Why does the Christian God treat women as inferior to men?

[LeiaBryant]

The Bible commands me to dress modestly but says nothing about you so I guess you can run around naked,right? The Bible commands me to be slient in church and not to speak,is your God afraid of women's questions? The Bible commands me to submit to a husband in fact I was taught in church that it meant I was to obey even if I was told to do something sinful because the sin would be the man's and it was a sin for me to disobey.(I'm ex-NIFB) what does submitting to a husband mean to you? The Bible commands women to never have a position of authority over a man, what does that mean to you? I was taught it meant I could not own a business ,run for public office or even vote. Do you agree with that? I am free of your God's patriarchy now, I am now a liberal bisexual radical feminist witch (Wicca) and I fear your God no more. My Goddess has blessed me with freedom. So I reiterate the thread topic ,why does your God consider me inferior to a man?

[★ Citsonga ★]

Because he was invented by chauvinistic men.

[MOHO]

9 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

The Bible commands me to dress modestly but says nothing about you so I guess you can run around naked,right? The Bible commands me to be slient in church and not to speak,is your God afraid of women's questions? The Bible commands me to submit to a husband in fact I was taught in church that it meant I was to obey even if I was told to do something sinful because the sin would be the man's and it was a sin for me to disobey.(I'm ex-NIFB) what does submitting to a husband mean to you? The Bible commands women to never have a position of authority over a man, what does that mean to you? I was taught it meant I could not own a business ,run for public office or even vote. Do you agree with that? I am free of your God's patriarchy now, I am now a liberal bisexual radical feminist witch (Wicca) and I fear your God no more. My Goddess has blessed me with freedom. So I reiterate the thread topic ,why does your God consider me inferior to a man?

Proves the collection of fiction was written by ancient jackastical control freaks and not by any all-knowing, all-loving deity.

 

Here's a hoot for 'ya. A few years back at Mrs. MOHO's church someone pointed out the fact that the bible directs women to remain silent in church. Pastor asshat's response was...

 

"Well, since women were not allowed to be educated in those days it was assumed they would have nothing of value to say so.... blah blah."

 

So, not only were women to remain silent in church they were also not allowed to be educated? Talk about a double disrespect.

Notice here that the explanation was that "society" not "Christianity or god" was faulted here for women not begin educated. 

 

Nonetheless when you compare the misogyny of the bible with Muslims and the Middle East and how women are treated there, well... describing the religion and life-style of our 20+ year enemies is kind of a pot and kettle scenario.

 

BTW: Welcome to ex-C, @LeiaBryant

    - MOHO (Mind OF His Own)

[★ Citsonga ★]

Yeah, the attitudes expressed in the Bible are a reflection of the authors and the societies they came from. They do not come from an actual deity. 

[LeiaBryant]

12 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

Yeah, the attitudes expressed in the Bible are a reflection of the authors and the societies they came from. They do not come from an actual deity. 

I believe their God exist, I just follow different Gods. 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

2 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

I believe their God exist, I just follow different Gods. 

 

I don't, but regardless, the views expressed in the Bible are the views of the authors, plain and simple.

[Joshpantera]

6 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

I believe their God exist, I just follow different Gods. 

 

 

You are blatantly rebelling against the judeo christian god from a platform of believing it, but rejecting it. And I assume that the opening post is directed at any christian members who may want to comment back. 

 

Ex christians come in many flavors, this is a rarer form of it, LeiaBryant. A type of theistic paganism. I'll describe it as gnostic theistic paganism summarized in your witchcraft practice. This was not uncommon a century ago. In fact, the whole issue surrounding the Bohemian Grove is squarely aimed at elite's running off in the woods and rebelling against judeo-christian values, from theistic view points as opposed to rebelling from atheistic view points. Now it's more common to see rebellion coming from atheistic and agnostic view points. 

 

Christians are a little sparse at the moment, however. We had a few hit and runs who dive bombed us with posts and then ran away. But don't worry, more will be along soon enough. They tend to come in waves for some reason. Maybe you'll have some takers and your questions can play out with some of the christian visitors.  

 

In the meanwhile, any questions or concerns just ask. 

 

Thanks. 

[Guest freedwoman]

Because he's never met a warrior goddess. He needs Athena to give him a spanking and tell him to behave like a good God.

[Guest freedwoman]

I would love to see Moses, Paul, or Peter try and tell former Celtic Queen Warrior Woman Bodicca to submit or to remain silent. I would love to see David try a rape her like he did bathsheba. I would love to see Solomon try to take her as a concubine. Off with their heads!!!

[Guest freedwoman]

Sorry. I will tone it down. 

[LeiaBryant]

1 hour ago, freedwoman said:

Sorry. I will tone it down. 

I don't mind

[florduh]

22 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

I believe their God exist, I just follow different Gods. 

 

If you have any evidence for the existence of any gods independent from human invention I'm eager to see it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This is a lot like asking why Malthoy treats mud-bloods as inferior.  They're both (Malthoy and christian god) fictional characters, so does it really matter?  And if so, why?

[LeiaBryant]

2 hours ago, freedwoman said:

Because he's never met a warrior goddess. He needs Athena to give him a spanking and tell him to behave like a good God.

Amen sister preach

[★ Citsonga ★]

23 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

I believe their God exist, I just follow different Gods. 

 

Believing in the Christan god but rejecting him is basically akin to knowingly subjecting yourself to an eternity of torture. If I still believed in him, there's no way I'd do that.

[LeiaBryant]

3 hours ago, Citsonga said:

 

Believing in the Christan god but rejecting him is basically akin to knowingly subjecting yourself to an eternity of torture. If I still believed in him, there's no way I'd do that.

I am doing what I believe is morally the right thing, might does not make right it is the other way around. We are always stronger when we are doing the right thing. Also I can be kind of a stubborn bitch when I think I am right. BTW I'm ex-NIFB and LGBT+ so I see no downside in this scenario. Go Google what the reprobate doctrine is and think about it. Then explicate to me why I should not become a witch.

[★ Citsonga ★]

6 minutes ago, LeiaBryant said:

Go Google what the reprobate doctrine is

 

I couldn't care less about doctrine and haven't cared for years. It's all bullshit.

[LeiaBryant]

Just now, Citsonga said:

 

I couldn't care less about doctrine and haven't cared for years. It's all bullshit.

If you understood what the reprobate doctrine is you would understand why I am a witch who believes in the KJV Bible's God and rejects him.

[★ Citsonga ★]

20 hours ago, LeiaBryant said:

If you understood what the reprobate doctrine is you would understand why I am a witch who believes in the KJV Bible's God and rejects him.

 

I know what the Bible says about reprobates, if that's what you're talking about. Regardless, when it comes to religious bullshit, my give-a-shit took a shit years ago. Anymore I couldn't care less about wasting time on such nonsense. 

 

Night night 

[Joshpantera]

On 3/11/2020 at 9:37 PM, LeiaBryant said:

If you understood what the reprobate doctrine is you would understand why I am a witch who believes in the KJV Bible's God and rejects him.

 

Quote

In Calvinist doctrine, the reprobate are those Christ rejected before the world began. The English word reprobate is from the Latin root probare (English: prove, test), and thus derived from the Latin, reprobatus (reproved, condemned), the opposite of approbatus (commended, approved).

 

I don't know if this should be immediately obvious to everyone, Leia. 

 

We had a run of Calvinist's come through last year. One of them was LuthAMF. The debate between he and I is pinned here at the top of the lion's den. Just for the hell of it, you may want to give the debate a read through. Because the premise of the debate is that the bible (which ever version you'd prefer) is demonstrably false from the outset, as of Genesis 1. And one of the side issues that came along during LuthAMF's visit here is the Calvinist ideas about "predestination" where the elect of god have been chosen in advance. Similar to what the reprobate doctrine is describing above concerning the dammed being chosen in advance. The idea that god already knows who's who all outcomes. Missionary work seems futile from this perspective, as I noted. 

 

If you are saying to us that you believe in the christian god, but consider yourself a reprobate or unelect, and are just going along content to ride out this life as a witch because why not, you're already dammed by the christian god as it is, then I do understand what you're saying.

 

But is that what you're saying? 

 

If so, I'd like to talk to you some more about this and try and help you look at some critical factors that go into such a belief. As long as you don't mind listening to what I have to say about it. I'm not trying to force it on you. If you're good with hearing the arguments then I'll go over some of them. 

[LeiaBryant]

5 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

I don't know if this should be immediately obvious to everyone, Leia. 

 

We had a run of Calvinist's come through last year. One of them was LuthAMF. The debate between he and I is pinned here at the top of the lion's den. Just for the hell of it, you may want to give the debate a read through. Because the premise of the debate is that the bible (which ever version you'd prefer) is demonstrably false from the outset, as of Genesis 1. And one of the side issues that came along during LuthAMF's visit here is the Calvinist ideas about "predestination" where the elect of god have been chosen in advance. Similar to what the reprobate doctrine is describing above concerning the dammed being chosen in advance. The idea that god already knows who's who all outcomes. Missionary work seems futile from this perspective, as I noted. 

 

If you are saying to us that you believe in the christian god, but consider yourself a reprobate or unelect, and are just going along content to ride out this life as a witch because why not, you're already dammed by the christian god as it is, then I do understand what you're saying.

 

But is that what you're saying? 

 

If so, I'd like to talk to you some more about this and try and help you look at some critical factors that go into such a belief. As long as you don't mind listening to what I have to say about it. I'm not trying to force it on you. If you're good with hearing the arguments then I'll go over some of them. 

Yes that is exactly what I am saying the Christian God already damned me to his hell so why not be a witch?are you familiar with the NIFB? That is my former sect, here read this article on one of their most famous preachers: https://www.conservapedia.com/Steven_Anderson also check out my thread in rants and replies about my former sect. Then come back here and we can talk about it.

[Joshpantera]

On 3/13/2020 at 12:37 AM, LeiaBryant said:

Yes that is exactly what I am saying the Christian God already damned me to his hell so why not be a witch?are you familiar with the NIFB? That is my former sect, here read this article on one of their most famous preachers: https://www.conservapedia.com/Steven_Anderson also check out my thread in rants and replies about my former sect. Then come back here and we can talk about it.

 

I remember Anderson getting media coverage after the night club shooting. So there's a couple things going on here. First is the Calvinist idea of predestination. The idea is that an all knowing god must necessarily know in advance who is and who is not saved, or else the god is not actually all knowing. We were going over this with Calvinists. The second issue is what you've linked here about homosexuals as reprobates. The idea that if someone engages homosexuality they are reprobate and are lost causes as such, basically. But this clearly blankets under the larger umbrella of predestination. 

 

I was raised SDA so this is all foreign to our theology. Our theology is that no one, under any circumstance, can know if they are saved. God the father alone has that knowledge of the final judgement, no one else, not even jesus or the angels know the final outcome of the final judgement. That's where SDA theology goes. Same bible. Totally different interpretations of the same bible. Hence all of these various denominations. The main reason for these differences of interpretation is because different people tend to "cherry pick" their way through the scriptures accepting some things, turning a blind eye to other things. As far as I know, there isn't anyone who takes the bible in complete and accepts everything in the bible without picking and choosing. I have never witnessed a comprehensive, unified whole approach to interpretation. 

 

And there's reasons for that. The bible is extremely contradicting. I don't know how much exposure you've had so far outside of your sect. But you're now among us. Here, you're subject to exposure to a lot of things that you likely were not exposed to previously. The first major issue of exposure is that the bible starts off contradictory from the very beginning, with the creation account in Genesis 1. The details are in the debate with myself and the Calvinist apologist.

 

The summary is that (1) a fixed beginning of the universe is inconclusive from science. Genesis starts off with claims. This one's inconclusive, so we let it go and read on. Then god creates light and separates it from darkness without the existence at that point of any light giving sources, like the sun, moon, or stars, which are the other sun's with surrounding galaxies of the universe. The writer claims a 1st day when there's no light source necessary for day and the distinction of night. It goes on. Dry land is separated from the seas and grass appears before the existence of the sun. Finally, day 4, the sun, moon and stars are made. 

 

You know, I read over that year after year in private school never once noticing the contradictions and inconsistencies. Right on through the 12th grade. I didn't believe it anymore through high school. But still didn't notice the actual problems with the bible, with the texts. It wasn't until much later in my late 20's when I started rereading the bible again that I noticed this stuff. And what I started seeing is that taking this stuff literally, and historically, has more problems than I even realized previously. But then I started seeing more and more of it. All over the place. I started reading books about biblical criticism that outline nearly all of the problems and contradictions. There are many. All the way through.

 

The god, as it turns out, is more plural than mono. There were gods, originally. The Elohim. They were later refined down to one of the gods, YHWH the national god of Israel. In Genesis it was still plural. And it wasn't the trinity. That concept hadn't been made up yet. That was made up, evidently, much later. The Elohim were a pantheon of gods, like the greek and roman pantheons. Ancient Israel was like any other pagan nation, with a pantheon of gods. There is tons of good reading on this alone. 

 

Guys like Anderson are as foolish as the day is long.

 

They think that the bible that they're reading didn't evolve over period of time and change and adapt to current beliefs and conditions along the way. They are blind to the fact that the god started out as part of a pagan pantheon of gods. They don't have a clue to the extent that ancient priests were the astronomers of the day and in like fashion used astrological symbolism to conceal references in scripture that could be understood one initiate to another. The bible is a contradicting mess. Condemns pagans, is pagan. Condemns astrology, makes use of astrological symbolism. Condemns homosexuality, likely many of these jokers were homosexual just like every other contradiction along the way. 

 

I'll let you read and catch up. How much of this are you already familiar with? 

[LeiaBryant]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I remember Anderson getting media coverage after the night club shooting. So there's a couple things going on here. First is the Calvinist idea of predestination. The idea is that an all knowing god must necessarily know in advance who is and who is not saved, or else the god is not actually all knowing. We were going over this with Calvinists. The second issue is what you've linked here about homosexuals as reprobates. The idea that if someone engages homosexuality they are reprobate and are lost causes as such, basically. But this clearly blankets under the larger umbrella of predestination. 

 

I was raised SDA so this is all foreign to our theology. Our theology is that no one, under any circumstance, can know if they are saved. God the father alone has that knowledge of the final judgement, no one else, not even jesus or the angels know the final outcome of the final judgement. That's where SDA theology goes. Same bible. Totally different interpretations of the same bible. Hence all of these various denominations. The main reason for these differences of interpretation is because different people tend to "cherry pick" their way through the scriptures accepting some things, turning a blind eye to other things. As far as I know, there isn't anyone who takes the bible in complete and accepts everything in the bible without picking and choosing. I have never witnessed a comprehensive, unified whole approach to interpretation. 

 

And there's reasons for that. The bible is extremely contradicting. I don't know how much exposure you've had so far outside of your sect. But you're now among us. Here, you're subject to exposure to a lot of things that you likely were not exposed to previously. The first major issue of exposure is that the bible starts off contradictory from the very beginning, with the creation account in Genesis 1. The details are in the debate with myself and the Calvinist apologist. The summary is that (1) a fixed beginning of the universe is inconclusive from science. Genesis

starts off with claims. This one's inconclusive, so we let it go and read on. Then god creates light and separates it from darkness without the existence at that point of any light giving sources, like the sun, moon, or stars, which are the other sun's with surrounding galaxies of the universe. The writer claims a 1st day when there's no light source necessary for day and the distinction of night. It goes on. Dry land is separated from the seas and grass appears before the existence of the sun. Finally, day 4, the sun, moon and stars are made. 

 

You know, I read over that year after year in private school never once noticing the contradictions and inconsistencies. Right on through the 12th grade. I didn't believe it anymore through high school. But still didn't notice the actual problems with the bible, with the texts. It wasn't until much later in my late 20's when I started rereading the bible again that I noticed this stuff. And what I started seeing is that taking this stuff literally, and historically, has more problems than I even realized previously. But then I started seeing more and more of it. All over the place. I started reading books about biblical criticism that outline nearly all of the problems and contradictions. There are many. All the way through. The god, as it turns out, is more plural than mono. There were gods, originally. The Elohim. They were later refined down to one of the gods, YHWH the national god of Israel. In Genesis it was still plural. And it wasn't the trinity. That concept hadn't been made up yet. That was made up, evidently, much later. The Elohim were a pantheon of gods, like the greek and roman pantheons. Ancient Israel was like any other pagan nation, with a pantheon of gods. There is tons of good reading on this alone. 

 

Guys like Anderson are as foolish as the day is long. They think that the bible that they're reading didn't evolve over period of time and change and adapt to current beliefs and conditions along the way. They are blind to the fact that the god started out as part of a pagan pantheon of gods. They don't have a clue to the extent that ancient priests were the astronomers of the day and in like fashion used astrological symbolism to conceal references in scripture that could be understood one initiate to another. The bible is a contradicting mess. Condemns pagans, is pagan. Condemns astrology, makes use of astrological symbolism. Condemns homosexuality, likely many of these jokers were homosexual just like every other contradiction along the way. 

 

I'll let you read and catch up. How much of this are you already familiar with? 

A lot of it in fact my Goddess Inanna is a semitic deity , part of the same panthon as YHVH perhaps . I am not as familiar with Bible contradictions but I am eager to learn. I would like to know more about what the SDAs believe.

[florduh]

The Bible, particularly perhaps the KJV, is no reason to believe anything. It is a carefully constructed tool of political power. There is no reason whatsoever to rely on the Bible for factual information. Rebelling against a nonexistent deity makes no more sense than worshiping it.

[LeiaBryant]

45 minutes ago, florduh said:

The Bible, particularly perhaps the KJV, is no reason to believe anything. It is a carefully constructed tool of political power. There is no reason whatsoever to rely on the Bible for factual information. Rebelling against a nonexistent deity makes no more sense than worshiping it.

Hypothetical if the God of the KJV was real would you rebel against him?