Trust, Traditions & Trespasses

Generally speaking, criticizing cultural practices that arise from religious belief can be considered inappropriate, so it’s possible that some readers may feel offended by this post.  My intentions are not to offend but to offer some fuel for thought.

Most people of faith address their god as though God has a gender?  I’ve read numerous reasons from clergy and other commentators, but the most logical reason—humans have predominately lived in patriarchal cultures for centuries.  The definition of patriarchy is:

  1. A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
  2. A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

A few years back, a Harris Poll showed one percent thought god was female.  Had this survey been taken several thousand years ago, the results would have most likely been dramatically different.   Believers tend to address and/or identify their god as male. “Father.”

“Greek philosophy, adopted by Christians, held women to be inferior to men.  Roman law gave women a low status in society, and became the basis for the Church’s laws.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 claims that men are the image and glory of God; and women are the  glory of man.  1 Corinthians 11:3 states that man is the head of the woman.  Aristotle wrote:

“Also, as regards male and female, the former is superior, the latter is inferior, the male is ruler, the female is subject”  (Politics Bk. 1, Ch. 4)

Belief in god has an enormous importance in the lives of many people, globally.  All monotheistic patriarchal religions worship a male-identified god gendered as masculine which puts men in highly favorable positions of having God identified with them.  Headship and dominance becomes justified.  Masculine values become the standard for ‘normal’.

Do we go into cultural default, and never question some of our traditions and their consequences? Do traditions and beliefs trump critical thinking? Are we too trusting and/or prefer to not challenge status quo, even at the cost of human rights and dignity?  Examples:

P resized

I am > reminded of scripture stating men were not created for women, but women for men.

I am > reminded of scriptures that command women to submit and obey men.

I am > reminded of numerous scriptures that denigrate and promote violence against women.

I am > reminded of the global rape culture.

I am > reminded that throughout the world, women have no voice in the public arena.

I am > reminded of the millions of child brides.

I am > reminded of the 140 million females living with the consequences of FGM.

I am > reminded that every minute a pregnant woman dies unnecessarily.

I am > reminded of the historically high poverty rate among women and children.

I am > reminded of the demeaning words invoked to justify man’s inhumanity to women.

I am > reminded of the proliferation of unregulated, sexual violence in hardcore pornography.

I am > reminded of human trafficking affecting millions of girls and women, globally.

I am > reminded of the epidemic of femicide.

I am > reminded of popular sexual violence > video games.

I am > reminded that there still exists a contempt for women.

I am > reminded how patriarchy hurts and > insults boys and men, too.

P bible resize

Over the course of the last decade or so, there have been Christian denominations who have taken steps towards women’s equality, yet believe in and endorse one of the most misogynistic books ever published.  The ‘Holy’ Bible.  It’s disconcerting how beliefs and traditions are justified when the word ‘holy’ and/or ‘god’ is applied.

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

1 Timothy 2:13, 14

The fall of the human race is depicted as the fault of a woman.  Christians are in serious denial if they don’t think this plays a role in how some men (and women) view and treat women.  The text makes it clear that women are expected to be submissive to men because of ‘sin’.

We’ve been taught that the books of 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy were written by the Apostle Paul.  Evidence shows there were other authors writing in the name of Paul, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc.  Bart Ehrman, the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author, states:

The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches?

Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul. Source

In his article, “Religion’s Harm to Women“, Adam Lee,  a contributing writer on Big Think , writes:

“I often wondered, when I was a child, why the set of three contained Father, Son and Holy Ghost and not Father, Son and Mother. That seemed like the logical arrangement to me, but I did not grasp then, as I do now, that this doctrine was invented by an exclusively male and misogynist church hierarchy that sought to deny the female gender any role in creation or in the divine.”

Christianity claims to be a religion that is ‘pro-family’ yet disparages the very gender that gives birth to the whole species and makes the existence of family possible.

Lee writes:

“It is tragic, but understandable, why so many men throughout history have supported these sexist and patriarchal belief systems. More incredible is how many women have willingly taken part in their own subjugation by joining and participating in religions that have done their utmost to deny them the full equality and equal rights which they deserve.”

“The reality is that sincere religious beliefs and legitimate interpretations of scripture can, and very often do, cause immense evil and harm. And when a more enlightened future age arrives to tote up the harms done by religion, I am certain that the systematic oppression and denial of basic rights to one-half of the human race will rank near the top.”

P woman resized

Margaret Daphne Hampson, a British theologian and former Christian, earned a doctorate in modern history at Oxford, and a doctorate in theology at  Harvard.  She states:

“I began to see that the very raison d’etre of the Christian myth was to support men as superior over women, that it served to legitimize how men see themselves in the world.

It is a brilliant, subtle, elaborate, male cultural projection, calculated to legitimize a patriarchal world and to enable men to find their way within it. We need to see it for what it is.

The circumstances of that past age are propelled into the present, influencing people, not least, at a subconscious level.”

Hampson further states that teachings of submission and obedience are immoral, and believes the overcoming of patriarchal religion to be fundamental to human emancipation.

I agree. It should come as no surprise that Christianity, as well as all the other patriarchal religions of the world, have failed in uniting humanity. They tend to divide us.

I’ve predominantly focused on Christianity because that’s the religion I grew up with.  There are many caring Christians, without a doubt, but few know the contents of their Bible and the history of its formation.  Nor do many if not most realize that the Bible is not based on original manuscripts, because there are no original manuscripts.    Distinguished scholars know that the copies of copies copies that do represent the Bible contain  numerous alterations (embellishments and omissions).  Critical thinking skills and empathy are essential for human emancipation, and necessary for the well being and survival of our species.

Images courtesy of

32 thoughts on “Trust, Traditions & Trespasses

  1. A very timely observation about the power of words and the power implicit in word selection. I agree that “God the Father” is often taken without question and is replete with accretions of patriarchal power over the centuries. And, I’m well aware of this and related issues but, being a Christian, I have come to the point where when I pray I usually “lamely” trot out, “My Father, which art in heaven…” I will try to explain why sometime in the future.

    But let me point out that the core issue in religion, patriarchal or otherwise, is power itself and discarding religion does not dispose of the power issue in the human heart. Now it makes no difference to me whether or not one is a believer or what/who one believes in. That is his/her business. But I do believe there is a “heart” in us all, for want of a better term, or a center of consciousness and with that we exercise power. I respect those who discard religion but I encourage those that do to look in their heart and see if they have not replaced it with some other “perspective” or mind-set which they have absolutized and imposed on their own world and the world at large very rigidly, often with tyranny. The human heart savors “objectivity” and I believe that need for “objectivity” is the bane of Christianity…and most religions…but is also the bane of those who have discarded faith.

    In the current issue of The New Yorker magazine there is a story of Shulaimith Firestone, the noted radical feminist who recently died in tragic circumstances. The story of her career illustrates that even in her particular feminist circle the power-theme was very present and very divisive, “Patriarchy” was there in their midst though that is not a respectful term to use here. I prefer to merely call it a tendency to “power-monger.” My point is, discard religion and discard “men” and the human heart will still manifest its will to power and tyrannize.

    Einstein himself, the scientist par-excellence, recognized a profound mystery at the heart of his scientific explorations and said it gave rise to his “religious sentiments.” Regardless of what direction our studies and explorations take us, I feel it is very important that we discover the mystery and when we do so we will be awed and humbled by the experience. That experience evokes a “religious sentiment” in my heart.

    • Hi Lewis, thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I understand that you have your own personal reasons why you say ‘My Father’. To reiterate, it is quite possible that had you been living in another age and/or another culture, your prayer may have been directed to a female deity or animal deity, etc., depending on how you were soft-wired by experiences.

      I might not have articulated very well, but the point I was trying to make in my post was that ‘male’ and ‘god’ can come across as synonymous on a subconscious level, and is reinforced with scriptures like 1 Corinthians 11:7.

      I’m with you on the belief/faith—that it makes no difference to me whether someone believes in a deity or not so long as it doesn’t demoralize and rob others of their human rights. Faith should be personal.

      Christianity is dysfunctional because its instruction manual (which was tampered with by scribes and church fathers for centuries and contains no original manuscripts) is patriarchal and misogynist. You simply can’t ignore the numerous scriptures of subjugation and oppression, and not just with women.

      Thanks again for your reply. =)

  2. Yes, Christianity is so “messed up” and that is putting it mildly. So, throw it away and one will find himself/herself with another belief system which is equally flawed. “Human kind cannot bear very much reality” said ts eliot. Therefore, belief systems will be formulated. They are “stories” of a sort and stories have a place in the human drama.

    • I have no issues with people who “can’t bear much reality” and need a belief system to help them deal with life. I’ve gone through some huge trials in my life, and I was able to ‘bear much reality’ without believing in a religion that promotes inequality. Humans are quite capable of developing beliefs systems that do not included doctrines of oppression and subjugation.

      Here we are in the 21st century, still dealing with inequality and contempt for women and homosexuals —> because of the Bible.


      “A man should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a man to teach or to assume authority over a woman; he must be quiet. For Eve was formed first, then Adam. And Eve was not the one deceived; it was the man who was deceived and became a sinner.” ~1 Timothy 2:13, 14

      As a human, I can read that scripture and know intuitively that it’s wrong, demoralizing.

      • We agree that the Bible is full of non-sense and the people who adhere to it are even more so, much of the time…self certainly included. Whatever it is that has helped you “bear much reality” and still does is very impressive for you are doing incredible work. Keep this “stuff” coming. I find it invigorating.

            • Hear, hear. The series of Cosmos was one of my all time favorite TV programs. Dr. Sagan is sorely missed.

              I think you are going to enjoy Rifkin’s lecture. He not only addresses the problems but offers possible solutions. I was especially amazed that he talked about the same child development and neurological studies I had read regarding intrinsic prosocial behavior. What I found the most interesting was how much the Age of Faith and the Age of Enlightenment had influenced our parenting, schools, governments, economies, and society…and not in a productive way, long term.

  3. Madam Ji, Christianity or for that matter no organised religion needs me to be it savior so I will not comment on your conclusions. But the problem lies with language. Most languages are gender specific rather ‘you’ and ‘me’ specific. It is difficult and sometime immpossible to convey without using you or me. Interesting thing is that it appears to me that Urdu is not gender specific. It also means perhaps Persian is also not gender specific, because is Urdu is its derivative. Now that makes this fact even more astonishing because persia is not specifically know for gender equality. We need a better language!!

    • Interesting observation about Urdu and even more so re present day gender politics in “Persia.” So many problems arise with language and the gender issues implicit in language are very telling. I recall frustration as a young man when gender inclusive language was being introduced. “What’s the point?” I thought or even said out loud. And anyone who deigned to quibble over the masculine pronoun for “God” was totally nuts and certainly “lost as a goose in a hail storm.” Now I certainly see the value of quibbling. Things just ain’t as certain as they used to be!

      • The only thing that’s certain is change. When I was a little girl, I found it odd that my dad would identify his car as female. As I grew older, I realized that a lot of objects were identified as female—aircraft, ships, etc. At that time, deadly storms, such as hurricanes, were exclusively given female names. It’s only been in recent years that male names were added. My best friend is a man. He grew up in one of the most equal cultures in the world, and yet he admits that even in his culture, if a man wants to utter the ultimate insult on another man, he will address him using a female term. Can you think of one female-based generic?

        In 1986, philosopher Douglas Hofstadter wrote a parody of sexist language by making an analogy with race. In his article “A Person Paper on Purity in Language” he created an imaginary world in which generics, e.g., freshman, chairman, were based on race rather than gender. In that world, people would use “freshwhite,” “chairwhite”, etc. People of color would hear “all whites are created equal”. His point was that substituting “white” for “man” makes it easy to see why using “man” for all human beings has a subtle message.

        I wonder if the language of Urdu was developed before or after woman and girls lost their revered status. I’ve read several articles written by Persian men who didn’t have a patriarchal mindset, stating that women were once revered and not considered inferior.

        In an article by Dr. Fatima Shahna, addressing the inferior status of women in her culture, she states: “Like Urdu, these women are the living corpses of a dying society, a decaying civilization.”

    • Hi Sandeep, thanks for your feedback. I do understand that it is difficult and ‘sometimes’ impossible to convey without using certain terms such as “you” or “me”. I agree that we need a better language but it will take a while (who knows, maybe generations) before masculine terms are not associated with superiority.

      In Christianity, for example, ‘male’ and ‘god’ can be seen as synonymous because of scriptures like 1 Corinthians 11:7, which claims that the man is the image and glory of God and the woman is the glory of man, therefore the justification that man is the head of the woman and is to rule over her, as stated in Genesis 3:16 and I Corinthians 11:3.

      Associating god with a gender tends to reinforce these stereotypes and behaviors.

  4. This is so very interesting. I love language as do both of you. Victoria, your thoughts a couple of hours ago were just scintillating. And thanks for dropping the names. I’ll check them out. And I will have more to say on this subject later.

  5. The Book of Genesis reveals us the power of naming, the power of words. Somehow very early in our history we knew that just a short while before we had gained the ability to assign words to our subjective experience and that these words would find meaning with others in our developing community.. Can you imagine how fleeting this experience must have been at first?

    And the ability to make these assignations was intrinsically wrapped up in power and this was apparently a power vested in the “boys club.” True, there was apparently an era before this “boys club” when women had power but they lost that power and the aftermath we know as “patriarchy.” And when we boys began to wield that power, we did so with ferocity because we sure did not like what had preceded our reign. Misogyny was underway but we were compelled by biology to desire them. And, yes, our ambivalence continues today in our language, including in the words that we use to refer to our Source.

  6. You said: “we sure did not like what had preceded our reign.”

    That’s an interesting statement. In his Psychology Today article, “Why Men Oppress Women”, Steve Taylor said the oppression of women stems largely from men’s desire for power and control, which we talked about in earlier conversations—the power issue. Power and dominance increases dopamine and can hijack the brains reward center. I think men tend to have a disadvantage because of testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol which increases dopamine. In his book “How Power Changes the Brain”, Dr. Ian Robertson states that too much power, thus too much dopamine can lead to gross errors of judgment, egocentricity, and lack of empathy for others.

    Back to Taylor’s article, he states that the same need which, throughout history, has driven men to try to conquer and subjugate other groups or nations, and to oppress other classes or groups in their own society, drives them to dominate and oppress women. Since men (not all men) feel the need to gain as much power and control as they can, they steal away power and control from women. Taylor’s comment compliments what Dr. Robert Sapolsky observed during the years he spent with the Savanna baboons in their natural habitat. When lower ranking males were bullied by higher ranking males, they usurped authority by dominating the females in the troop, sometimes abusing them. He found that this social/cultural dynamic was not fixed; that it was learned behavior and could change dramatically (far less aggression and oppression).

    You said: “Misogyny was underway but we were compelled by biology to desire them.”

    Taylor goes on to say that even the former isn’t enough to explain the full terrible saga of man’s inhumanity to woman. That many cultures have had a strong antagonism towards women, viewing them as impure and innately sinful creatures who have been sent by the devil to lead men astray and has featured strongly in all three Abrahamic religions. As the Jewish Testament of Reuben states:

    “Women are evil, my children…they use wiles and try to ensnare [man] by their charms…They lay plots in their hearts against men: by the way they adorn themselves they first lead their minds astray, and by a look they instil the poison, and then in the act itself they take them captive…So shun fornication, my children and command your wives and daughters not to adorn their heads and faces.”

    Taylor says this is linked to the view—encouraged by religions—that instincts and sensual desires are base and sinful. Men associated themselves with the “purity” of the mind, and women with the “corruption” of the body. Since biological processes like sex, menstruation, breast-feeding and even pregnancy were disgusting to men, women themselves disgusted them too.

    He further states that in connection with this, men have resented the sexual power that women have over them too. Feeling that sex was sinful, they were bound to feel animosity to the women who produced their sexual desires. In addition, women’s sexual power must have affronted their need for control. This meant that they couldn’t have the complete domination over women—and over their own bodies—that they craved. They might be able to force women to cover their bodies and faces and make them live like slaves, but any woman was capable of arousing powerful and uncontrollable sexual impulses inside them at any moment. He concludes by saying the last 6000 years of man’s inhumanity to woman can partly be seen as a revenge for this.


    Just some fuel for thought. Thanks so much for your reply.

  7. Victoria, you are getting more impressive each day! That was an incredible discourse. Do you mind if I post it on my blog, giving proper credit of course? There is so much to say in response that I don’t know where to start. Power is probably a good starting point though and I agree with you whole-heartedly. Power is a basic human impulse and so easily perverted and usually is perverted. I know myself, in spite of all “enlightenment” displayed in “literarylew” (wink, wink), I have yet to come to a mature understanding and experience of power. And it is so very wrapped up in gender and specifically in sex. Wow! I’m just stunned with all that you shared and will read it again several times. You keep it coming, girl! Or, as they say, “You go girl!” (And I hope that “girl” was not perceived as a diminishment.)

    • Lewis, words wouldn’t give justice in expressing how much I appreciate your comment. Thank you. This power issue (directly related to an unhealthy imbalance of neurotransmitters), is such an important issue. Our environment (cultures) greatly attributes to this imbalance, and it was made so clear in Dr. Sapolsky’s article “Peace Among Primates”. If baboons can do it, be peaceful among themselves, so can humans. It can be abated by making simple changes within our cultures such as equality and a far less rigid hierarchy, as demonstrated in Sapolsky’s article regarding the Forrest troop baboons.

      Spreading awareness about this is so important.

  8. haha, I think in so many ways our minds think alike!

    In my book, the living people DO refer to God as “him” (because that’s what we do), but the spirits in the afterlife refer to God as “it”. It was so amusing to me when it was in the critiquing process how many people took major issue with this. Some thought I was trying to advance a feminist movement with my tiny little “its”, some just though I had made a quiet little mistake and corrected me. I just smiled.

    It really wasn’t about a feminist thing for me. I don’t honestly know why we insist on giving human attributes and characteristics to God at all, myself. To me, it was more about making God something OTHER than human. Something ABOVE a he or she. To me, God is neither man, woman, animal… the only pronoun I could find in the english language that fit was “it”.

    But, I DO understand the tendency to want to make “him” human, “he’s” more approachable that way, easier to relate to. I would be lying if I didn’t feel an ever so slight bit of discomfort every time I wrote the word “it”.

    I love you blog! =D

    • Hi Carrie. Yes, I can understand why you might feel a slight discomfort using the word “it”. Oddly enough, if you identified God as female or gender neutral, many if not most believers would think you were abnormal in a way that is undesirable. Using male pronouns and nouns tend to represent all people, yet this has a conscious and subconscious message of rank.

      The Declarations of Independence states “All men are created equal”. We use “Human“, “Mankind”, “Humankind”, etc. Feminine or gender neutral terms are rare in most cultures. Many men feel insulted if they are identified by a female pronoun or noun.

      It goes without saying that belief in God plays an enormous importance in the lives of many people, globally. All monotheistic patriarchal religions worship a male-identified god gendered as masculine. Having God identified with their gender has played a role in giving men legitimacy in positions of authority and dominance.

      Sociologists, Allan Johnson states:

      But male identification amounts to much more than this, for it also takes men and men’s lives as the standard for defining what is normal.

      I appreciate that you took the time to thoughtfully response, and thank you for liking my blog. 🙂

  9. Hello Victoria,

    I absolutely agree with all that you’ve said!

    We see women being underplayed, abused and harmed right from the beginning of the Bible as men are exalted over and over again and rarely pay for their sins against women.

    *Adam and Eve are booted from the Garden of Eden and are suddenly sickly and weak human beings because Eve decided to talk to a glorifed lizard.
    *Sarah can’t have a baby and forces her young slave to have sex with her aging husband Abraham (rape), as a result Ishmael is born. Sarah has a baby over a decade later, kicks out the two, and all they are given is some bread and water. Mind you, before all of this God saw Abraham as special and called him away from his family and idol worship. He was also a very rich nomad when those two left.
    *Let’s not forget Abraham’s nephew Lot. In trying to protect visiting angels from being raped by the towns people offers them his own engaged, virgin daughters. It’s no wonder those girls ended up getting that turkey plastered to have procreational sex with him when they later felt as though he was the last man on earth!
    *Look at how sisters Rachel and Leah are treated as mere property and are horribly used by their own father to play games with Jacob.

    And that’s just the book of Genesis.

    • Hi Charity. Thanks so much for your comment, and for taking the time to read my post. You brought up some excellent examples. Another post of mine “Harming Half Harms the Whole” compliments your reply. As I read your reply, I was reminded of a blogger, and also a friend, who was esteeming “St.” Augustine, and as I read through his posting, and the link he left about Augustine, my heart sank. It seems that when someone is counted as having ‘great faith’, their other attributes, attitudes and beliefs (however inhumane) tend to be minimized. It sends a strong message to at least 1/2 of the human race that having great faith in God trumps human rights and dignity. Here’s an excerpt from the link about Augustine:

      Augustine’s view of sexual feelings as sinful affected his view of women. For example he considered a man’s erection to be sinful, though involuntary, because it did not take place under his conscious control. His solution was to place controls on women to limit their ability to influence men. Augustine viewed women not only as threatening to men, but also as intellectually and morally inferior. He equated flesh with woman and spirit with man.

      He believed that the serpent approached Eve because she was less rational and lacked self-control, while Adam’s choice to eat was viewed as an act of kindness so that Eve would not be left alone.

      It deeply saddens me when I think of the enormous sufferings that women (also affecting their children) have endured throughout history because of diabolical, inhumane beliefs such as Augustine’s and others like him. I am especially sadden that so many seem apathetic about it. In the long run, the message of Augustine and his ilk was that they were unable to control their own urges, so rather than applying discipline on themselves, they chose a scapegoat, oppressing and denigrating girls and women. This attitude, though often subtle, still prevails throughout the world today.

      Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, and I apologize for the delay in replying. I had out-of-state company for over a week.

  10. You stated everything so well. Bravo.

    It is telling that the root beliefs of many Christian theologies is that God is actually genderless. He is talked about in terms of spirit or beyond our understanding. I’ve yet to see any Christians come up with terms to describe this. If religion was all about clarity and understanding, this should have been done long ago. The lack of such language only further proves the true motives.

    As you pointed out, so much of this started with Greek mythology. It is kind of interesting that God is seen as male since women are almost always categorically given the ‘life giver’ role. It’s the one thing that Christian fundamentalists leave their women but they don’t even really get that because their ultimate life giver is seen as male. Birth envy rather than penis envy? (I’m joking…kind of.)

    Critical thinking skills and empathy. Oh my, yes. If we could just get everyone to have more of these two things we would be so much better off. The ability to reason and to put yourself in others’ shoes is invaluable. It would help a lot with our distinct lack of ‘human goodness’ as a species.

    • If religion was all about clarity and understanding, this should have been done long ago. The lack of such language only further proves the true motives.

      Well said. Your last sentence was a home run. I was reminded of Frans de Waal book, “The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons For A Kinder Society”, and a lecture by Jeremy Rifkin “The Empathic Civilization: Rethinking Human Nature in a Biosphere Era”, regarding the assumptions about human nature that were spawned by religious movements i.e., the Abrahamic faiths (humans are depraved and fallen) and philosophers from the Enlightenment movement (humans are detached and autonomous). These assumptions and the fact that at least 1/2 the human race was deprived a voice and human rights for centuries contributed greatly to “our distinct lack of ‘human goodness’ as a species”

      Garbage in, garbage out.

      Thanks so much for your comments and for taking the time to read my posts. 🙂

      • Don’t know why I missed this blog.
        But here I am now.

        The verse from Timothy says it all and I am constantly amazed how most christians are simply are unaware of this verse. And there are several similar. Colossians comes to mind.
        When challenged the fundies ( especially) will have a pat answer that says it doesn’t really mean this.Irrespective that it is a blatant forgery!
        But the subtly, the insidious nature of such biblical text has kept omen under the velvet (and not so velvet) jackboot for millenia.

        Look at this as a perfect example:.
        The wording made me almost gag.

        • That link, The Wife’s Prayer, is despicable, and I see Colorstorm was giving it praises and InsanityB “liked”. Only extremely insecure, insane “men” (and brainwashed women — many experiencing Stockholm Syndrome) would embrace this inhumane belief.

          ““What sane species would treat half of its members — and the very half which gives birth to the whole species — with such contempt and injustice?” Steve Taylor, PhD — Psychology Today “Why Men Oppress Women”

          • It is quite disturbing. Communication with these people is a major mission and on this particular blog I am now under moderation.
            I have yet to encounter a single individual of this ilk that wasn’t subject to childhood indoctrination or has suffered some form of emotional trauma via the famous ‘Trinity’ of sex, drugs and Rock ‘n Roll ( violence).
            Every request to be directed at a ‘normal’ person who converted is usually ignored or answered with the example of someone like Anthony Flew.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s