Misogyny & The Bible ~ Religion's hatred of Women

Watch it Hiram.

As I said before, I only used NT in our last discussion about women because you seem to adhere more to the NT than the OT so I wanted to deal with the issue of misogyny on your terms.

But if you're trying to say that every act of violence and hate against women in the OT is acceptable as well, I can bring tons and tons of quotes you won't be able to twist to fit that view. And trust me when I say, they are downright gruesome!!!

Should I start?

Here I come!!

If you read on if a man and woman commit adultery they are both stoned.

You're part right. Here is what the passage you refer to says....

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

Now let's examine that a bit.

The first thing to do is decry the stoning in the first place. Brutal punishment but we'll ascribe it to the times as you have said many times.

The second thing is to say that I'm glad that at least the rapist got his just desserts.

However, when it comes to the woman and the requirement that she screams as the sole reason to prove that she's not cheating is ridiculous.

There are tons of reasons why a woman would not scream when being raped and it has nothing to do with it being consensual sex and in this case adultery.

A woman can be drugged. She can be knocked out and dazed but alert just enough to realize what is happening to her. She can be tied and gagged. Or maybe even threatened with a knife.

There are so many ways for her not to be able to scream and yet according to the passage, screaming would be the only consideration in her defense simply for being a woman.

Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Let's see what you got Hiram :)

Dave

No where in my post did I say I was in favor of stoning anyone. I was simply pointing out the context of the passage. The implication of what you had written was not correct, in implying the woman was innocent and being punished for no reason. Stoning was a common form of punishment not only by the Jewish people but a multitude of other cultures on the time. The premise of your article is the Misogyny in the bible. Which was present in the OT as that was the culture of the time again not limited to the Jewish people but most cultures of the time. The bible not only reflects God but also the history of the times.

Jesus was very radical when He preached equality between all people regardless of age , rave or gender. That is one of the reasons the Pharisees wanted Him dead. There is no bigotry, anger, hatred in my heart it has been replaced with the love of Christ and I will humbly walk with Him in that love as best I can.

Andrew

Again you need to understand the context and language of the bible. The wording refers to an adulterous affair not rape. An understand of the language and culture goes a long way in understanding what is being presented. Without this understanding we come to a conclusion that makes sense to us so we can prove our point. I know because I us to do the same thing as you. Remember I was a very militant Atheist for over forty years. Even as a Christian these things bothered me until I researched and studied what was being said in the context of the times, culture and language. You can call it making excuses, you can call me wrong that is your right. But I will stand by what I say.

Again you need to understand the context and language of the bible. The wording refers to an adulterous affair not rape. An understand of the language and culture goes a long way in understanding what is being presented. Without this understanding we come to a conclusion that makes sense to us so we can prove our point. I know because I us to do the same thing as you. Remember I was a very militant Atheist for over forty years. Even as a Christian these things bothered me until I researched and studied what was being said in the context of the times, culture and language. You can call it making excuses, you can call me wrong that is your right. But I will stand by what I say.

The phrasing is very clear Hiram, you just choose to ignore the relevant parts..

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed,

In other words, if you're a married woman wandering around and I run into you...

and has relations with her

Now, notice here. It doesn't say that you have sex with me, it doesn't say we BOTH have sex, as in consensual, it says I have sex with you. The intent is clear. It MAY have been against your will.

Now check this out...

he girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city,

So it's a given, the male gets punished for

1) being an adulterer

or

2) being a rapist

In essence, they kill two birds with one stone, he's either guilty of rape if the woman didn't wanna have sex or he's guilty of adultery if she did, he doesn't get out of it either way.

But in the case of the woman, the only consideration given is that if she didn't scream it wasn't rape but adultery. That's it. Ignore so many factors influencing why she wouldn't scream like the ones I mentioned above. If she didn't scream, she dies too.

How sick is that?

Hiram, I'm not sure how you can cling to the view that women aren't viewed as second class citizens by your religion. It was that way in those times and a quick peek at any newspaper will give you examples of your religion using the Bible to try and discrimnate against women today. A look at foreign news and you will see examples of Islam doing the same thing just more successfully because they live in a theocracy. Christianity is a patriarchal religion, which means men are the most important and are head of the family and church. By its very definition, patriarchal relegates women to being second to the man. Surely you see that?

A look at foreign news and you will see examples of Islam doing the same thing just more successfully because they live in a theocracy. Christianity is a patriarchal religion, which means men are the most important and are head of the family and church

Christianity is not Islam. I still do not understand why people keep ignoring Christ command to husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, How can one be the dictator, leader, misogynist you claim the bible wants men to be and live a life like that? Christ being God set this as the standard from the beginning. When in Genesis he said they shall become one flesh. Laws are put in place to keep the people in line with the culture that is what Deuteronomy presents. We do the same thing and the laws reflect the principles the people believe in. We do the same thing. I am sure in the future there will be many who consider our laws archaic and primitive.

head of the family and church

Spiritual leader as in keeping the family on the right moral and spiritual path. I do not care how you slice it how many times one wants to say husbands and wives are totally equal. it is never true in all cases. Someone has to make the final decision. That is to be done with cooperation, love, information, compromise and truth. A leader is in all reality according to scripture servbant to those they lead. Again how does that equate to misogyny? I think you guys are blinded by your preconspetions of what a Christian man is.

H

What Grisham and many others can not understand is that yes there are those who do the same thing that those like Girsham do and mis-use scripture to their personal agenda despite what Scripture teaches, just as there are those who will mis-use the Constitution of the United States to personal agendas. So in truth those like him are really mad because those "Christians" who mis-use Scriptures and his group are too much alike.

What Grisham and many others can not understand is that yes there are those who do the same thing that those like Girsham do and mis-use scripture to their personal agenda despite what Scripture teaches, just as there are those who will mis-use the Constitution of the United States to personal agendas. So in truth those like him are really mad because those "Christians" who mis-use Scriptures and his group are too much alike.

I never quoted scripture here.

OOPS....should have been addressing king dave.......

No worries. I figured you probably got Andrew or Dave mixed up with me. :)

Yea and setting here with NYQUIL in me........wishing I could get some sleep.....

Man, hope you feel better soon. Most drugs (prescription or over the counter) rarely do anything for me for some reason. But NYQUIL is the exception. That stuff knocks me out. LOL

My wife got all the Nyquil. I went out and got her some chocolate ice cream for the raw throat thing. Some kind of bug going around here too.

Next article, "Why do atheists love Nyquil?"

LMAO. Me too. A half hour later and I'm toast. That stuff is potent!

Grisham: you know I disagree with you -- that's now news. But I have to point out that sweeping statements are almost never accurate.

But I have to point out that sweeping statements are almost never accurate.

In this case, they most definitely are. The hate for women in the Bible is everywhere including Genesis.

What sweeping statements? It has been used to justify oppressing women and slavery. That's a fact. And some do claim it is the most moral book ever written. That's a fair statement as well.

Feel free to offer me reasons for your disagreement. I'd love to hear them.

There are statements in the Bible, both old and new, that place women in a lower station (almost slave). I will not and cannot deny that.

However, to conclude from that fact that Jesus was a woman hater, is a bit of a logical leap.

In ancheint Greek culture, a married woman was NEVER to be found outside her house without the explicit permission of her husband. To do so, would result in death as an adulterous woman.

Women who were out in the streets, were business women who were not married, and usually her business was harlotry or she was a priestess (basically the same thing). When interpreted in this light, much of the 'oppressive' statements that Paul the Apostle made were actually revolutionary in the suggestion that women could actually worship in the same place as men.

Sweeping statements have a tendency to ignore details -- details which can easily negate the proposition. To expound on the details would fill the memories of newsvine. There are people who spend the entire lives just filtering through and translating the historic texts from just one twenty year period. The cultures that made up the biblical ages were extremely complex.

One cannot make a sweeping statement about the treatment of women of a people over three thousand years. First, it is too complex. Second, it is, actually impossible.

However, to conclude from that fact that Jesus was a woman hater, is a bit of a logical leap.

Did I say that Jesus was a woman hater. I have not.

For the purposes of this article I have been focusing on the OT not the NT BUT I will say this, and this was a discussion I had with Hiram on another article, even the NT, meaning mostly Paul and his ilk who twisted Jesus's message, does set women in a lower rung than men.

Here are some quotes from the NT for you to reflect on.....

1 Peter 3:1

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14: 34-35

34 Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Titus 2:3-5

3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored.

Timothy 2: 9-15

9 Likewise the women are to dress in suitable apparel, with modesty and self-control. Their adornment must not be with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive clothing, 10 but with good deeds, as is proper for women who profess reverence for God. 11 A woman must learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man. She must remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first and then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression. 15 But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control.

I got plenty more material showing the NT being gentler yet still as misogynistic as the OT

Andrew, if the last comment (#3.5) is addressed to what I said in my comment (#3.4) then you need to read it again. Since I have a Master's Degree in Theology, I am aware of the Scriptures you just copied. I have pored over the Greek, and studied the social-cultural context of each. I have read all that has been written about the historical settings to which the letters you quote were addressed.

Believe me when I say that in the culture the writter was addressing his teachings to, these instructions were equivelent to suggesting revolutionary liberation to women compared to the social constraints they experienced in the society outside the church.

Yes, these teachings read in our social context seem restrictive, and they are. However, if one reads the material in it's intent, then you will see anything but a misogynistic intent.

I got plenty more material showing the NT being gentler yet still as misogynistic as the OT

I'm sure you can and I can most likely show you other verses you have not yet found, but it still does not prove anything. I can also show you many other scriptures that will show that women were not hated, and abuse was not ever allowed. I can also direct you to volumes of scriptural commentary (some written in the second century) that will indicate that scholars in even that time saw a theme indicating liberating intent for women.

I am not on trial here, I will not bore you with the material, I suspect you already know about some of them, but have simply denied their relevance, maybe even skipped over them like you did my previous comment.

There are statements in the Bible, both old and new, that place women in a lower station (almost slave). I will not and cannot deny that.

However, to conclude from that fact that Jesus was a woman hater, is a bit of a logical leap.

I think we agree. I never said Jesus was a woman hater. I said the Bible has been used to oppress women for a long time and I think that's a fair statement. I don't just take into account the Jesus passages or what the Jesus passages brought about - I take into account the entire Bible.

I said the Bible has been used to oppress women for a long time and I think that's a fair statement. I don't just take into account the Jesus passages or what the Jesus passages brought about - I take into account the entire Bible.

I have to agree with you. There have been many who have used statements and stories in the Bible to down women. That is one of the reasons I brought up Augustine. He is one of the culprits. I know he was a Bishop of Rome, and Roman Catholics consider him a Pope, but the truth is, he is one that did great damage to the standing in the early church (especially in Rome).

That said, he was also a brilliant theologian. Many of his ideas and interpretations of scripture still stand -- even among many Protestants. Personally, his interpretations are now somewhat 'dated.'

I am not on trial here, I will not bore you with the material, I suspect you already know about some of them, but have simply denied their relevance, maybe even skipped over them like you did my previous comment.

I skip over nothing. I am always looking to learn more. And while I may not be a professional theologian, I can say with quite some confidence that while there may be amazing passages in the NT describing the role of men honoring women, when you look at the whole picture, women are still getting the shaft.

Also, let's not forget that the Bible that we read now is not the full story of Jesus and a HUGE chunk of it describing HIS personal life and the possibility of a wife and kids was hidden so as to say that women were not worthy to even share his spotlight.

I think you know who I'm talking about. Mary Magdalene, more than likely his wife not the prostitute portrayed by others to make her inferior to the apostles, thereby once again, relegating women to second place.

Sorry about my comment, it looks more malicious than I intended it.

Theologians have known since the time of Origin that human history has not included all that happened during the approximately 30 years of Jesus' life. There is little preserved in the Bible about Jesus' personal life. Many think, now days, church leaders in the second century were more interested in the credibility of Jesus as a deity. What material they chose to preserve and how it was preserved is the center a great deal of discussion.

The problem is, since Jesus himself seems not to have written anything (at least nothing that has been found) we no way of gaining anything but the literature from those that wrote down a few words. Of course they chose what was most significant for them at the time. There was no way they could have, even in their wildest dreams, known or anticipated what we would find significant.

I have personally known scholars that were present when the Papyri were first translated. These transcripts were actual notes written down by people listening to second generation Christians (the kids of the ones who were actually present and witnessed Jesus in the flesh). These scholars all say it is miraculous that the words on those transcripts were so close to the texts passed down through almost 2000 years.

sweeping statements are almost never accurate.

That's hilarious. Does anyone else see the humor in this 'sweeping statement'?

Theologians have known since the time of Origin that human history has not included all that happened during the approximately 30 years of Jesus' life. There is little preserved in the Bible about Jesus' personal life. Many think, now days, church leaders in the second century were more interested in the credibility of Jesus as a deity. What material they chose to preserve and how it was preserved is the center a great deal of discussion.

Precisely but it was not until the 4th century that a concerted effort was made to basically market Jesus to the masses so as to gather power. Hence the birth of the RCC thanks to Constantine and the Council of Nicea.

Before then, there weren't really Churches per se. Jesus followers had a rather informal cult being a minority which they called The Way. These guys followed the real deal not the souped up Church version.

Guess not, well I can take a hint. Maybe I'll leave my SOH home next time. Or maybe I'll just leave.

Who really cares if they wrote a book telling women to bow down to men? If they needed to write a book, obviously the women weren't listening. So they thought a book would make a difference. But it's the greatest book ever written! -- by men.

But it's the greatest book ever written! -- by men.

Your opinion.

Personally, as far religious texts go, I find the Gita much more interesting. It's an epic story which has a bit of everything. Romance, war, mystery, drama.

I'm into RPG games mainly because of the way characters and the story develops and the Gita has amazing characters like Arjuna and Krishna.

Bhagavad Gita was probably written by women. What do they call men-haters, misterogynists? (that's probably old, like men get women-o-pause)

But it's the greatest book ever written! -- by men.

Your opinion.

What are you Artificial Intelligence? You take everything literally? AI is invading the vine. Help!

Methinks someone's been drinking too much happyjuice or way too 420 friendly LOL

His responses ain't even making sense.

LOL. Nope just happy. Got one for ya:

1 Corinthians 1:11/12

However in the Lord woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, man comes through woman, and all things come from God.

So here is presented the existence of duality in the relationship between wo/men and their creator. It's not all bad. The telling of Genesis says that god created woman because man was lonely -- from his rib.

Andrew - Sad to see your history so lacking when you are trying to address a subject as if you are an expert of some kind….let’s see there the Church was established in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Macedonia, Achaia, Philippi, and they even had divisions of “denominations” ie… Christians, Novationaists, Montaintist etc. before Constantine came along and married the church and state for some who claimed to be Christian but were not following it’s tenants.

'tenets'

oops...dang auto correct....

From NOMAS on tenets: National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Whatever psychological burden men have to overcome, women are still the most universal and direct victims of our patriarchy.

Andrew - Sad to see your history so lacking when you are trying to address a subject as if you are an expert of some kind….let’s see there the Church was established in Rome, Ephesus, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Macedonia, Achaia, Philippi, and they even had divisions of “denominations” ie… Christians, Novationaists, Montaintist etc. before Constantine came along and married the church and state for some who claimed to be Christian but were not following it’s tenants.

Tsk, tsk, tsk TC.

Those were the tales told by Paul.

In fact Jesus himself said that no temple was needed to worship, just your own, as in yourself.

The Way were a tiny minority in Rome. Minuscule compared to Judaism and the Pagan religions.

Sad, sad, sad to see people who don't know their own Bible.

In fact Jesus himself said that no temple was needed to worship, just your own, as in yourself.

Where's your quote for that one?

So here is presented the existence of duality in the relationship between wo/men and their creator. It's not all bad. The telling of Genesis says that god created woman because man was lonely -- from his rib.

Really? Then I suppose I just made this up....

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.

Golly, let's play the Christian version of the food pyramid.

First comes God, then Jesus, then man and at the very bottom woman.

Where's your quote for that one?

It's amazing how many so called faithful don't know this one.

The quote is from John 10 34:35

³⁴Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

³⁵If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

See what he says about the scripture coming onto them? It means they didn't need to go to a stinking Church to hear the scripture but actually live the scripture!!!

They were the temple of God, not some silly building. Jesus was a man of actions not words. Words are cheap. Actions speak volumes.

It's amazing how many so called faithful don't know this one.

Ha ha. Not really. I doubt it's a passage that churches preach about often since it undermines their credibility and very existence.

Ha ha. Not really. I doubt it's a passage that churches preach about often since it undermines their credibility and very existence.

I understand that but the Bible is there to read regardless of whether the Church goes over a particular passage or not. They don't even bother to understand it or too lazy to read the parts the Church skips over.

The funniest part is when I'm told that since I don't believe, I know nothing about their religion and yet I'm the one that can cite them chapter and verse of their own Word and who actually follow many of the principles Jesus was really about.

I may not believe in delusions but I do think whether fictional or not, Jesus had some pretty decent ideas to follow. In fact him, Buddha and Ghandi are three of quite a few peeps I admire.

J. Lemert Whitmer

I really appreciate your comments about the necessity of understanding the society of the times. So few seem to understand that although they judge actions and decrees in the bible, they do so within the context of modern society. If not for the almost assuredly and rapidly lethal nature of the exercise, I'd wish that they could be somehow transported to that time and see where their views get them.

It's amazing how many so called faithful don't know this one.

Knock it off willya? We already cleared that up. Come down off the pedestal for a moment and deal with us regular folks. I study the Bible as a work of literature. You're interpreting. I listen. Now you're the one putting us in the food chain. Let's see, Andrew, everyone else, Bible.... God dies and Andrew appoints a new Boss -- me. Besides all this is words.

Your passage refers to Psalms 82.6 "I said you are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. However , you will die like men and fall like any other ruler." Your interpretation seems pretty loose. The term 'gods' is bit the same as 'God'. The book says there's only one god. Try another?

She's not at the bottom of anything BTW.

I really appreciate your comments about the necessity of understanding the society of the times. So few seem to understand that although they judge actions and decrees in the bible, they do so within the context of modern society.

Ironically, that's actually the point - to show that it's an archaic society that the Bible is based on and therefore shouldn't be used to make moral choices.

It's not the people who were the product of their times that they're blaming, it's the people who want to keep things that way.

Andrew,

John 10: 34,35 does not refer to where a person should worship. Jesus was speaking in defense of his claim to be the Son of God.

33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’^e? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Here's an example where women got off lucky:

Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.

I really appreciate your comments about the necessity of understanding the society of the times. So few seem to understand that although they judge actions and decrees in the bible, they do so within the context of modern society. If not for the almost assuredly and rapidly lethal nature of the exercise, I'd wish that they could be somehow transported to that time and see where their views get them.

@ J. Lemert Whitmer

Just to clarify that previous comment...

This "gentleman" often uses that line when confronted with the idea that his "perfectly moral" God murders innocents including babies all over the Bible and not only that but that he mandates the murder, rape and enslavement of many others.

This gentleman tries to make it sound as if the murder of anyone including babies in the aforementioned actions are justified and therefore should be cheered on by us the way he cheers it on himself.

And he even goes as far as saying that it's gratifying that God in the Bible murders non-believers's babies, because that will scare the frak out of them and make them submit to God. In essence, worship by intimidation.

I just thought I'd point that out.

And because I don't wanna derail the thread by bringing such comments here, go ahead and follow them yourself. You will be shocked.

Your passage refers to Psalms 82.6 "I said you are gods; you are all sons of the Most High. However , you will die like men and fall like any other ruler." Your interpretation seems pretty loose. The term 'gods' is bit the same as 'God'. The book says there's only one god. Try another?

Um no. Psalms is way back in OT, in fact one of the oldest books in it and what Jesus says is in Matt.

The Psalms verse refers to the power given to human judges at the time.

He wasn't saying they were gods in the theological sense of a word. In essence he was saying they were, to paraphrase Seinfeld, "Masters of their Domain." Each of them was a flesh and blood temple to God instead of a stone building.

Capisco?

Then what law is he referring to when he says, 'I said you are gods' in your quote. Psalms is past tense as referred to by his statement.

Each of them was a flesh and blood temple to God instead of a stone building.

The temple being a stone building is only a place. I get that. The quote you provide doesn't substantiate the claim he was saying that individuals are flesh and blood temples. He does say that if you hear his word and ignore it, you won't reach heaven. What better place to hear it than in the temple (meeting place)?

The quote you provide doesn't substantiate the claim he was saying that individuals are flesh and blood temples. He does say that if you hear his word and ignore it, you won't reach heaven. What better place to hear it than in the temple (meeting place)?

Oh it doesn't does it? Then maybe you just need to read the whole context of the NT to get the message. As always zealots are being too literal.

Let's see, what do Churches do? They seek God, don't they?

I can seek God myself with no need to go to Church building.

Matthew 6:33 says this...

But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

What else do Churches do? They are accepting of others aren't they? Oh wait, no, Church buildings despise gays and women just to start with.

But according to Matthew 22: 37-39

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’^{[a] 38} This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.

Church buildings most definitely don't follow verse 39.

I on the other hand respect everyone and try to do right by my fellow man regardless of race, color, sexual orientation and gender.

Churches are supposed to help people aren't they? They're supposed to be humble and giving. Yet you see the priests living it up driving fancy cars and all. Check what Jesus has to say about that in Luke 14:33

In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

So yeah, what Jesus said in John, regardless of my belief in him or not applies.

I am my own temple and if I believed in him, I think I'd be a pretty damn good one too.

And while I'm not out there preaching like a maniac, it is my actions that show others what a good person I am, not what I say.

As I said before, Jesus wanted action, not talk.

To anyone who cares...

What Andrew has said about me is his characterization of what he thinks I believe. I do not believe the things he says I do. I ask that you judge me by my own words rather than his. Thank you.

respect everyone and try to do right by my fellow man regardless of race, color, sexual orientation and gender.

I wasn't challenging your character -- again. I was asking about a quote. I tried to engage with you in a discussion about the quote you provided as substantiation for your earlier claim in #3.23.

In fact Jesus himself said that no temple was needed to worship, just your own, as in yourself.

I ask for a more substantial quote and you unleash a barrage of church-bashing. I'm not interested in how terrible you think the church is. I was looking for the quote. I'm sure for every bad church story there's a good one, I'm just not all that interested in it. And as I said before, I'm not challenging your character.

Andrew...."I said you are gods" when you quote the whole verse comes from John 10:34 and when quoted in it's entireity instead of taking just a little part out of context says

"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

and he is refereing back to Psalms 82:6 .

And the rest of the story is

³⁴ Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’^[d]? ³⁵ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— ³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? ³⁷ Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. ³⁸ But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” ³⁹ Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Jesus challenges the Pharisees to judge him by his works, not his words.

Jesus challenges the Pharisees to judge him by his works, not his words.

Precisely what I said.

Your Majesty, you copied my quote from #2.2. You meanie!!! LOL.

It's ok, I got plenty more :)

Institutions develop a mode of self-preservation, a very human aspect. Perhaps they can hate/love too.

Not actually, institutions and concepts are incapable of independent action. Muchless emotions and self-preservation.

It's the personification of an institution that develops these aspects. The tenets of an institution may indicate otherwise. In Christianity for example, to be a good Christian, one must convert others to the Christian faith. This tenet is a built-in mechanism for the survival of the institution.

It is viewed as having those attributes as a byproduct of personification. Personified anything is a abstraction, not the object it's self. So, saying that if one personifizes it that it has the ability for independent action doesn't really prove that it has them now does it?

And even then, by some, perhaps most Christian standards sit's a requirement to spread the faith. But not all.

Hmm. no I don't think I was saying that. The institution does become an entity with survival instinct even as those who run the institution pass control through generations, the institution may survive. Like suppose they actually came up with a cure for cancer. All those jobs in the ACS might be forfeit and the society would die because, hey, they cured cancer, right? So need for the ACS is diminished unless, in the interest of self-preservation maybe the ACS hid the cure at least until they could find new jobs or a new cause for ACS. So religion hates science, science hates religion. What if they already found god and killed him because with him actually around, you know right there in front of us, we wouldn't need religion? Or what if science proved god doesn't exist but made a deal with the religious guys because they didn't want to start a panic? Might make for a good movie.