men. Maybe I will fail, maybe I will let my lips slip, maybe I will lose my place and some teaching words will slip from my lips to another believer who is a man, I hope not. That would be sin, and that's what us humans do, we sin, but it will not send me to hell. I can never go there, because I accepted God's free love gift, I accepted Jesus as my Savior, believing His finished work on the cross paid my sin debt forever: past, present, and future sin. Because I am saved doesn't make me any different than you, it just makes me saved. I'll still sin, I can'thelp it, I live in this fleshy flesh. I want to try not to sin, for many reasons.

If you study the epistles you will find that they are exhortations to the early Church or individuals, such as Timothy. They are not the same as the law that was written in the Old Testament to the Jews that was to be followed, exclusively by them. You are picking and choosing a portion to make a point that does not match up with the background of the Scripture to try to make me feel my faith is lacking or inferior or faulty or to try and make me feel my faith is less than I think it should be. There's no convincing me. Once I asked Jesus in, He cannot leave me. I in no way came on here boastful or insulting your faith, if I had, you would have likely gotten angry and put me in my place. When I share my faith I don't condemn you, I just tell you from my heart what I believe. Whatever you do with my witness is between you and God. All I know is Jesus shed His precious blood and I had to choose to receive that by faith or reject it. I received it. He is a gentle Savior, loving and good. I hope I have explained it properly and in an orderly way. I learned this verse as a child, that pretty much sums up my faith: For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

I hope all is well for you and you find great peace and happiness.

nibbed

[Achebe]

Why should the implied subservience of women nullify the validity of the Christian bible? The truth is not what it is because we like it.
The Truth is the Truth, even if it means killing children for Baal, who is the one true God.

No... that isn't what i said nor the point I was making. 
Nibbed interpreting Paul's words (non-literally) contradicts her claim that she believes in the literal word of the bible. My point is, if one is going to use all the tools of language, metaphor, simile, subtext, allusion, context, and historical context, in order to read Paul's words "women must be silent" non-literally, then why hold so dogmatically to a literal reading of the Adam and Eve story, for example, when those parts seem in most need of interpretation—being counterintuitive, anti-scientific, anti-what-we-know-to-be-true-about-the-world, and flying in the face of a tidal wave of a priori and a posteriori evidence.
I am not saying that one can't believe in the literal word of the bible; I would, however, suggest most female Christians who profess to believe it haven't taken a vow of silence; and yet still choose to ignore scientific descovery and bang on about how evolution is "just a theory" and think the world is 6000 years old... all I'm saying is, pick a lane! You can go on thinking god made the universe in seven days and that fossils were put there by the devil to test us, all you like... but, if you're a woman, you also have to acknoledge, for it is written, you've got to keep that nonsense to yourself.

 

shemthepenman, I wasn't interpreting Paul's words at all. You must take the portion you used in context, when it was written and the scene in which it was written, including why it was written and to whom, then Scripture must be proven with more Scripture. There's no interpretation when I say that it was a letter written to Timothy from Paul. It was indeed, a letter. There was no interpretation when I said Paul's writings were written as a guide for believers dealing with other believers. As a believer I am not to purposely teach other Christians who are men. Maybe I will fail, maybe I will let my lips slip, maybe I will lose my place and some teaching words will slip from my lips to another believer who is a man, I hope not. That would be sin, and that's what us humans do, we sin, but it will not send me to hell. I can never go there, because I accepted God's free love gift, I accepted Jesus as my Savior, believing His finished work on the cross paid my sin debt forever: past, present, and future sin. Because I am saved doesn't make me any different than you, it just makes me saved. I'll still sin, I can'thelp it, I live in this fleshy flesh. I want to try not to sin, for many reasons.

If you study the epistles you will find that they are exhortations to the early Church or individuals, such as Timothy. They are not the same as the law that was written in the Old Testament to the Jews that was to be followed, exclusively by them. You are picking and choosing a portion to make a point that does not match up with the background of the Scripture to try to make me feel my faith is lacking or inferior or faulty or to try and make me feel my faith is less than I think it should be. There's no convincing me. Once I asked Jesus in, He cannot leave me. I in no way came on here boastful or insulting your faith, if I had, you would have likely gotten angry and put me in my place. When I share my faith I don't condemn you, I just tell you from my heart what I believe. Whatever you do with my witness is between you and God. All I know is Jesus shed His precious blood and I had to choose to receive that by faith or reject it. I received it. He is a gentle Savior, loving and good. I hope I have explained it properly and in an orderly way. I learned this verse as a child, that pretty much sums up my faith: For God so loved the world, he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

I hope all is well for you and you find great peace and happiness.

nibbed

Nibbed, I'm unclear about this.
Do you believe the world is 6,000 years old and dinosaurs lived side by side with Adam, or do you subscribe to a less literal interpretation of your Christian bible?

[shemthepenman]

Firstly, I have read the letter a few times, and just once more now for good measure. I can find no explicit statement saying that Paul is speaking anything but generally. "A woman should learn in quietness full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, and then eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became the sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."

Thas is it. The complete verse. What does it literally say? I'll tell you what it doesn't literally say, it doesn't say "women must be submissive only to men who are believers, but can prattle on till their hearts content to men who are non-believers". It simply doesn't say that. Not here, and not anywhere in the letter. And if you are reading it like that you are unequivocally, demonstrably, interpreting it. in fact, a good portion of all verbal and written communication isn't to be taken literally. And to do so would be profoundly stupid.

Secondly, you don't know what I believe. Let's say, for argument's sake, I believe in the literal word of the bible. Now, I read Paul's words as ordained by God himself, and he literally says women must be silent! And as he doesn't specify which women or for how long or in what situation, I must read it literally as all women, all the time, in every situation. Now, as you're a woman, and i believe in the literal word of the scriptures, can you tell me I'm wrong? And then we're really in trouble, two people professing to believe in the literal word of the bible, getting into an argument about how to interpret what Paul says about women. And then you go off and find your own little group who agree with you and I go off and find my own little group that agrees with me. And as we both read the genocidey bits in the bible literally, we nuke each other.

and yes, I am using this one verse to illustrate a point, that you do not believe in the literal word of ALL the scriptures in the collection of books called the bible. But if you don't consider Timothy a part of the bible you have to take literally, then fair enough. I would ask what criteria you pick and choose, but I have almost lost my enthusiasm for it.

The way I see it, if there were a God, he wrote the bible thousands of years ago, communicating with incredibly primitive people, and he communicated in a way they could understand and make sense of... in the form of stories and allegory proverbs, song, simple commandments, etc. And these worked. For a time. But he also gave us the potential and the resources to gradually come to understand the world and the universe and the complex mechanisms by which it works on a much deeper level. And it is through observing and understanding nature that we get closer to god, closer than reading some dusty old book written to inspire barbaric tribes in the desert some three thousand years ago.

Sorry, I went off point there. And I'm not trying to make you question your faith, or even mock or offend. If anything, having to defend your faith should help strengthen it. I'm very much like Jesus in that respect.