"From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Tr...

"From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth" Tuesday, Sept. 23,

There are 93 comments on the Elm Grove story from Jun 6, 2013, titled "From Feminist Atheism to Biblical Truth" Tuesday, Sept. 23,. In it, Elm Grove reports that:

Author Kitty Foth-Regner is the featured speaker at the Creation Science Society of Milwaukee's September meeting.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Elm Grove.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#42 Jun 13, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
At last! you agree that you have a standard that allows you to compare your ethics and mine. Thank you! If you claim your ethics are of a higher standard, you admit there is an external standard. May I know what this standard is?
That standard is what I, and many others, have chosen.
LCN Linc

United States

#43 Jun 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That standard is what I, and many others, have chosen.
Comparing ethics seems valid.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#44 Jun 17, 2013
LCN Linc wrote:
<quoted text>
Comparing ethics seems valid.
Lots of stuff "seems to you" Lincoln. But the fact that you're a lying creationist with no morals does not "seem to" change at all...

neither do your passive-aggressive comments which reveal your dishonest character to us all.
Siro

Australia

#45 Jun 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Slavery is commanded in the bible.
Where in the Bible?
I suppose it was necessary as it was only the use of captivity to get grubs like you to wash themselves on a regular basis instead of the atheist custom of having an annual bath.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#46 Jun 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the Bible?
I suppose it was necessary as it was only the use of captivity to get grubs like you to wash themselves on a regular basis instead of the atheist custom of having an annual bath.
You are really bitter about being wrong about god and now have to lie about atheists hygiene habits.

What a sore loser.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#47 Jun 18, 2013
Siro wrote:
<quoted text>
Where in the Bible?
I suppose it was necessary as it was only the use of captivity to get grubs like you to wash themselves on a regular basis instead of the atheist custom of having an annual bath.
Projection that leads to the realization that Australians really are a dirty people.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#48 Jun 19, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> When you make sone a head of something, you are giving them more value then others. That is why our pres has secret service while the rest of us do not. The fact that women are disqualified from this role based solely on their gender confirms my statement that the bible treats women as inferior to men.
I am sorry to hear you feel this way. To imagine that your value is determined by your position. Must really be a problem for many people that will have an inferiority complex based on such a superficial standard . Imagine that! Because a guy has chaps looking after him, is driven by a chauffeur, lives in a big house and buys the best clothes makes him of more value than you! Maybe you confuse value with responsibility or authority or status. None of these imply value.
Let me give you an alternative perspective that is presented in the Bible
We all have the same value. Some are more intelligent, some are more attractive, some are more creative, but each of us has exactly the same value, because we were created equal.
Being happy with what you have and who you are and living a life of integrity etc. will prove to be much better than having to prove your value by superficial stuff
In fact Jesus died for all, irrespective of race, intelligence, money, influence, status, power etc. Your value is the same as any other person on earth.

Our sermon last Sunday morning mentioned favouritism (we stick to expository rather than topical preaching). And although it does not directly address the issue discussed, it struck me as of some relevance. The relevant texts are:
Jas 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jas 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Jas 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#49 Jun 19, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
<quoted text> That is a straight out lie. The bible gives men property rights and sexual rights over their wives. women have to seek the consent of their husbands to enter into binding contracts, no obligation is needed for the vice versa. men have the rights to put their wives to death for adultery, but not vice versa.
Yes, I may have expressed myself poorly. I was referring to matters outside of marriage and their role in the church.
Can you please list the specific text that you refer to in respect of a woman being put to death by her husband, but the man being treated by another standard. The ones I could find was the following:
Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
There are however a few points that you need to consider:
1) Your argument will not hold water if your presupposition is that morals are determined by the culture you live in. You will be arguing against your own “convictions”.
2) You assume that the husband will act in bad faith, being malevolent. This is contrary to what the Bible clearly states is expected of the husband. Examples of this can be seen in the manner in which godly men treated their wives.
3) As an example of the esteem in which woman are held – even in the Old Testament is the following (wisdom being a very important issue)
a. Pro 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
b. Pro 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
c. Pro 8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#50 Jun 19, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
The bible makes it clear that the husband's role is rule over his wife. Responsibility and dominance can go hand in hand. In the bible, the prophet Judah forces his widowed daughter in law, Tamar, to go through years of celibate widowhood so that she could marry his youngest son. When he finds out that she has had sex, he orders her to be burnt until she informs him that it was him that she slept with. That story clearly indicates the level of power men had over women.
Are you a Muslim? Judah was not a prophet.
The burning of a whore was part of the Law. Judah would have obeyed the law by having her burnt. He changed his mind not because he found she was with child from him, but because he admitted that she was the righteous one, when he refused his son to marry her.

Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

Not conceiving through whoredom , the penalty was inappropriate.

The Bible tells the story like it is – no superhumans that only does good. David (He was an ancestor of Jesus) commits adultery and sends Betsheba’s husband to his death. Similar stories expose Jacob (with his mother) cheating Esau out of his birthright. In the new Testament Thomas doubting that Jesus has risen, the disciples running away when Jesus is taken into custody, Peter denying Jesus. No heroes. Just fallible people like you and me.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#51 Jun 19, 2013
emperorjohn wrote:
My question is not based on erroneous info. My question is based on me reading the bible. The bible treats women like second class citizens. Women must get permission to enter into contracts, women are not allowed to lose their virginity before marriage, women are given less property rights then men. Men can have concubines but women cannot have lovers.
In the first instance, why is your assessment of what is “appropriate” in a certain culture at a certain time , the correct one?
Your views also reflect a misunderstanding of the ideal marriage relationship – where the husband cannot be described as a tyrant if he adheres to the rest of Scripture, and the position of the husband is that of servant leader, contrary to the whole tone of the question.
You make the assumption (as indicated before) that the relationship is negative as a result of the “fact” that a woman have less “rights” than men. We are arguing this over and over, without any evidence from you that the position of submission resulted in woman being negatively “dominated” by a loving and sacrificial husband.
If you are married and care for your wife, you will take responsibility for her, love and protect her and take care of her. A wife may at times be better educated than the husband to deal with financial matters. Is he to put the burden on her to take responsibility for financial issues? Hardly, unless he is a little whimp. He will consult with her, but take the final responsibility on himself.
Being in a position of final authority does not equate to disregard for the wishes, input from the wife. But that is not the way you will want to see it, but in your heart of hearts you will know this to be the proper position.
Contracts, property rights. If the husband as the caretaker is given certain jurisdiction, it may be a good thing. If you are responsible for the financial wellbeing of another, it seems only fair that you should have control over matters that can negatively impact on your ability to do so. This also does not imply that the man does not discuss issues with his wife.
Concubines. This was an interesting matter to do a little research on. It appears that rather than mere “slaves” the position of concubine held a number of benefits – such as the care by the “husband”, and a fairly standard practice at the time. However, this practice is nowhere condoned. To the contrary, one husband to one wife is the ideal.

God chose to regulate it by demanding that each wife must be treated equally. "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money"

It can also be argued that concubines were “tolerated” in a similar way that divorce was “tolerated”.

Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
So there seem to be no direct suggestion that having concubines were regarded as committing a sin, yet the Bible makes it fairly clear that the ideal is one man and one wife:

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#52 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first instance, why is your assessment of what is “appropriate” in a certain culture at a certain time , the correct one?
Your views also reflect a misunderstanding of the ideal marriage relationship – where the husband cannot be described as a tyrant if he adheres to the rest of Scripture, and the position of the husband is that of servant leader, contrary to the whole tone of the question.
You make the assumption (as indicated before) that the relationship is negative as a result of the “fact” that a woman have less “rights” than men. We are arguing this over and over, without any evidence from you that the position of submission resulted in woman being negatively “dominated” by a loving and sacrificial husband.
If you are married and care for your wife, you will take responsibility for her, love and protect her and take care of her. A wife may at times be better educated than the husband to deal with financial matters. Is he to put the burden on her to take responsibility for financial issues? Hardly, unless he is a little whimp. He will consult with her, but take the final responsibility on himself.
Being in a position of final authority does not equate to disregard for the wishes, input from the wife. But that is not the way you will want to see it, but in your heart of hearts you will know this to be the proper position.
Contracts, property rights. If the husband as the caretaker is given certain jurisdiction, it may be a good thing. If you are responsible for the financial wellbeing of another, it seems only fair that you should have control over matters that can negatively impact on your ability to do so. This also does not imply that the man does not discuss issues with his wife.
Concubines. This was an interesting matter to do a little research on. It appears that rather than mere “slaves” the position of concubine held a number of benefits – such as the care by the “husband”, and a fairly standard practice at the time. However, this practice is nowhere condoned. To the contrary, one husband to one wife is the ideal.
God chose to regulate it by demanding that each wife must be treated equally. "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money"
It can also be argued that concubines were “tolerated” in a similar way that divorce was “tolerated”.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
So there seem to be no direct suggestion that having concubines were regarded as committing a sin, yet the Bible makes it fairly clear that the ideal is one man and one wife:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
As usual, bitter defeated creationists like to lie at length about the god they have no proof of.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#53 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I may have expressed myself poorly. I was referring to matters outside of marriage and their role in the church.
Can you please list the specific text that you refer to in respect of a woman being put to death by her husband, but the man being treated by another standard. The ones I could find was the following:
Deu 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Deu 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Deu 22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
There are however a few points that you need to consider:
1) Your argument will not hold water if your presupposition is that morals are determined by the culture you live in. You will be arguing against your own “convictions”.
2) You assume that the husband will act in bad faith, being malevolent. This is contrary to what the Bible clearly states is expected of the husband. Examples of this can be seen in the manner in which godly men treated their wives.
3) As an example of the esteem in which woman are held – even in the Old Testament is the following (wisdom being a very important issue)
a. Pro 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
b. Pro 8:2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
c. Pro 8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Bible quotes are worthless and have no relevance to the real world which we all share. When you liars have proof of god, then you get respect, and not a second before.

Theists always trying to subvert the rules of reality and physical evidence in order to spread their dishonest cults.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#54 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first instance, why is your assessment of what is “appropriate” in a certain culture at a certain time , the correct one?
Your views also reflect a misunderstanding of the ideal marriage relationship – where the husband cannot be described as a tyrant if he adheres to the rest of Scripture, and the position of the husband is that of servant leader, contrary to the whole tone of the question.
You make the assumption (as indicated before) that the relationship is negative as a result of the “fact” that a woman have less “rights” than men. We are arguing this over and over, without any evidence from you that the position of submission resulted in woman being negatively “dominated” by a loving and sacrificial husband.
If you are married and care for your wife, you will take responsibility for her, love and protect her and take care of her. A wife may at times be better educated than the husband to deal with financial matters. Is he to put the burden on her to take responsibility for financial issues? Hardly, unless he is a little whimp. He will consult with her, but take the final responsibility on himself.
Being in a position of final authority does not equate to disregard for the wishes, input from the wife. But that is not the way you will want to see it, but in your heart of hearts you will know this to be the proper position.
Contracts, property rights. If the husband as the caretaker is given certain jurisdiction, it may be a good thing. If you are responsible for the financial wellbeing of another, it seems only fair that you should have control over matters that can negatively impact on your ability to do so. This also does not imply that the man does not discuss issues with his wife.
Concubines. This was an interesting matter to do a little research on. It appears that rather than mere “slaves” the position of concubine held a number of benefits – such as the care by the “husband”, and a fairly standard practice at the time. However, this practice is nowhere condoned. To the contrary, one husband to one wife is the ideal.
God chose to regulate it by demanding that each wife must be treated equally. "If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money"
It can also be argued that concubines were “tolerated” in a similar way that divorce was “tolerated”.
Mat 19:7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Mat 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
So there seem to be no direct suggestion that having concubines were regarded as committing a sin, yet the Bible makes it fairly clear that the ideal is one man and one wife:
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
Dishonest idiots who lie about god being real in the atheist forum suffer from the mental illness of faith.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#55 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
In the first instance, why is your assessment of what is “appropriate” in a certain culture at a certain time , the correct one?
....
So then you are saying your god changes the rules.

Not to mention, if you can justify it at any time, then you support it. You probably also support stoning children who talk back, since that was also commanded in your bibles.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#56 Jun 19, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you are saying your god changes the rules.
Not to mention, if you can justify it at any time, then you support it. You probably also support stoning children who talk back, since that was also commanded in your bibles.
Can you answer the question please?
Awakening

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#57 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Can you answer the question please?
Andre, its a good job we dont subscribe to iron age morality. People in primitive societies like Jesus, Moses and Muhammed believed in slavery, owning slave concubines and stoning people to death for minor crimes. Some of us have moved on and hold civilised values, and cherish reason rather than myths. Perhaps you should do the same.
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#58 Jun 19, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonest idiots who lie about god being real in the atheist forum suffer from the mental illness of faith.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Dishonest idiots who lie about god being real in the atheist forum suffer from the mental illness of faith.
You are wrong on all accounts:
1) Dishonesty/lies- intention to deceive. Now if I believe something (even it it was false) will not qualify as deceit, dishonesty or lies.
2)Idiot. Any qualified psychiatrist will prove you wrong. Try it, I challenge you.
3)Faith in God is not a mental illness. Ask the same chappie as in (2)
Now to be honest, I do believe that your rather emotional outburst will be rather interesting reading for the psychiatrist. I have studied a bit in psychology and you may do well to study the defense mechanism called "projection". But on the other hand, it may just be that you wish to prove the Bible true:
Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake:
(Come to think of it, I will go for the latter)
Andre

Durban, South Africa

#59 Jun 19, 2013
Awakening wrote:
<quoted text>
Andre, its a good job we dont subscribe to iron age morality. People in primitive societies like Jesus, Moses and Muhammed believed in slavery, owning slave concubines and stoning people to death for minor crimes. Some of us have moved on and hold civilised values, and cherish reason rather than myths. Perhaps you should do the same.
Hi there awakening. Will you comment on the issue of how we decide what is right/wrong? If it is society and subjective, then the values relevant at a certain time in history cannot be questioned.
I see what you mean with "reason", as I just responded to a very reasoned response from Skeptic.
Yes, civilization is becoming "better" if we use a standard. But what is the standard?
If you ask me, the fact that people do not trust corporations any more, is surely an indication of an improvement. So is the fact that teenage pregnancies are on the increase, contracts are continuously being dishounoured (whereas a handshake just a couple of years ago was good enough.
But the issue of myth is just a very poor response to the facts available to make a reasoned and intelligent assessment. The latest trend seems to be the reliance on little green men from outer space to explain the fantastically designed universe. Now that is reason for you! No evidence but even Richard Dawkins comes to this "logical" conclusion.

I have started reading on the chaos theory and instead of "chaos" (as the name suggests), as it actually proceeds on very complex non-linear statistical laws!

The very nature of the unpredictability of for instance weather patterns (see butterfly effect) makes the Bible prophecies so amazing. Despite a great number of factors (where even a small difference in initial conditions may have dramatically different outcomes) affecting the future, Bible prophecies suggests that God is still in control.

Some or other chap was once asked for proof of God. His answer? Israel. Check it out.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#60 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>Can you answer the question please?
Our ethical standards today are higher, "morals" and ethics are all subjective, and should improve over time. They were wrong for stoning children, there is no justification for stoning children, subjugating women, and owning other humans as property.

You can justify it, that makes you a supporter of such horrible things.

“Sombrero Galaxy”

Since: Jan 10

I'm An Illegal Alien

#61 Jun 19, 2013
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sorry to hear you feel this way. To imagine that your value is determined by your position. Must really be a problem for many people that will have an inferiority complex based on such a superficial standard . Imagine that! Because a guy has chaps looking after him, is driven by a chauffeur, lives in a big house and buys the best clothes makes him of more value than you! Maybe you confuse value with responsibility or authority or status. None of these imply value.
Let me give you an alternative perspective that is presented in the Bible
We all have the same value. Some are more intelligent, some are more attractive, some are more creative, but each of us has exactly the same value, because we were created equal.
Being happy with what you have and who you are and living a life of integrity etc. will prove to be much better than having to prove your value by superficial stuff
In fact Jesus died for all, irrespective of race, intelligence, money, influence, status, power etc. Your value is the same as any other person on earth.
Our sermon last Sunday morning mentioned favouritism (we stick to expository rather than topical preaching). And although it does not directly address the issue discussed, it struck me as of some relevance. The relevant texts are:
Jas 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;
Jas 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Jas 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?
Jas 2:5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
Jas 2:6 But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
Jas 2:7 Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?
Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jas 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
All of this bullshyt is immaterial to what I have said. My point is that the bible gives all husbands authority over their wives, regardless of their abilities. Their only required qualification is having a dyck between their legs. That is wrong and sexist.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min DanFromSmithville 35,674
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Richardfs 15,028
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr An NFL Fan 20,207
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 2 hr Patrick 4,510
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr ChristineM 255,567
Christianity isn't based on... (Feb '10) 14 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 45
News Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 hr ChristineM 23,879
More from around the web