A Christian Store Denied Him This T-Shirt…

Besides, there are WAY more offensive/crazy verses you COULD have asked for 😉

This points to a fundamental problem religions have: Over time, you must evolve into ignoring selected elements of your original religion and its holy words; or else you fanatically stick to them. But those who evolve towards softening their religion’s original harshness are always vulnerable to attack by their fanatics. 

In the above case, Christians no longer accept this verse, so they ignore it — pick-n-choose religion. But you can find fanatics who will support it and attack your weakneed interpretation. This is the basic problem the Moslem religion is having at the moment…. Most Muslims, like most Christians, selectively ignore elements in their holy book that don’t make any sense any more; Al Qaida (and the Wahabbis) insist every single word be obeyed in strict literalness – the medieval interpretation.

Religion is a defect in any evolving society – and society must evolve, or die.

they’re* 

“they’re*” ???
What do you mean?

Expand that contraction out to the full words. Would you actually say “They are way more offensive/crazy verses…”? http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They%27re

She probably thinks of it like a “hurr durr you claim to follow a book that says something that stupid” thing, but calling him disrespectful doesn’t change the fact that she does actually claim to follow a book that says something that stupid.

So it’s ok to dismiss 1 tim 2:12, but not lev 10:22? they’re batshit crazy today

First of all, a Christian who believes the temporarily binding Torah of Moses applies after the New Testament authors claim it’s been fulfilled has serious hermaneutical issues, and is viewing the Bible as a rulebook and not taking the narrative seriously. 

Probably not worth mentioning on a comment thread, but taking Jesus as the Messiah and covenant renewer seriously and thereby seeing the Torah as fulfilled and no longer in effect is NOT cherry picking. (However, some Christians do in ways, but that’s not worth getting into without specific examples).Secondly, that poster isn’t quoting 2 Timothy 2:12, so I’m confused about that…2 Timothy 2:12 = διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  (I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed)

A good article to see about women’s crucial role in the body of Christ from an educated Christian perspective would be this:
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

Leviticus chapter 10 has 20 verses so how can there be a verse 22?

If the Torah of Moses is no longer binding then can you explain what Jesus means by the following from Matthew 5

17″Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. ” 18″For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

paul, who wrote that verse ( in his letter), was a misogynist asshole who thought women were worthless.  Nowhere in Messiah’s teachings were women disrespected like paul.  

the major problem I have with modern christianity is that the so called followers are god damned hypocrites who’d rather follow paul and the aryan “jesus” than The Jewish Messiah called Yeshua HaMashiach whom they purport  to follow.

paul was a fool and a false apostle that Yeshua’s own Disciples mistrusted and refused to allow into their circle, they chose a replacement for Judas, and it wasn’t paul.  Peter even had an argument with him about his methods.  Yet paul claims in Galations 2 that he rebuked Peter about his eating with gentile christians, that Peter didn’t like paul doing such a thing.  And that is completely wrong.  Peter was chastising paul for his teachings and completely contradicting Messiah message of love, charity and grace.

Those that claim to follow Messiah, yet quote paul more than The Master Himself do now know Him, they are following a false doctrine, and it’s very evident how they live their own lives and completely disregard Luke 18: 18-30 and trample on Matthew 25: 31-46.  This is very sad, and in reality has been a main factor of how the world has become today.

If Yeshua were to walk the Earth today, He’d be called a Communist and be in one of the Occupy camps somewhere in the world protesting alongside the others.

Well, drat, I guess you’ve got us outsmarted! Except you then have to ignore all of the verses about the OT laws being an “everlasting covenant.” And no TL;DR link is going to make “everlasting covenant” mean “temporary guidelines.”

the churches who subjugate women are ones that follow that misogynist asshole false apostle paul.  The ones that give women complete freedoms reject paul’s “teachings” and teach the truthful Gospel of Messiah in full, which is about love, charity and grace.  Which in and of itself is total forgiveness 🙂

No offense, but I refuse to recognize the name of the aryan “jesus”, to me His Name is Yeshua HaMashiach.  

However, if you read this link http://www.mayimhayim.org/Festivals/Feast11.htm you will see that Yeshua fulfilled many prophesies, which is why I believe in Him 😀

On this note, I must get to bed, night, pleasant dreams 🙂

If there was a bookshop like that over in the UK and you asked for Luke 19:27 you’d probably get reported and added to some terrorist watchlist or other.

The Bible is extremely conflicted about keeping the Torah, as different authors had different opinions. At the two extremes you had the Jewish Christians who maintained that Jesus was an extension of Judaism, and you had the Marcionites who wanted a complete break from Judaism and didn’t include any of the Tanakh in their canon. Some of the Marcionite canon made it into the current canon along with books that were written by Torah-keeping Jewish Christians. The truth is, different books were written by different “Christianities”, and had to be later “harmonized” which compromises the author’s meaning of the text.

What NT Wright does in that article is “motivated reasoning.” He has a conclusion already in mind, namely that the NT (and the Bible as a whole) is a “unity” and actually produces 1 “right” view. Then, he marshalls the evidence in a way that harmonizes the text across books by any means necessary. Here’s a thought, every fact he cites about the context could be true and it’s still not likely that 1 Timothy is an exaggeration. He’s taking select speculative evidence from history (how much does the author of 1 Timothy know about mystery religions?) and then extrapolating that he must’ve known about it because it allows him more freedom to deviate from the direct meaning of the text to match with something he considers more moral.
To sum up, just because something can be harmonized in the Bible does not mean that there is a true meaning in common. You can’t start with the conclusion and then search for evidence. Sometimes I think forward progress is inhibited by having to prooftext any advance in morality and ethics into an ancient book that has completely different metaphysics then anyone today has. Even current believers don’t believe in concentric spheres of heaven where demons reign at the lower levels (the Biblical view of “powers and principalities”). You can’t choose historical context in this situation without giving it power universally where it damages other views that need other methods to be harmonized.

The Old Testament is so passée…Everyone knows that Jesus and the New Testament is in vogue these days… 😀

random letters… that are in the bible.

Can you please colour code the pages so we all know which bits “matter” and which are just filler because they had to reach a certain word count?

Ignoring the fact that you are using the contents of a book to prove the contents of the book right (which is circular reasoning), just looking at the top 10:

1. His family trees (he has two almost completely different ones) go through Joseph, who wasn’t his father.  There is no evidence even in the Bible that he had any biological relation whatsoever to Abraham.

2. I don’t see anything in this prophecy about the messiah, it just talks about Judah ruling (which it didn’t much of the time).  

3. Same as 1, nowhere in the Bible does Jesus’s biological family tree actually appear.  

4. The prophecy is not talking about the town Bethlehem, but rather to a tribe, which had no relation to Yeshua HaMashiach.  It also doesn’t talk about Yeshua HaMashiach at all, it refers to a military leader who will wage war against the Assyrians.

5. This prophecy does notappear anywhere in the old testament. If you notice all the references are to new testament verses talking about the prophecy, but there is no indication the prophecy was ever actually made.

6. I can’t get the math to work out on this.  Besides, the prophecy is pretty specific about things happening which again didn’t happen.

7. This is a mis-translation.  The proper translation is “maiden”.  Further, the prophecy was about events that were supposed to transpire during the reign of a king who died hundreds of years B.C., and Yeshua HaMashiach  didn’t come close to fulfilling any of this prophecy.

8. That wasn’t his name

9. Wait, I thought you said Jesus wasn’t his name?  And once again, the only reference to this prophecy is in the new testament.  Where is there any evidence that anyone living before hin had made this prophecy?

10. Once again, this wasn’t his name.  And once again, the only reference is in the new tesament.

So out of the top 10 prophecies they listed, 3 apparently were not even made, 2 are due to mis-translations or misunderstandings, and not a single one was actually fulfilled in full (according to you).

I could keep going on like this.  Overall Yeshua HaMashiach did an absolutely terrible job at fulfilling the prophecies.

While there’s something to the philosophy about reading the Bible you’re espousing, there’s a basic problem with it. If we accept as a “given” that some parts of it are more valid and more credible than others, how do we decide which parts those are?

It’s a very simple question, but it leads to an infinite number of answers. It leads to disagreements among those who revere the Bible. And ultimately it leads to a lot of arbitrary decision-making.

As for the “Fundamental Atheists” you mention … and which so many other people talk about … there is no such thing. You can’t have a “fundamentalist” anything, without there being some discreet “fundamental” at its heart. In the case of fundamentalist Christians, their “fundamentals” are their Bible and their beliefs about it. Atheists have no “fundamentals” you can point to or talk about.

Referring to people as “atheist fundamentalists” is just your own way of dismissing them. It’s name-calling, and as such, is childish. Would it really harm you to admit that, perhaps some of these atheists you dislike, may actually have a point about how some Christians read the Bible? The philosophy about reading the Bible that you cited, is a way of doing just that. Couldn’t you have just said, “You know, this guy may have had a point,” and been done with it? Instead of getting upset about it and calling people names over it?

Simple they didn’t want people back then to read the bible for themselves & see the awful bits for themselves, which would be bad for the church’s wallets.
Too late for them now of course there is always the internet. 

It’s Saturday actually 😉

not according to 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A10-22&version=KJV

RELIGION IS BULLSHIT… THOSE WHO FOLLOW RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT ARE IDIOTS… IS THAT SIMPLE.

I always find it ironic that the same people who claim to reject the Old Testament still seem so hung up on the ten(ish) commandments (or one set of them).

Actually, that’s Leviticus chapter 20 verses 10-22.

Eh?! – dunno about Christ! But I didn’t say those things!!
I don’t have any theology sophisticated or otherwise. I’m not a bible scholar and I haven’t read loads of it… I thought that “Friendly Atheist” was a nice name and that this would be a sort of friendly thread.

 So I’m really sorry about using the term “Fundamentalist Atheist” and the offence it’s caused. Where I come from it’s just a term that refers to people who feel so strongly about the non-existence of God that they want to persuade others to feel the same. But I understand that to some of you it might be a term of abuse and I withdraw it completely. But I think you’re right it was a bit of name calling, so, sorry.

I’m not upset about anything, I just thought I’d state something that seemed clear to me and again I’m sorry if I have misunderstood the bible and if that has offended any one – Atheists, Jews or Christians.

My point is a very simple one: There are bits in the bible where it says things like “And God said…” and there are other bits that don’t say that…. if the book was Tom Sawyer and someone wrote a letter in it who was not Tom Sawyer to a bunch of other people who were not called Tom Sawyer – then no-one would seriously suggest that the whole of Tom Sawyer was the word of the character Tom Sawyer.
(I haven’t read Tom Sawyer, so I didn’t choose it to make any veiled point – it was just the first book that came to mind.)

I don’t say that any one part of the bible is more valid than others – I certainly don’t know which bits would be. I don’t say that there is or is not a God. I just thought that it was the case that only little bits of it have “The word of God” in. It’s a collection of all kinds of things, writings from different people – mortal people – about what may or may not have happened. It was never claimed, although you may believe it, to have been dictated by God as an entire book.

I agree that people cherry pick from the bible on all sides of the argument – but I don’t think I am. I’m just saying that what Paul writes is not a quote of God. Personally, don’t think it’s right to say that if something is in the bible it is to be treated with any reverence and that arguably the only bits that are, would be what God or Christ was quoted or attributed as saying.

I think I have been misinterpreted as a bible thumper or creationist – I just felt a little sorry for the Christians in the story because it does seem that the t-shirt incident was an attempt to mock them. I don’t see why anyone can’t be a Christian and think that there are things in the bible that are wrong – God never said ’em whether you believe in him or not.

Live and let live, I say! – I’m just a guy who woke up with a slight hangover and saw this story on facebook and tried to take the edge off the day by taking part. I don’t even know if I’ve been clear.

Patriarchal beliefs like the one shown in this verse don’t have any necessary connection with god beliefs; in fact patriarchal beliefs have an empirical basis. We can’t observe or communicate with gods, but men have had to live with women all along.

Sadly, I have seen that. I’ve always wondered why people would write it. Thank you for enlightening me! *sigh*

Actually, according to CHRISTIAN tradition…its Sunday. Yes, it is true that the original, intended Shabbat is Friday/Saturday, however Christian tradition (most, anyway..with the exclusion of Seventh Day Adventists and some other Sabbatarian sects), since Roman times, at least, has dictated that the Sabbath is on Sunday.  This practiced probably started in Rome and may have been enforced, which explains why it has become such a widely held belief/practice. 

Well, I’m okay with some of those ten commandments. I don’t want people running around killing other people or slandering them in court.

Funnily, none of those commandments is “Don’t be gay, yo”.

OK so I guess you can disregard this if you’re an agnostic (“I don’t say that there is or is not a God.”) but if you are a Christian I have a question:

You say that there are a lot of things that are not thw word of God. In this you are absolutely correct. In fact, the vast majority of the Bible consists in stuff that is not God giving instructions or otherwise communicating. So my question is: Do you think that the rest of the Bible should be eliminated? Why conserve huge swaths of the book that serve no purpose other than to muddle the message of the deity?

It would sure make for a much, much thinner book. It would also happily eliminate the psychotic delusions of Revelations, which is a plus.

Thank you for your humility.

But it’s a long-held Christian doctrine that the entire Bible, including the Pauline epistles, was inspired by God. So many doctrines of the church and so much of its theology would fall apart if they were to start denying the inspiration of the Bible. What you are suggesting would change the face of Christianity forever if it were to be implemented. In fact, seeing as the Gospels (where we get most of our information about Jesus himself) don’t start with “And God said…”, I’m not sure you could even call such a religion Christianity.

As for your Tom Sawyer analogy, there are several flaws. First, Mark Twain would presumably not have the letter in the book at all unless it was in some way relevant to the plot. Therefore, 1 Timothy must have *some* significance, or God would not implicitly allow it. Secondly, in the Tom Sawyer book, the letter would obviously be attributed to a character besides Tom Sawyer; Twain would not leave the true author of the letter ambiguous, because that would lead readers to assume it was the main character Tom. That would be a terrible move by the author.

Secondly, that poster isn’t quoting 2 Timothy 2:12, so I’m confused about that…2 Timothy 2:12 = διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ.  (I’m not saying that women should teach men, or try to dictate to them; they should be left undisturbed)

You seem to be quoting the Greek of 1 Timothy 2:12 and calling it 2 Timothy 2:12 for some reason.

Thanks for point out that every single translation and nearly all the commentary is incorrect. I didn’t know we had such a scholar in our midst!

Hahahaha!

I suppose it’s because we feel such despair, seeing the way in which some believers blindly follow this magic book…… and seeing a clear example of nonsense in the magic book gives us a tiny jolt of hope, that the rational part of said believer’s brain will eventually reject such nonsense in favor of just being a good human being.

So, there were no recent male converts? And, even if there weren’t, God wasn’t smart enough to say what He really meant? That’s a just plain silly attempt at weaseling out of the problem.

I get what you are saying here, that taking other books besides the Bible and using every word as livable wisdom and insight is not applicable.  But other than a rare handful of other books, most other books do not shape people’s daily lives as much as the Bible does (although there can be arguments for “Fear and Loathing” and “Animal Farm”)

I think it’s more along the lines that people feel the Bible is a sacred book and someone mocking that book offends them, without them realizing there are scriptures that they are not familiar with that can be flawed in word.

I think the main issue here is that so many people take certain parts of the Bible and use it to discriminate against others who do not believe in this ancient book as they do.  It’s an exclusionary sort of world they live in, where any findings of certain verses that they don’t happen to agree with because we moved forward in today’s society conflict with other verses that match their position on who they feel is good or not.

No, it’s precisely because they were women.  That reasoning is stated in the very next sentence, 1 Timothy 2:13-14 (NRSV) “For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”

Even so, it wouldn’t make sense due to how it’s phrased.  It wasn’t, “I don’t permit *these* women to teach,”  It’s (NRSV) “I permit *no* woman to teach or to have authority over a man.”  No amount of context can change that.

It’s a road map that leads to the dark ages. Some of us dont want to go there

ROFLROFLROFL, i make myself laugh when i think of eggs.

or Thou shalt not abuse children

We’re not ignoring context, context in no way helps this situation. (Unlike the Dawkins quote)

 11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

I don’t think asking for that printed on a shirt makes the verse any horrible.

That’s a good question. I’m not completely sure why I have such a positive emotional reaction to such things, but I have some ideas. 

I think everyone likes to have other people reinforce their beliefs. I think that my enjoyment is especially strong in this case because I have felt so oppressed by Christianity for so long, and it has been considered socially unacceptable to say anything negative about it. There’s a feeling of freedom about being able to say what I really think. Feeling free after long oppression is a very joyful feeling.

A good example of the oppressiveness of Christianity is your patronizing post. Calling us “juvenile” and “kids” is about as arrogant as you can get, and that kind of condescending attitude is very prevalent among Christians in this country. Being spoken to that way brings up an immature desire to tell you to “go ____ yourself, you arrogant _____.” Arguing with you would be more mature, and I’ve argued with a lot of Christians. However, arguing gets old, and has not been very productive so far. Satire has a long and illustrious history in such contexts, and has the advantage of not dignifying ridiculous beliefs by taking them seriously. It’s also more fun, and hence a relief from some of the seriousness of religious argumentation.

I think the sense of joyful freedom and fun is what you are noticing here. It’s strange that you find such feelings to be an expression of “hatred, anger, and petty jealousy.” There are some Christian beliefs that I hate, and that make me angry, because I think they are regressive and repressive and harmful to individuals and to society. If the response of the people in the T-shirt store had been to say “that’s great, let’s make a bunch of those,” I would have felt hatred toward that belief system, and anger toward those expressing it. However, given that they clearly didn’t feel comfortable with the regressive, repressive idea that Bible verse expresses, I think it’s kind of fun to think of them squirming when it’s pointed out to them.

I can also reassure you that I feel absolutely no jealousy – petty or otherwise – of Christianity or Christians. I do, however, feel anger at the increasing dominance of Christian absurdity in our political system.

With regard to your claim that the Bible is just an instructional manual or roadmap, and hence it’s understandable for it to contain errors, the standard question is “how do you know which parts of it are errors?” Similarly, why do you think that something written thousands of years ago has the authority to tell us how to live our lives? To characterize the Bible as a collection of attempts by people a long time ago to figure out how the world works and how best to live their lives makes perfect sense to me, and I can accept it as such. However, I’m pretty sure that you mean something more than that. If so, what’s your justification for that belief?

How do you distinguish the “truthful Gospel of Messiah” from the other parts of the Bible? Where does the divine inspiration come from to recognize the truth? What makes you, or anyone else, better at doing that than all the other people who have tried?

Because the instructions it provides are horrible and continue to do great damage in the world. It’s a better example of what NOT to do than it is a moral guide. Many atheists are ex-Xtians who have some very legitimate reasons to harbor anger toward the bible and its followers. You are right, it is really ugly, but not from the perspective you’re thinking of.

the point, you are missing it. What she was offeded by was a bible verse, unadorned.

The Sunday comes from Mithraism (sun worshippers), who were pagans.  Yet another thing Christians adopted from pagans in an attempt to fill pews.  
If you believe in the bible over the rulings of others (ie> if you worship God over Rome), then you’d still go to church on Saturday like your bible tells you too.
Isn’t it amazing that non-Christians know more about Christianity than Christians?

Hatred, anger and petty jealousy? That perfectly describes your god

Hi nerd heroine,

“We’re not ignoring context, context in no way helps this situation”

“Helps” in what sense? I was not suggesting the verse is not literal, but rather, qualitative.

Contexts helps to establish the “with regards to what?”, when we read that women are under the authority of men. A few things to bear in mind:

– We observe in the gospels, that none of the 12 Apostles (Jesus’ closest disciples) were women. That is why their successors (bishops, presbyters) weren’t either.

–  Prior to the chapter and verse that is the subject of the OP,  Paul states (1 Tim 2:5-7, RVS-CE): “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.  For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”
(Notice, the issue of teaching is in connection to the faith, not in connect to say, how to speak Latin or catch fish).

– Paul to Timothy (a bishop) (2 Tim 3:14-15, RSV-CE)  “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it  and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

(Paul telling Timothy, a bishop and half-Jew, to persevere [as a Christian] (1) because of who he learned the faith from and (2) because of his knowledge of the [Hebrew] Scriptures)
2 Tim 2:2 (RVS-CE ) “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses <bentrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also”

This is an instruction concerning the transmission of the Apostolic deposit of faith. The function of the Apostles was to make disciples, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, andof  the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) and to transmit  the deposit to these “faithful men” — who would be ordained as clergymen — who, by their teaching authority (Magisterium —  magisterium = “teaching authority of the Church”), would instruct the laity.

If you read 1 Tim 3, you will notice Paul giving criteria for bishops and deacons.

My point in discussing these things is that, in context, 2 Tim 2:12 concerns the women not having the authority of ordained leaders, and the context of that in turn, is the Church. 

Hi I_Claudia,

Please see my response to “nerd heroine”.

Ezekiel 23:20 would be perfect! 😉

Hey, don’t diss Pinnochio!

I happen to know that an adult orca can swallow a full-grown man.

Just in pieces 🙁

Well, the loophole I normally hear from apologists is that “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” covers homosexuality

As is nearly always the case with Xtians, you’re splitting hairs, m’dear.

Paul never said “All women at all time must always follow this command.” Stop acting like that is what he said. It is POSSIBLE to interpret it that way but, the history of interpretation shows that people did not always understand it that way. 

Even if that IS what he meant, it is ok to change things. Why do people think that teachings cannot change? Is that in the instructions of the Bible or something?

Though not till the 1970s in Switzerland (1990 for one Canton).

Note that some churches that allow the laity to vote in church meetings  (such as whether to spend money on fixing up the church building) still don’t allow female laity to vote (e.g., Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod).    Within many US mainline churches this is still fairly recent (1950s/1960s).  

Uh… How the heck can the bible NOT be the sole and supreme authority for christian doctrine and practice?? What other basis is there for a christian existence?

Hey, leave the Jews out of this.

Daniel, you’re right, something that is important to me could very well be taken out of context and ridiculed.  
The difference is that nothing that is important to me is being used to deny people their rights, being used as a justification for violence, or has a history of supreme violence against others.  

The bible is held up as inerrant.  I can’t get married because of it.  Women’s rights to abortion are under attack because of it.  Slavery and witch hunts were justified with it.
It’s not a simple case of being disrespectful.  If the people in that store, and the majority of christians everywhere, gets to cherry pick what they like and what they don’t, how DARE they refuse me the right to decide that homosexuality is a perfectly good way to choose my partner?

The disrespect is theirs:  insisting that they get to cherry pick, and no one else gets to.

Jake, that same bible is being used to deny me the right to marriage.  Sorry if I don’t have a let and let live attitude about it.  

It all sounds nice and fuzzy, until you see the damage and pain being caused by the bible and it’s followers.  Against queers, against women who want an abortion, against people who have been raped, the bible was used to justify slavery and witch hunts, and used as an instrument of terror in bible camps and children’s youth groups.  

I was not a “fundamentalist atheist” (your words)  until christians took away my right to marry.  And printed their religion on my money.  You get the point.
If you disapprove of the anger inherent in some us, I suggest you look at your fellow christians as the cause.

Hello, Geo!  I can’t get married because of the religious intolerance and bigotry of christians!  
What do you mean, I don’t have to come along?!  I’m being dragged along kicking and screaming!  
The bible was quoted incessantly during the Prop 8 campaign in California, and the money to support it flowed in from all over the country, all from tax free christian groups.
Lose the hatred?  Lose the anger?  Yeah, when religion remembers it’s about faith and personal growth (or stagnation), and keeps out of my life, then I will lose the anger.  Until then, how dare you call condescend like that?  
All you’re illustrating is your ignorance of the damage religion has causd, and causes every day.

Lively, does anyone you know consider Dawkins to be inerrant?  Does anyone you know claim Dawkins is so inerrant, it justifies being violent and discriminatory against others and justify it with quotes from Dawkins?  Are there laws based on Dawkins’ teachings?  Are Dawkins quotes printed on money?
No?  So how does this compare to quotes from the bible?  There is no comparison.  
If you came into my t-shirt shop requesting that quote, I would definitely accuse you of taking things out of context, and I may or may not print the shirt.  But I would not accuse you of disrespecting Dawkins, because he’s an author, not a god, and there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with all or part of an author’s statements.  I wouldn’t threaten you with hell, I wouldn’t insist on teaching Dawkins in schools to prevent that sort of questioning, I wouldn’t insist that acknowledging Dawkins as a truth writer start every city hall meeting, and I wouldn’t take away people’s right to marry, all based on the Dawkins teachings.

The verse is in reference  that women were now allowed to sit “anywhere” in church, don’t interrupt the speaker (because they used to have to sit in the BACK of the room, and couldn’t often hear well, they would get bored and whisper).  With that change, they could HEAR, and  they had lots of questions, so please do not interrupt the speaker, and to wait to get home to ask their abundant question. It’s nothing any more sinister than that.

So, note to both sides of bashing, just do the research.

The Bible says many things, and they are metaphors. So in some cases, if studied correctly you will find that the verses are not meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically. And also, their are many different versions of the Bible, since it was translated from Hebrew into other languages before translated into English. What many have realized, is that the Bible didnt mean that you shouldnt be homosexual. It was stated like that because it wasn’t customary. So if you go back to the text that mention homosexuality and plug in the words customary or not customary, then you will realize that the Bible has nothing against homosexuals. But that at the time, homosexuality wasnt “customary” or in other words, something that people did back in the day. Hope this helps you out. and for the christians who judge you because of that, let them know that no one can judge you but God. =)

Hi Neodymium,

You asked: “How the heck can the bible NOT be the sole and supreme authority for christian doctrine and practice??”

Well, apart from the fact that the Bible itself never restricts the Christian to its contents, to think the Bible is the sole and final authority for Christians, is a recipe for theological anarchy. (Ever wonder why there are so many Protestant denominations? 500 years of Sola Scriptura, and there are thousands of them now.)

Recently, on Facebook, I was in a discussion with a Protestant who was defending Sola Scriptura, and took offense when I said Sola Scriptura stunts consensus (this in turn, was my response to another Protestant who was suggesting that though Protestantism has no unified  magisterium, its nonetheless possible for Protestants to come to a consensus on doctrinal matters that presently divide them):

Here is the text of my response:
________________________
” The reason I said “Consensus is stunted by Sola Scriptura” is because even if the consensus method is used, at the end of the day, dissenters can claim that Scripture (not consensus) is the final authority, and therefore they are not bound to the consensus.

A high-ranking and very respectable evangelical Christian apologist and philosopher does this:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6606 “No earnest Christian wants to be considered a heretic. But we Protestants recognize Scripture alone as our ultimate rule of faith (the Reformation principle of sola scriptura). Therefore, we bring even the statements of Ecumenical Councils before the bar of Scripture. While one disagrees with the promulgations of an Ecumenical Council only with great hesitancy, nonetheless, since we do not regard these as invested with divine authority, we are open to the possibility that they have erred in places. It seems to me that in condemning Monotheletism as incompatible with Christian belief the Church did overstep its bounds.“Now that’s just one person, regarding one issue (that is not even at the forefront of debate among Protestants! It is rather taken for granted that Christ had two wills.). Now, if we expand this situation out, to include millions of people, and numerous doctrinal points of controversy, a “consensus” in any meaningful sense of the word, would be extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, to reach. “_______________________*(I had also pointed out the fact, the the Magisterium pre-existed the formal canon, and he wanted me to back that up, to which I replied) :_______________________”There are two ways to approach that question, the historical, and the logical. The historical entails inquiry into Church history. The logical on the other, hand requires nothing more than analyzing Sola Scriptura in-itself. (emphasis added here)Sola Scriptura is internally inconsistent:1. The Bible is the only infallible authority concerning matters of faith and morals.2. The Bible is the final authority concerning matters of faith and morals.*3. The Bible contains all truths necessary for salvation.*4. The only doctrines which Christians are obliged to believe, are those which are deduced from the Bible.—-Is it true that all 27 books of the New Testament are inspired by God? Is it necessary for salvation, to believe that all (or any) of the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired? Otherwise, are Christians obliged to believe that the 27 books are inspired? Taking into account (3) and (4) :If it is true [that all 27 books of the NT are inspired], and if it is a truth that is necessary for salvation (or a truth that Christians are obliged to believe) then this truth is taught in the Bible. But, in fact, the Bible does not teach that the all of the NT’s 27 constituent books, are inspired by God.That determination had to come from the outside — from the Church, in the 4th century. The Bible did not put itself together, it had to be compiled by an exercise of Church authority, an authority to teach matters. pertaining to the faith.”______________________That article that started it (my backand forth with the Protestants):http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/11/we-dont-need-no-magisterium-a-reply-to-christianity-todays-mark-galli/

Hi Medussa,

Inerrancy was the not point. The point was context, regardless of whether context does anything to change your general opinion of the Bible.

Likewise, taking context into account is the responsible way of presenting Richard Dawkins’ statement, regardless if it makes a dent or not in one’s pre-existing general opinion of Dawkins.

I can’t help but notice you provide no alternative approach.  So care to actually answer the question and tell us what Christians are supposed to use?

Are you serious? You mean the “true edition” that has the word homosexual in it when that would DID NOT exist at the time nor did a comprable word. But yet there it is. Is the TRUE BIBLE the one you just get together and vote on and that’s what it says . Flawed printed versions That is hilarious if you want the true bible get a Jefferson bible. Take out all the miracle stuff like virgin birth reserection and Hell which was added later to keep people scared and in line Kinda like the “terrorist are out to get us” scare that worked so well Ask youself this. In the new testament where it has the; “neither the homosexual adulterers sorcerers and all liars” that people condem gays with, cause Leviticus is weak at best, the word adulterers which did exist in Jesus’ time and he spoke about it. “if a man leaves his wife and marries another he is an adulterer “. So in most churches esp those that Condemn gays, say nothing to the on average half the flock who is divorced and remarried that they are not going to heaven Jesus was quite clear on that and I doubt any of Jesus quotes can be called “bad parts” so why are they not raising money to stop these evil divorcees that are really destroying marriage (they got a divorce) and passing laws banning it???? I want a legimate answer from a Christian on this one

You keep asserting that we are ignorant about the verse, but you keep refusing to actually explain what is wrong about our understanding of it.  If you are so upset about our ignorance that you have to keep posting on it, then do something about it and educate us.  

Around here was have seen too many people throwing around vague assertions of “context”, “metaphors”, and other such notions with no backing that we don’t take such comments seriously unless someone can actually back it up.  Your promises that there is some backing somehow somewhere does not hold any weight, we have seen to many people claim this only to run away or post transparently wrong responses when pressed to actually back their assertions.  

I suspect you will find many people here know at least as much about the Bible as you do, so if you are going to convince them you actually need something solid and substantial.

Uh, is that supposed to be any better?  So men are allowed to ask questions but women are not?  Women are incapable of holding their questions until an appropriate time?  Why do they have to ask their husbands for answers rather than the priest/minister/rabbi/etc?  Why are husbands allowed to ask questions but wives not?  

And talk about taking it out of context, how does all the stuff about eve being deceived by a talking snake have anything whatsoever to do with not interupting the sermon?  Why is all that stuff in there?

I believe, however, that a given priesthood was gender specific (e.g., priests of Vesta, aka Vestal Virgins were women; the pontifex maximus was always a man, etc).

The Bible can be read in many ways and has always been interpreted.  For instance the bit by Paul that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, etc has been used in modern times to justify women being priests (many Episcopal/Lutheran/Methodist/Presbyterian denominations allow women priests); note that all of the original apostles were Jews but there is no requirement that modern bishops or priests be Jews.  The NT also has some evidence that women were very active.  Junia is described as an apostle by Paul (though some have tried to show that Junia was a masculine name or that Paul didn’t mean apostle in the same sense he was an apostle);  Phoebe is described as a deacon (which means servant but was also the name of an office in the early church).  The NT also has the requirement that a bishop be the husband of one wife (a requirement notably not filled for bishops in the modern Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches [barring a few bishops who might be widowers]).

“Are you serious?”  No, he isn’t.  yeesh.

Has anyone else noticed that the most zealous people (theist, atheist, panentheist, whatever) are also the most lacking in a sense of humor?

Just out of curiosity whats a fine up standing atheist doing hanging around a Christian book store? Were you LOST. I encourage you to buy a Bible and read it. Next time your hunting around for Christians doing something hyporitical try checking out your local food bank or homeless shelter. We get it you hate Christ so you need to valid your beliefs by ignoring the numerous good things Christians are doing in your community (things you will never see on network tv) and find the idiot Christian that validates your own hatred and judgementalism. God loves you anyway.

I have his back:
http://www.zazzle.com/timothy_2_12_bible_quote_shirt_on_black-235613502896084960

Any customer is a good customer in MY book…

My post to TheBlackCat, will be my last, because I think at this point I’ve said all I’ve intended to say, and I’m afraid if I continue on this thread, we’ll fall into redundancy.

Take Care —

The main issue here is that the so called “Christians” don’t want to acknowledge that their main religious text is full of hate, divisiveness, tribalistic nonsense, lies, propaganda, and 95% fiction.  They cherry pick verses upon which to build a worldview that is totally at odds with reality, fact, science, and the last 500 years of accumulated knowledge.  Instead preferring to live in a little tiny world that is black and white with no color, nuance, or complexity.  These are simpletons who cannot live in the real world.

Adultery cannot be committed by anyone who is not married.  Think again.  That may cover 6 states and DC when you are talking about gays, but it doesn’t cover the rest of the country.

Of course it is mocking.  All religions should be mocked and often.  Because they have no basis in fact.  Myth and mysticism and your fears are what drive religion.

Trash theology for trash adeherents.

Ah the bible.  A book written a long time ago in a language few understand, about a magic god who created man, woman and the earth and all it’s animals and plants.  This magic ‘god” is the same man who sent his son, who was bored from floating around on a cloud, down to the earth his father created so he could perform “miracles” (magic, BURN THE WITCH!!!) and then get folks to believe in his messages by promising entarnal life floating around on clouds with family members if they believed and if they didn’t, the non-believers would be cast (by his loving all-powerful father) into a lake burning with fire for all eternity.  Then the son is tortured and killed and years later the church that martyred this son of god, burns women, hangs children and men for being witches and takes their money and property becoming wealthy beyond belief but are sheilded from being taxed because they are a church.  This same magic god just floats around on his cloud and watches while the humans he created destroy the earth he created, kill one another, watches while children go hungry and nations starve, and men in power perform genocide and governments create poisons and weapons that kill and maim it’s citizens, and churches in the name of god, while more churches march with signs saying “thank god for dead soldiers and god hates fags” and powerful, wealthy mega churches “sell god”, and command even the poorest of it’s flock give all they can give so the mega liars and greedy pastors can continue to “spread the word of “god.”  Then those men of god (yeah right) claim murders, suicides, rapes, killing, neglect of children, mistreatment of elderly, the forgotten, the homeless, and many more horrors are all that way because that same “magic god” has given his creations, whom he “loves” free will and that’s why he refuses to raise one tiny magic finger to repair all the damage that his children have done. 

mykelb,

Wasn’t going to give continuation to this thread — but couldn’t help responding to you …

I’m sure your comment will get at the very least one “like”, actual or mental.

But calling it “trash theology” doesn’t affect what I said, my fundamental point:
Sola Scriptura is itself, unscriptural.

(And I’m willing to bet, that most of the Christians that atheists will debate on the internet, are “Scripture-alone” Protestants, who think Scripture in-itself is the all-sufficient source of doctrine. It isn’t, and never even claims to be. There’s a number of issues in which the Scripture is ambiguous — not to mention the number of issues the Bible is simply silent about –and to dispense of Tradition as many Protestants do is a major contributor to why their  doctrinal interpretations of the Bible  will often conflict. )

People have a tendency to build shells around their belief structures as though to say, “I will believe this far, but no further.” What they put inside the shell is all the goody-goody bits(a person’s individual personality determines what s?he considers goody-goody) and then they throw the rest into a garbage bin and light it on fire. To them, for example, the bible is only what’s inside their shell. When you point to clearly uncomfortable passages from the *actual* bible, they feel you’re disrespecting not only their religion, but even more importantly, their deeply-held belief *ABOUT* their religion. They’ve gone to all the trouble of cherry-picking the best(what they consider to be the best) bits, making themselves feel good about themselves and then you come along and take their marbles away. To them, that’s very disrespectful.

Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done, though.

It helps to know, 1 Timmothy 2:12, but as a woman, she probably forgot that we are too submit. It wasn’t taken out of context! It was more likely that it didn’t fit her view of the modern day womans liber rights movement…. I have to say that as a woman I would be happy to wear that shirt!!

“The True Edition of the Bible, the one that only exists in people’s
minds and has all the bad parts taken out, doesn’t have it. “

Maybe not. But it might get them thinking a little.

atheists can ‘believe’ in the existence of a man called Jesus.  
a – opposite
theism – system of thought founded on a divine principle

Jesus, a man from Galilee, who had followers and taught about love and sharing, may well have believed in the vengeful god of the Jews (if he wasn’t a Buddhist and did exist), but i can’t see any logical problem with paying attention to the recorded sayings of Christ and being an atheist.

This is silly. Personally, I would have made the shirt and taught about that verse. If you actually wanted to pay for that shirt and wear it, that’s up to you. You’d have to explain yourself to the people who would ask you if you were a Christian and why you were wearing such a strange shirt.
 
As to what that verse is talking about, well, it’s definitely a difficult one. What I know about studying that verse (and chapter) is that Paul was talking specifically to this church, because later in Corinthians (to another church), he instructs that women CAN speak and teach in church. So it seems to me (and to other Bible studiers) that something was going on at the churches Paul was writing to at the time. Maybe the women were being loud and obnoxious. Maybe they were teaching “with authority” when culturally, that’s not the way things worked. There are several places in the Bible that instruct about cultural and time specific things, like not allowing braids or jewelry or even eating “unclean” animals and not touching a woman for a certain amount of days during the month. Remember context and culture when reading the Bible. Paul at one point says that Slaves should submit to their masters. That’s not an approval of slavery, it’s instruction on what could possibly keep them alive and out of jail.Living out a spiritual life is not always pretty, seldom orderly, never perfect. It’s the same as it was back in Paul’s time. We are humans. We are not perfect. Don’t miss that the rest of the Bible talks about how to get to Heaven. If you don’t believe there’s a Heaven, then that’s kindof the end of the discussion isn’t it.It only takes a short little trip to google and a search for 1 timothy 2:12 to find out this is an often misunderstood verse, but many scholars have taken stabs at understanding it and found that it’s probably a cultural, time specific event.

Pick on the Quran. It’s worse. And Islam actually wants to take over. Jesus just wants your heart. The Quran says you can hit your wife if she doesn’t have sex with you and somehow calls it merciful.

i dont know why they refuse to print that, i think is a good message for some of our drugger, drunker and killer woman. In the bible, phiciology and sometime fisical girl and men are different but with same value.

The problem with this approach is that so many fundamentalist Christians are functionally illiterate.