On Misogyny and Christianity: Women, Know Your Place!

[Igakusei]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2011/12/11/woman-know-your-place/

Thoughts?

[John317]

Written by the Georgia State Director of American Atheists, Inc.

[miz3]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/alstefanelli/2011/12/11/woman-know-your-place/

Thoughts?

Nice to see you again my friend Igakusei. I hope all is well.

You did not start this thread for me to talk about you and I so I will get right to my thoughts about this article.

This article is written by someone who does not believe in God much less in the FACT that the Bible is God's Word and as such is the only Standard of Truth.

Since I do believe that the Bible is God's Word and that God does actually exist it is almost impossible for this person to have any credibility concerning what the Bible actually says.

Having said that does not mean he "can" never be valid.

I believe misogyny exists in the world and that it exists in the Christian Community. I believe that such an evil view of women is indeed due to the sin/evil that exists in the World and in the natural heart of every human (not that every human is naturally misogynist just as the evil of murder is not in every human heart, etc.).

As a Christian I also believe that God has given humanity His tremendous gift of victory over all these sins/evils including misogyny. That does not mean that because you are a Christian you have in a single instant wiped out your sinning/evil doing and being. That is not how it works.

That is why we still view all Christians as still struggling with their sins (granted some Christians are so in name and are never inclined to God giving them victory which is why Christianity is given a bad name unfairly). Yet there are many Christians who are honestly and truthfully being "conquerors over sin albeit slow and drawn out including the sin of misogyny.

We only see the outside of the human entity so it is impossible for us other humans to see what is actually going on inside others. This is an infinite handicap because we can only see the outcomes/fruit (as the Bible puts it). We can judge whether the fruit is good or evil(bad). We may see bad fruit but the actual human is good. We may also see bad fruit but the actual human is bad. In addition we may see good fruit but the person is bad and we may see good fruit and the person is actually good. Thus, we have four possibilities.

We can see the fruit, which is only of two kinds and we can only judge the fruit. However the person inside may actually be one of the four outcomes. Those inside outcomes we cannot see and/or know on this earth.

Thus, you can see what I mean about our being handicapped when judging people whether they be Christians, Atheist, Agnostic, Evolutionist, etc. etc.

Therefore just because the author of the article you cited is an Atheist does not automatically make him bad, nor does it make him good. Only God knows the answer to that internal question. However, I and others can look at the result(fruit) of his atheistic views and maybe his behaviors and judge whether or not they are good or bad (I call that fruit picking).

So given that I am a Christian I see the fruit of his thoughts/views as being not valid most of the time.

Next I see this author as being wrong about Paul. I know Paul looks like a misogynist but in my view Paul is not. I think most people, including most Christians, think Paul is a misogynist and they also think that because Paul was that God actually approves of misogyny.

On this very Forum no doubt you have noticed the intense discussion within the SDA Church .org (a part of Christianity) on this very issue. I am sure some of those who are against women in Church Leadership are not misogynist yet it is logical to believe that some are indeed misogynist. We can only look at the fruit and make a judgment. Our judgment must only be about the fruit and never ever about the heart.

The Fact is the Bible is clear that misogyny is a sin just the same as murder is a sin and that misogyny has no place within God and His Community. God Himself never ever practiced misogyny even though some think that and even assert that God did. We can discuss specific Biblical instances if anyone choose to. I will be happy to engage and defend the Bible on this issue.

It appears to me that your author as cited in the article thinks that Christianity as a whole is indeed misogynist. He would not be correct per my analysis above. He cannot possibly know that for certainty. However, he is correct about the Fact that Christianity has been slow or even stagnant in addressing this issue within its ranks.

He would be wrong to say that the natural outcome of being a Christian or of Christianity itself is to be misogynist. I think that is indeed what he is asserting and I would totally disagree with this characterization in regard to this view of Christianity and its adherents.

That would be like saying you, Igakusei, are going to burn in Hell because of your beliefs. I don't know that and neither does any other human. You may well burn in Hell or you may not. Only God and maybe you know the answer in regard to your heart. However I can say that your views and your belief is bad and that God will one day burn such beliefs (which may also burn those that believe such also). You may not agree and that is OK with me. However I can never ever say that you, Igakusei, will burn in Hell until God tells you that and we actually see such.

I hope I have been clear in my expressions and in the differences I have attempted to make. If not please feel free to ask me to clarify anything about my position.

I may have more to say depending on which way this discussion goes.

[John317]

....Next I see this author as being wrong about Paul. I know Paul looks like a misogynist but in my view Paul is not. I think most people, including most Christians, think Paul is a misogynist and they also think that because Paul was that God actually approves of misogyny.

But what is misogyny? Isn't it hatred of women?

What evidence is there that Paul hated women?

An atheist might believe Paul must have been a misogynist because he said that women are not to be the teachers of men and should not be the Church pastors/elders.

But does that make Paul, or others who agree with Paul, a misogynist?

Are all the women who agree with Paul misogynists?

Aren't there valid biblical reasons for people to believe women ought not to be the elders/pastors/bishops of the church?

[olger]

Quote:

Are all the women who agree with Paul misogynists?

Love it.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not all who agree with Paul are misogynists, obviously. I don't think that was the point. But I think it fair to say that misogynists find some significant stuff in Paul's writings to support their perverted view of women. That some of the early church fathers were misogynists seems clear. And if you read their writings you will see that they use Paul to support their views.

[Igakusei]

One of his key points that I liked pointed out how theology often adapts to keep up with social progress. Paul has been used for thousands of years to support misogyny, but within the last century and a half we've seen all sorts of rationalizations emerge as to why what Paul said only applied to an earlier culture, etc. We see the same arguments used to deny certain things from the OT, since we understand how backwards and rotten they are. The point is that social progress in these areas didn't come from the Bible, it came in spite of the Bible, and then our Bibilical understanding was re-written by theologians to explain how all that "bad" stuff never really applied to us anyway, and was for an earlier, more simple/barbaric/etc culture.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

....Next I see this author as being wrong about Paul. I know Paul looks like a misogynist but in my view Paul is not. I think most people, including most Christians, think Paul is a misogynist and they also think that because Paul was that God actually approves of misogyny.

But what is misogyny? Isn't it hatred of women?

What evidence is there that Paul hated women?

An atheist might believe Paul must have been a misogynist because he said that women are not to be the teachers of men and should not be the Church pastors/elders.

But does that make Paul, or others who agree with Paul, a misogynist?

Are all the women who agree with Paul misogynists?

Aren't there valid biblical reasons for people to believe women ought not to be the elders/pastors/bishops of the church?

What I have said does not disagree with what you said with the exception of the last question which I have highlighted in red above.

No there are not valid Biblical reasons to believe women ought not to be the elders/pastors/bishops of the church. Paul does not say this either. Paul's wording may lead one to think so but it is absolutely not true as I and numerous others have shown on a couple of other threads.

Thus, Paul is not a misogynist. Because our atheist author of the article cited in the OP believes Paul is a misogynist does not make Paul actually one nor does it mean that he has pegged Paul correctly.

The Bible and I both reject that Paul is a misogynist and the Bible and I also reject that Paul was against women being elders/pastors/bishops of the church.

[miz3]

Not all who agree with Paul are misogynists, obviously. I don't think that was the point. But I think it fair to say that misogynists find some significant stuff in Paul's writings to support their perverted view of women. That some of the early church fathers were misogynists seems clear. And if you read their writings you will see that they use Paul to support their views.

[miz3]

One of his key points that I liked pointed out how theology often adapts to keep up with social progress. Paul has been used for thousands of years to support misogyny, but within the last century and a half we've seen all sorts of rationalizations emerge as to why what Paul said only applied to an earlier culture, etc. We see the same arguments used to deny certain things from the OT, since we understand how backwards and rotten they are. The point is that social progress in these areas didn't come from the Bible, it came in spite of the Bible, and then our Bibilical understanding was re-written by theologians to explain how all that "bad" stuff never really applied to us anyway, and was for an earlier, more simple/barbaric/etc culture.

I cannot agree with this. I certainly agree that Christian "theologians" in the past did indeed use(misuse) Paul and other parts of the Bible as an excuse to practice misogyny.

However, this is not the Bible's fault. The TRUTH has always been there. It is just that flawed human beings filled with sin interpreted the Scripture wrong. Thus, the problem is not with the Bible but with those flawed human beings.

The problem of flawed human interpretations is not new to the past it is also true of today. Many Christians, our atheist author, other atheists, agnostics, etc. etc. still today misinterpret the Scripture because the sin in them leads them to such erroneous ideas. Many of these misinterpretations come from well meaning humans but some also comes from humans who have bad and evil intentions. Such refers back to my opening post about humans, fruit, and the real inner heart.

The problem of Bible Truth comes in when humans allow their "sinful nature", their wrong sinful preconceived notions, their culture, etc. etc. to be the basis, and/or the whole platform upon which they come to any conclusions about the Bible and/or what is in the Bible.

The only way to actually know Bible Truth is be stripped of all these encumbrances and in addition to have God by the Holy Spirit teach us what God is actually saying in His Word the Bible.

As long as there are flawed humans who insist on interpreting Scripture based on their human inadequacies and other human unBiblical structures the Bible will continue to be interpreted incorrectly from what God actually intended. This problem will never go away in the Christian Culture and in the nonChristian cultures everywhere.

The Bottom Line is that the Bible is not catching up with anything. If humans are doing anything right in any of their human structures it is they who are catching up with God and with the Bible. So whether by accident or intent humans will always be struggling to catch up to God and the Bible.

Thus, my view is the exact opposite of yours. I would say that humans today on the subject of misogyny are just finally after too long catching up either by design or inadvertantly with God and the Bible.

Like I told you the author of this piece is not qualified to assess the situation correctly because of his inherent prejudice against God and the Bible. It is just the FACT. His prejudice colors all his conclusions including the erroneous one about the Bible catching up with society. He has it backwards.

The Bible is always ahead of "correct social progress".

[BibleOnly]

One of his key points that I liked pointed out how theology often adapts to keep up with social progress. Paul has been used for thousands of years to support misogyny, but within the last century and a half we've seen all sorts of rationalizations emerge as to why what Paul said only applied to an earlier culture, etc. We see the same arguments used to deny certain things from the OT, since we understand how backwards and rotten they are. The point is that social progress in these areas didn't come from the Bible, it came in spite of the Bible, and then our Bibilical understanding was re-written by theologians to explain how all that "bad" stuff never really applied to us anyway, and was for an earlier, more simple/barbaric/etc culture.

In fact, the Bible is a progressive document, for example, it allowed women to receive the inheritance, it provided social security for widows, etc.

It IS true that as Christianity became the state religion, it was used in retrofit to justify the beliefs of the society that took it up nominally. This is not the Bible's fault, or God's fault. It's still done today, witness George Bush going to war and saying 'God is on our side'. It's also true that atheists cherry pick the Bible out of context to attack it. Anyone setting out to attack something, is hardly trying to understand it.

[Igakusei]

I cannot agree with this. I certainly agree that Christian "theologians" in the past did indeed use(misuse) Paul and other parts of the Bible as an excuse to practice misogyny.

However, this is not the Bible's fault. The TRUTH has always been there. It is just that flawed human beings filled with sin interpreted the Scripture wrong. Thus, the problem is not with the Bible but with those flawed human beings.

[Igakusei]

Anyone setting out to attack something, is hardly trying to understand it.

Two points:

1. I was a convicted SDA for decades, and the author in the OP was a pastor for even longer than that. We hardly "set out" to attack the Bible. Please be honest enough to acknowledge that.

2. What's your opinion on evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life?

[BibleOnly]

Then why does it always seem to happen the other way around? A cultural understanding and support of women's rights preceded the theological understanding that the Bible supports women's rights, not the other way around. Can you give me some examples of major societal progress that was directly attributable to the Bible?

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: BibleOnly

Anyone setting out to attack something, is hardly trying to understand it.

Two points:

1. I was a convicted SDA for decades, and the author in the OP was a pastor for even longer than that. We hardly "set out" to attack the Bible. Please be honest enough to acknowledge that.

2. What's your opinion on evolution as an explanation for the diversity of life?

1 - I did not know that, in which case, I apologise. I was speaking in terms of my overall experience.

2 - Evolution is a scientific fact. There's no getting around it, it can be reproduced in science labs with fruit flies, etc. However, every time scientists think they've found a protein or other chemical simple enough to happen by accident and complex enough to be the start of life, they find they have to go one step further back, and I don't believe, even if they can create a convoluted experiment, that it will ever be plausible to suggest that life happened by accident. I don't believe that there's a long chain of totally different creatures that came from each other, but I do believe God created life to be able to adapt to changing circumstances.

Anyone who does not believe in evolution, needs to ask themselves how so many breeds of dogs exist. They exist because humans create pressure to enhance certain characteristics and to remove others. When nature does the same thing, that's evolution.

[Igakusei]

My problem with the "Holy Ghost" is pretty simple. There are thousands of Christian denominations. Over the years I've had a number of very committed Christian friends who wanted nothing more in life than to love and understand God and do his will. In every single instance, these friends honestly believed that their denomination had the "Truth" because they believed that the Holy Spirit guided their study. Some of them believed in the rapture, some in salvation by grace, some in salvation by works, several in salvation by various incoherent combinations of salvation by grace and works, some in hell, some in annihilation, and even one in a female member of the Godhead. Some believed that we are fallen angels ourselves, some believed that everyone eventually gets to heaven, and others believed that most people will spend eternity in Hell. These are people that spent many hours every week in earnest Bible study, seeking truth and praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

The only answers I've ever gotten in response to this observation are variations on "God gives different people what they need," which is a complete non-answer cop-out. If the Christian God really does exist, and cares enough us to guide us towards truth, you wouldn't have that many competing opinions. You can extend it to honest people of faith in other religions, too.

Finally, you wouldn't have people like the OP and I who only stopped believing after years and years of honest searching, not finding anything that made coherent sense. Why has the Holy Spirit never guided me?

[John317]

No there are not valid Biblical reasons to believe women ought not to be the elders/pastors/bishops of the church.

Even atheists who don't agree with the Bible can see what Paul teaches about women in the church-- that they are not to be the elders/pastors/bishops. That is why they consider Paul a misogynist.

Let's look at his language again. I would like to see how you understand his words to mean that women are to be elders/bishops, etc.

Where is the Bible text which teaches clearly that women are to be the pastors/elders of the local congregations?

Quote:

1 Tim. 2:8-15

[8] I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Cor. 11:3-16

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [11] Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; [12] for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. [13] Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? [14] Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, [15] but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. [16] If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Cor. 14:33b-38

As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

[36] Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? [37] If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. [38] If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

[John317]

....Thus, Paul is not a misogynist. Because our atheist author of the article cited in the OP believes Paul is a misogynist does not make Paul actually one nor does it mean that he has pegged Paul correctly.

The Bible and I both reject that Paul is a misogynist and the Bible and I also reject that Paul was against women being elders/pastors/bishops of the church.

You actually agree with the atheists, because you also believe that if Paul was against women being elders/pastors/bishops, that fact alone would constitute him a misogynist.

Let readers make up their own mind after they study Paul's writings dealing with the question. See the NT quotes on the previous post--- #502118.

[BibleOnly]

My problem with the "Holy Ghost" is pretty simple. There are thousands of Christian denominations. Over the years I've had a number of very committed Christian friends who wanted nothing more in life than to love and understand God and do his will. In every single instance, these friends honestly believed that their denomination had the "Truth" because they believed that the Holy Spirit guided their study. Some of them believed in the rapture, some in salvation by grace, some in salvation by works, several in salvation by various incoherent combinations of salvation by grace and works, some in hell, some in annihilation, and even one in a female member of the Godhead. Some believed that we are fallen angels ourselves, some believed that everyone eventually gets to heaven, and others believed that most people will spend eternity in Hell. These are people that spent many hours every week in earnest Bible study, seeking truth and praying for guidance from the Holy Spirit.

The only answers I've ever gotten in response to this observation are variations on "God gives different people what they need," which is a complete non-answer cop-out. If the Christian God really does exist, and cares enough us to guide us towards truth, you wouldn't have that many competing opinions. You can extend it to honest people of faith in other religions, too.

Finally, you wouldn't have people like the OP and I who only stopped believing after years and years of honest searching, not finding anything that made coherent sense. Why has the Holy Spirit never guided me?

Because you never asked. You believed in the religion you were being shown. God answers with real evidence. If you don't have that evidence and were never told about it, then you never attended a Christian church. Even with the Holy Spirit, there's divergence of opinion, because people are human and have free will. That doesn't mean the Bible doesn't give clear instruction or that God does not have an opinion. It means that the devil is the father of lies, and there's lots of lies about who God is, and for those who accept the Bible, lies about what it says.

[BibleOnly]

Originally Posted By: miz3

....Thus, Paul is not a misogynist. Because our atheist author of the article cited in the OP believes Paul is a misogynist does not make Paul actually one nor does it mean that he has pegged Paul correctly.

The Bible and I both reject that Paul is a misogynist and the Bible and I also reject that Paul was against women being elders/pastors/bishops of the church.

You actually agree with the atheists, because you also believe that if Paul was against women being elders/pastors/bishops, that fact alone would constitute him a misogynist.

Let readers make up their own mind after they study Paul's writings dealing with the question. See the NT quotes on the previous post--- #502118.

The Bible teaches that women and men are different, and have different roles. It does not say that women are sub standard. The idea that men and women are the same is something that science has disproven, our brains are wired differently. A lot of feminists hate science for proving this and deny it is true, because they assume that different means not equal. This is not true.

[Igakusei]

Trust me, I asked. Your reply does nothing but dodge the question and invent excuses. I'm not denying that there are plenty of people out there that want to twist the Bible to say things they specifically want it to, but most people do not belong to that category.

Look at this conversation between you and John, for instance. If the Bible could be plainly understood and the Holy Spirit actively guided your study, you guys wouldn't be having this disagreement. End of story. By saying that the plain truth is right there and everyone else is just deluded by the devil, you're either setting up the devil to be at least as powerful as God or you're saying that God isn't powerful enough to intervene and clear up the confusion.

[BibleOnly]

Well, the problem that most atheists have, in my experience, is that they can't live with a God who doesn't do what they want. I can't change reality. Reality is, people have different opinions and God cuts through that by answering with evidence. God is more powerful than the Devil because He answers with proof. The devil tells lies, and people believe them, but those who trust God, get proof from Him that He is real.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

I cannot agree with this. I certainly agree that Christian "theologians" in the past did indeed use(misuse) Paul and other parts of the Bible as an excuse to practice misogyny.

However, this is not the Bible's fault. The TRUTH has always been there. It is just that flawed human beings filled with sin interpreted the Scripture wrong. Thus, the problem is not with the Bible but with those flawed human beings.

Then why does it always seem to happen the other way around? A cultural understanding and support of women's rights preceded the theological understanding that the Bible supports women's rights, not the other way around. Can you give me some examples of major societal progress that was directly attributable to the Bible? Because I can think of dozens of examples off the top of my head that happened the other way around. It's happening right now with gay rights, for instance. In a few generations people like you will agree that the Bible has always supported gay rights, and our corrupted human understanding is what overlaid our prejudices on the Bible and prevented us from seeing the "Truth" before then. But a cultural acceptance of gay rights is happening in spite of the Bible's best efforts to stop it. This happened with women, with slavery, with unbelief, and all the other things that used to find Biblical support but have now been reinterpreted. I would be more amenable to your position if you could actually demonstrate that the Bible was responsible for the past 2000 years of cultural growth, instead of being used mostly in direct opposition to it. Christianity has always been the religion of the status quo, which is highly ironic considering how progressive the character it is named after was.

Quote:

Like I told you the author of this piece is not qualified to assess the situation correctly because of his inherent prejudice against God and the Bible. It is just the FACT. His prejudice colors all his conclusions including the erroneous one about the Bible catching up with society. He has it backwards.

The Bible is always ahead of "correct social progress".

He didn't come to his current position because of an "inherent prejudice" against God and the Bible. Likewise, neither did I. To hand-wave all of our arguments away as being unqualified because we eventually stopped calling ourselves Christians is the worst form of confirmation bias, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Are you qualified to assess the validity of the Quran? The Torah? You make that claim every time you profess that the Bible is the word of God. And yet you can sit there and say that anyone who doesn't believe isn't qualified to discuss it? Give me a break.

Christianity indeed does bring cultural Progress where ever it is practiced and understood correctly. Even when practiced and understood by those with a tainted understanding of what the Bible actually says the Bible has been a liberating cultural force.

What was a woman's life like before the Reformation? It was as slavish as one could get in most parts of what we now call "western civilization". If we add to that the pagan societies/cultures of the rest of the World which not only put women in slavery but made a woman's life on earth worse than death itself. Look at the numerous pagan cultures that kill baby girls because those pagan cultures believe that males are more valuable. Even in the 21st Century this practice continues by those who do not believe in the Bible and God. Infanticide has been well documented. It is not the Christian Cultures that kill little baby girls just because they are female. Christian societies have done a great work in attempting to stamp out this horrid practice of pagan, unBiblical cultures.

As the knowledge of the Bible increased and was freed from the Dark Ages so that the "regular people" could read the Bible for themselves there was a simultaneous freeing of all areas of knowledge including culture, science, history, etc. etc.

Thus, you are wrong in your analysis of the situation. I know, I know what about the Catholic Church when they dominated the Dark Ages?

The Catholic Church may claim to be Christian but it in fact is not purely Christian. I do not consider the RCC as an organized system to be a Christian entity in spite of its claims. It is filled with pagan culture through and through. The RCC does not hold the Bible as the only Rule of Truth. As such it not only kept the Bible from the people but it bound the people slavishly to the pagan superstitions which it adopted from the pagans and pagan culture who they tried to convert. The Catholic Church (RCC) has never ever been a Bible and Bible only religious faith since the death of the Apostles. The RCC has mingled extensively tradition, pagan cultic practices, superstitions, which it adopted early on in order to be more palatable to the pagan hordes that were coming into the RCC. The RCC hid the Bible and polluted the Word of God to say things the Bible never ever said. They aided the culture in hindering what you call "social progress". This too has been extensively documented so as to leave no doubt.

It was not until the Reformation when the Bible was indeed freed from the monastery dungeons and the people began to see the Truth for themselves that any flicker of "social progress" as well as "spiritual progress" could be made. The damage had been so extensive to the Truth as found in the Word of God and to the social structures... (more than millenia and a half to say nothing of the darkness that has been kept from people since the Flood. (I know you don't believe in a Flood, so let's use it only as time marker only for historic purposes.) [i will refrain at this time any analysis of the Bible and the Jewish history.]....that it has taken all this time to undo some of the damage.

Then Christian men and women came to the Americas so as to be free to study and practice the Bible and the Bible only and in the US experience we have seen the greatest and most extensive progress in spiritual and social Truth as found in the Bible.

I know, I know there were others who came for other purposes too and many of those purposes were not always good. However this does not negate the extensive impact of the Bible and the Protestant Christian Standard have had on America in the last four hundred years for the good. Not perfect but on balance for the good.

Has the American experience been perfect? The clear answer is NO! However, there has/is been more social and spiritual progress in America than in any other part of the Globe. In addition, because of the Protestant Christian Standard as set forth in the Bible, the United States has not only made more progress socially and spiritually than at anytime in the History of Humanity. It has influenced the rest of the World to advance also. If it were not for the Bible and the Protestant Christian Standard that our Founding Fathers and Mothers set forth we here in the United States and in the World would not have made even the progress we see now. This has been a remarkable two hundred years.

It is not the Bible's fault that for centuries such progress was bottled up by those who did not want the Bible and its values of "True Freedom" to be seen and/or known let alone practiced. In fact during the Dark Ages you could lose you life for having on your person and/or your property even the smallest scrap of Scripture. In parts of the World today (21st Century) this death decree is still practiced. This also has been well documented.

So it is a myth of mammoth proportions that the Bible is a hindrance to social and spiritual progress and/or lagged behind some "progressive agenda". Such thinking is a myth and there are many revisionist progressive entities out to destroy the True history and the Biblical Truth. The Bible has always been way ahead of human thinking. Only as the Bible is known has there been "social and spiritual progress".

The Truth is however that there are people claiming to be of the Bible who indeed clog up social and spiritual progress because they do not adhere to the True Freedom of the Bible. These are wolves in sheep's clothing. They do great damage to the Bible and to the Truth. Such hypocrites (noting that no one is perfect, but these ones knowingly parade as something they actually are not) are most despicable of human kind.

As to the homosexuality topic. I could have much to say about this also but this post is already long. Suffice it for now to say, the Bible is not against people who are homosexuals but the Bible is indeed against the practice of the homosexual "life style". God loves the pedophiles too. However God and the Bible are against the practice of pedophilia. God and the Bible love murders, liars, etc. but God and the Bible are against the practices of murder, lying, etc. God and the Bible love adulterers but God and the Bible hate the practice of adultery.

Homosexuality is not a "social equality" issue like race and gender are. We don't view murderers, adulterers, pedophiles, etc. as a "social equality issue". Those who do, misrepresent the issue and the morality involved in "social equality issues".

God created human racial diversity and God created human genders. God did not create murderers, homosexuals, pedophiles, adulterers, slaves, etc. Thus there is a great deal of difference when discussing these issues.

At this point I would say you are wrong in your view that "social progress" is the "other way around".

There is a lot to chew on here and I am certainly not done are you?

[Igakusei]

to Miz3: You're so wrong on every point I don't even know where to start. There isn't a single thing in the Bible that is new or innovative and that couldn't have been written by anybody living in those time periods. And no, I've studied Biblical "prophecy" for years and find it highly unconvincing. To tie in to my other conversation on this thread, people can't even agree on the basics of that. What good is prophecy that's so vague nobody can agree what it's even talking about? Especially considering they claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. So, I think I'm done with you on this topic. I asked for examples of the Bible causing societal progress, and all you pointed out is that Biblical understanding changes with time, as does our opinion of various social issues. You've also pointed out a few things that other cultures do that Christian cultures don't. So Christianity doesn't have a complete monopoly on moral bankruptcy, that's good to know. But for every example of non-Christian evil in the world, I'll provide a counter-example of Christians doing the same or worse. You'll run out long before I will, but the point is that it doesn't prove anything. Nothing you have said provides evidence of a causal relationship between the Bible and positive moral progress, especially considering that it's still always the society that changes before the Biblical understanding. If you have any real concrete examples, give me specifics.

To BibleOnly: God doesn't provide proof, and never has. I don't even need proof, I just need reasonably reliable evidence. You seem to believe that the Bible is clear and plainly understandable, and on top of that we've been given full access to a deity who makes it understandable to anyone who wants to learn. Further, your God wants us to believe so badly that he is willing to provide tangible proof for those who need it. These views are completely incompatible with my experience in life, which is why I no longer have them. I spent a long time digging, searching, praying, etc. and never got anything in return except for more questions. So I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth and saying I haven't, or was doing it wrong, or was never the right kind of Christian, or whatever.

[BibleOnly]

To BibleOnly: God doesn't provide proof, and never has. I don't even need proof, I just need reasonably reliable evidence. You seem to believe that the Bible is clear and plainly understandable, and on top of that we've been given full access to a deity who makes it understandable to anyone who wants to learn. Further, your God wants us to believe so badly that he is willing to provide tangible proof for those who need it. These views are completely incompatible with my experience in life, which is why I no longer have them. I spent a long time digging, searching, praying, etc. and never got anything in return except for more questions. So I don't know why you keep putting words in my mouth and saying I haven't, or was doing it wrong, or was never the right kind of Christian, or whatever.

If you don't think God gives proof, you've never been to a Christian church, where people pray to God, and receive the Holy Spirit in a real, tangible way which always includes, but is not limited to, being able to pray in a language we don't understand, but which God gives. This is what the Bible offers, and it is my experience, and the experience of thousands of other people. I have no doubt you have at one point believed something about God with sincerity, but if it was not that, then you were misled.