Suffer Not The Women
Posted on: May 10, 2007 - 9:17pm
Offline
Suffer Not The Women
Off topic posts from another thread are being moved here.
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
THAT is being closed minded, not to mention disrespectful and hurtful. The bible is clear as to the role of women but it does not mean rejecting women as being equal to a man in the sense of being human.
I asked before so I'll ask it differently: does being an atheist mean you must reject any theist simply because they are a theist? Do you reject any explanation a theist gives or do you attempt to understand their point of view?
I'm asking because I really want to know and understand why you'll reject any theist's belief (and I'm not talking about a theist trying to convert you). I will never push my beliefs on you (only explain them as best as I can) so would you want to understand them or simply insult them?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
You're right, the Bible is a hurtful book that preaches disrespect for women.
Atheists generally tend to be unsatisfied when a theist offers contradictory beliefs to them. How you you claim in one sentence that women are equal to men, but must be submissive and usually silent?
You've just demonstrated that your beliefs are basically incoherent, so I can't understand them. I am interested to know how you can hold them though.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
No it doesn't. 1 Timothy is speaking about the roles for those in the church and where Paul expresses what the roles of women should be. It didn't say they deserve less pay than a man.
Tell me, how is it that you consider them "contradictory" when you stop asking questions? If I say the bible is not preaching disrespect for women and then come back with "yes it is because I said so" but offer no other biblical references as to why you think the bible preaches disrespect to women, how exactly am I supposed to know what you are talking about?
How can you claim in one sentence it is? I left it at that because that's not the point of the thread so I didn't go into it. What's your excuse?
You didn't ask me to explain anything - you just asserted "contradiction" and "incoherent" and did so without additional reason.
Explain what you mean by how I can hold them?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
The fact remains that those roles of which you speak expect women to be submissive and deferential towards the men. The pay issue does not even arise at this point. The fact is your book is telling women to be quiet and obedient to men. Humanists like myself find this an exceptionally obnoxious perspective.
Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.
Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best
So they are to have different roles, but be equal? Sounds like a contradiction to me.
Please answer as many as apply:
Are there women in your church? Are they silent in church? And if not, would you feel comfortable to walk up to them and request that they be silent because they are women? Why or why not?
I'm really curious about these things. I know there are Christian churches that don't allow women to speak in church, and I wonder where you fall in the spectrum.
And, this has nothing to do with wages. There are lots of ways to disrespect someone without paying them less.
I haven't quit asking questions, but you have provided enough information to see clear contradictions.
The verses already cited are sufficient.
I'm sorry, my question was incorrectly formed. It was meant to read "How can you claim in one sentence that women are equal to men, but in the next claim that they must be submissive and usually silent?". Sorry I didn't catch that earlier. Care to respond?
The topic of this thread is "Being closed-minded". I would say that demanding half of the people in a church be silent is the epitome of closed-mindedness. Moreover, the verses which I am addressing are specifically closed-minded, and were brought up by someone else in this very thread. Please, use anything you need to justify your position on this matter.
This is with regards to the 1 Timothy verses. Clearly, they show disrespect to women. However, my comment was a request for you to clarify how you can hold these two seemingly contradictory views; that women are to remain silent in church and should not be allowed to become teachers, and that they should not be disrespected.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
I Corinthians 11:3, I Corinthians 11:8-9, Leviticus 12:2, Leviticus 12:5, Ephesians 5:22-24, etc
Certainly not hard to find more.
[Edit: fixed quote]
Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!
Just tell your mother, grandmother, and sister to shut the hell up in the name of the bible and then quote them these two passages:
1 Timothy 2:11 - Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:12 - But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
I think I finally realized what viewpoint you are coming from and I must tell you, in context and reference to the bible, you cannot be farther from the message. The bible, namely the letters from Paul, are not telling men to force women into submission. Let me explain.
First understand Paul's intention. 1 Timothy is a letter that Paul writes to his most mentioned "apprentice" as he goes to the church at Ephesus. The situation: go and correct improper teachers. Timothy is to deliver the explanations to those there so all can understand the roles. Why are women to be submissive? In line with creation (man came first). Men are not to force women however as Paul himself mentions this TWICE in the bible; once to Corinth (1 Corinthians 7) and once to Ephesus previously (Ephesians 5). In each case, Paul makes sure to let all know,
Ephesians 5:28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
meaning men do not force women. 1 Timothy is to explain to both men and women roles. More below...
Hope what I wrote above is starting to clear this up...
In the churches that I go to (yes plural) there are many women. Many of which participate in the church services and there is nothing wrong with this. Why? Well, as I wrote above, men are not to tell women to shut up but rather women are to understand their role when it comes to teaching the word of God. A man is to lead. That does not mean women cannot participate or even teach.
Titus 2:3-5 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Paul gives examples when women are very much capable of teaching God's word. My point here is that while women in the bible are not equal teachers to men, it does not give men the right to consider themselves "better".
In Romans 16, the FIRST person Paul mentions in his thank you list is a woman. Paul was not sexist but, as you stated below, churches who get men on a power trip forget women are equal to them on Earth. It is a woman's duty to understand her role; it is not a man's duty to force that role upon her.
Yea I'm familiar with some of these. Women when taught the word of God are not to be force into the role of submission but rather understand it and obey God. Men do the same.
So I gotta know what do you think now.
While you may not believe in the bible, I'd like to know if you think I have responded.
Do they make sense now?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
razorphreak:
The fact of the matter is that women are systematically treated horribly in the bible. If the bible was the word of a god, then why does it appear sexist in nature as opposed to his equal creation?
For example:
Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife.
(Deut. 24:1-2)
If [the city] accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you at forced labor. If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; and when the LORD your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the LORD your God has given you.
(Deut. 20:11-14)
Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. Her time of blood purification shall be thirty-three days; she shall not touch any holy thing, or come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification are completed. If she bears a female child, she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation; her time of blood purification shall be sixty-six days.
(Lev. 12:2-5)
In Numbers 5, when discussing infidelity, we see no remorse for women who suspect this upon their husbands....but if their husbands suspect them - then - a priest is to gather up dirt from the tabernacle floor, mix it with water, and force the woman to drink the concoction. But any woman with a jealous husband had to consume it. If she was guiltless, nothing would happen as a result of the cursed water.
Do you actually think this was the working of an almighty creator? Sure, this serves as a handy-dandy historical account about how things were at the time. But, come on, a New York bestseller at its finest.
I don't know about you or your god, but when a woman is on her period - I would've wrote this: "A woman will have a period during some part of the month where blood from her uterin wall will flush from her body - this is what I have created - this is so." Instead we get nonsense about uncleaniness and how she can't touch anything. The passage even goes further that an animal must be sacrificed and whatnot.
If you are going to play god, couldn't you just have come up with a better process than bleeding once a month for a week? LOL
Razor - Are you Lutheran? I ask, because if you are I completely understand where you are coming from - I don't agree with it, but I understand it.
Paul teaches that women do have a role in the church as you said. But it is a lesser role. Oh they won't tell you that to your face, and they will happily cite the verses you did, but it is still a lesser role. The fact that the bible even tells men that they are supposed to love their wives is oppressive to women. I have read that and always felt like saying, "Well, duh!" What aminoacid's mother/sister are doing is absolutely fine according to the new testament - they are allowed and, in fact, expected to instruct privately. However, there are passages (Matthew, I think) that warn against prostelytizing. Ya can't have it both ways.
Like it or not, the bible does teach submission of women to society. The teachings of the bible are, and have been carried over into everyday society for many years. It has taken a very long time for women to gain the recognition they deserve. Many churches treat women as equals, but this does go against the bible which means they have in essence rejected the bible. While this is a good thing, then how can a church continue to say it teaches from the bible? It can't. It is cherry-picking parts to use and rejecting the rest. Now, if an organization wants to establish itself separate from the bible, that is fine but then there is the matter of dogma/doctrine. If they make up their own then they are also making up their own god. Do you see how this becomes an exercise in ridiculousness?
Maybe not, but it certainly says that women are less than men. Here is the full passage:
New International 1 Timothy 2: Instructions on Worship
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a teacher of the true faith to the Gentiles.
I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.
I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 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. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
As a woman, I'd just like to mention that the mysiogynist messages contained in the bible was what first caused me to stop and examine my faith.
The bible tells me that I am less than, incomplete, I'm not smart enough to teach, I need a man to make me complete, that I should submit always to a man, ect.
This message was contrary to the one my parents gave me about being intelligent and beautiful and capable of doing whatever I wanted, academically, socially or whatever else.
And, sorry, I trusted my parents over the archaic, insulting words of men who simply sought to control women, slaves, children and eachother, and seemed to think that a silly, made up god would let them do that.
http://atheismisrational.blogspot.com/
Nope. I don't follow any denominations but I do attend several different denominational churches. I'm actually a bit surprised because this is the response I was waiting for, albeit not from you. I'm not asking anyone to agree with it but to understand it. This is why this whole thing started off under the "close minded" thread.
I can't disagree with you. Churches won't say it out loud today because it goes against society's thought of being sexist even though, and this is my view on it, it isn't. I say it isn't because even if you are not my wife, I treat you as an equal. As a "sister", I can't belittle you or force you to be less than I am especially if you have more of an understanding than I am in the word of God. If you are better than I am by all means teach and this is what the bible says (there is an example in Acts 18 where a woman named Priscilla ends up showing her hubby up simply because she is better than he is. There is nothing wrong with this because is spoke the word properly.)
Men are idiots more often than we want to admit. The back story behind 1 Timothy and the letter to the Ephesians deals with a bit of mythology. I'm including this because it was important to understand WHY Paul wrote what he did. The women of Ephesus were considered to be descendants of "amazon" type of women where they needed no men. Because of this, Paul felt it important for all to understand, as Christians, there is an order of things.
The verses you are thinking about in Matthew is in chapter 28. It goes to the resurrection of Jesus and how it came that he appeared to two women (the Mary's) first. In Mark 16, more detail is explained how their tellings of seeing Jesus resurrected were rebuked as "women's lies" kind of thing. Jesus himself made sure to let the guys know, don't reject someone who said they saw me.
The bible tells women directly what their role is. It is NOT to society but to the spiritual leadership of God's church. It is the arrogance of men that carried it from the spiritual to the Earthly. This is not the bible's doing. Anyone with a good ear for detail on the bible itself can see this.
I'm sure you are talking about the Episcopals. While you might not agree, God's word was not meant to have men force women into submission. Women are to know and understand their role in spiritual guidance and God's word. It didn't say a woman can't be President.
Oh I see how it can but do you also see the root solution?
inspectormustard, please read the fullness of the thread. You will understand the bible's position.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
I agree that men treated women horribly but this is not the fault of God. I've read through the examples you gave from Leviticus and Deuteronomy and I have to deffer them for a moment. I need to do some background study on them so I will come back to them. I know how this might sound, however I must stop and remind you that these are part of the old "law" that was fulfilled/completed by Jesus. OT law has not been my primary study material in learning Christian values (which of course is NT) so give me the chance to study it some more.
Touch = act of sex. The sacrifice is for thanks to the miricle she just had. Remember though, the laws of atonment no longer apply. Of that I am sure.
I'm hoping that what I just explained (in my previous post) makes you see that isn't exactly accurate.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Just out of curiosity, why did you not expect this answer from me?
I think you are an exception to the rule. Perhaps the bible is not meant to be taken as sexist but it is used that way. Ulitmately, I guess it comes down to control and women are certainly not the only ones that suffer from the bible being used as a tool to control them.
I can't disagree, but I do not like to sterotyping others any more than I like when it happens to me. LOL
I did not know this. I also do not understand - was he using mythology to support his statement? Why? Were men confused about how to deal with mythological women or women in general. We aren't that frightening. I understand the importance of roles in a relationship, but personally I do not think they should be gender specific. This is exactly what the bible teaches and it is stifling to both sexes.
Ok, so you are saying that ideally the teachings from the bible should direct spirituality, not society. This still does not explain why God (through Paul) felt the need to designate women to a lesser role in the church. My guess has always been that it had more to do with the times in which Paul was writing than through any divine intervention.
No, actually there are many smaller sects of many denominations that allow women to serve as leaders.
I neither agree nor disagree since all of the bible is an interpretation. I do not agree with it being used as a tool to continue to control women.
Tell men to shut their pieholes and pay better attention when they are reading? LOL (Perhaps this is a reference to our education discussion, in which case you already know I agree with you!)
Seriously, I would like to hear your solution because I just do not see how this will change given the majority attitude held by religious leaders today.
No matter how you try to slice it up, distort it, etc, the bible still gives men authority over women in many regards (putting them into a submissive role entirely). The very fact that it creates separate roles or women and men shows that the Bible does not view men and women equally.
It is explicitly mentioned in OT (and never explicitly abolished in NT) that the sons inherit the family estate, if men and women are equal, why the son and not the daughter?
In Exodus 21:22-25, why does the man decide the fair price for her injury and not the women who was actually injured?
In Exodus 22:16-17, why is a women treated as property and not allowed to make her own sexual and marriage decisions?
In Exodus 21:2-4, why is a male slave allowed to go free, but his wife is only allowed to go free if he wants her to?
Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!
Participation. Didn't think you'd post on this thread.
It's unfortunate that the bible is used by man to do many stupid things. If I'm not mistaken, the KKK use it to prove that afro-americans and latinos are less human than cacasions.
Actually Paul was trying to disprove the myth of the Ephesian women, not use it and turn it. It was a societal thing, just like the Roman Gods, that needed to be let go of. From what I understand of the Ephesians, it was a very mixed society of men and women rulers but it was also cause for concern; not because women were leading but they were improperly using the word of God for their benefit (not God's). Because of how God did creation, so there is an order to be followed.
Yes and no. Obviously I am against state and religion getting mixed but how you live your life spiritually affects how you will interact with society. In the fullness of Christian teaching, understanding, forgiveness, and love go hand in hand with faith and with living in society so while I have no problem with a woman as my boss, should she be if I have more experience with explanations to understand the word of God when she doesn't? If you were my wife and we lived together as Christians, the bible does not tell me that you must take a secondary role to me in our life together (the verse in Ephesians tells me I must love you as I love myself) but it does tell me that when we discuss God, I am supposed to be the teacher to you and you to our children. If you however are closer to the word of God, there is nothing to say that you would not teach me as well. My point here however is my spiritual role is one for me to become the lead. Socially and economically, I could be Mr. Mom but then the spiritual side of our life together is on another level.
Nor do I...there is only one interpretation that is correct and that comes from God. I take no credit in what I speak but while I had to learn it, it is through my faith that I believe the knowledge came from God.
If only it was so easy to correct generations of ignorance. The only solution that I and a few close friends have ever thought of is simply by example. When asked, well I've got my pocket bible on me and away a learning session goes. With a bit of help from above, hopefully people will begin understanding their mistakes. Of course, I'm always listening to other ideas (oh, the mega churches idea...hell no).
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Perhaps you aren't reading all my posts?
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
Actually, I did. You simply haven't addressed anything I brought up. What Paul meant in one particular context has nothing to do with the laws I mentioned in my last post at all.
I also separately argue that creating separate roles denies equality (regardless of which one is thought to be "better" (e.g. in modern society, see "Brown vs. Board of Education"
).
Clarify each of the points I addressed. I don't care about Timothy, really, since that only one shows that there is one point that can be explained away using typical ad hoc appologetics.
Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!
OK how did I not. I'm not going to get into the OT since, as a Christian, the laws of the OT no longer apply. Explain to me how I did not address the subject of this thread or your posts.
I'm going to agree with you but, you'd understand this if you really did read my posts here, in God's word there is no equality in spirtual matters.
And yet 1 Timothy is what brought this thread up. What points? Each point you brought up was brought up by others in this very thread and addressed. If you don't feel that way, bullet point it.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire
You attempted to explain away the 1 Timothy verses, so he offered additional examples of the Bible advocating sever disrespect (or worse) for women which support the conclusion that Biblical writers considered women inferior. If you look at the societies of the time, this should not be surprising, unless you believe that the Bible is divinely inspired or written by god, or otherwise has a claim to being true scripture.
This is half of what I've been looking for, but there's one more part to it. It's not just that there's no equality in 'spiritual' matters; women, as a group and not as individuals, are treated as inferiors, not only in 'spiritual' matters, but in endeavors such as sexual freedom and slavery, as in the verses pointed out by canofbutter.
It's only the fairy tales they believe.
Again, I did read your posts, I just don't see how they address this AT ALL. The only thing so far that did was your previous post that said you don't follow OT law anymore.
Sure, 1 Timothy is what brough up this thread, but I don't see why it needs to stay there.
I guess I wasn't explicit enough in what I was trying to get at, sorry about that. What I'm asking, is why would a god make laws like those in the OT if he thought women were equal only to later get rid of them. Why do those things exist if indeed god inteaded for them to be equal at all. If this is addressed in your I may not be completely understanding it, so if you wouldn't mind explaining it more explicitl, I'd really appreciate it.
You also say the laws of the OT do not apply, however these laws are not explicitly said not to apply anymore in the NT (Christians knowingly can not throw all OT law or it would be ok to worship other gods, lie, steal, etc, so how do you pick which ones? (that may be getting off topic, but at least for the laws I've mentioned I'd like to know what makes them no longer apply)).
It also appears that you are interpreting the bible in the way you like just as some men interpret it the way they like. Why is it not explict? Also, why would god be inconsistent? If he acted poorly to women in the OT, why change his mind? How can a so-called "perfect" being change his mind so much?
Why yes, I can believe it's not butter!
So - the bible gets interpreted and misused, but how do you know that you have the correct interpretation? (I'll bet you have been asked this before - lol) It is just that this part really puzzles me. You seem to interpret the bible in a positive light and others do just the opposite. I can almost understand accepting the letters of Paul because they are the transitional text between Christ's alleged life and the writings of the gospel. The gospels get a bit murky in terms of validity.
Hmmm...ok, but that only works if you believe the story of Genesis to be fact, right? Do you? What if that part is proven untrue?
So, you support separation of church and state, yes? I know this is a little off topic, but I am just checking. Also, this doesn't really explain why Paul designated women to a lesser role (unless I missed it). Is it possible that it was simply a reflection of the times and no longer applies today?
Can you explain this a little more? I don't understand what your bosses faith would have to do with employment.
Good thing you qualified this paragraph with "as Christians" because otherwise, I would listen to your teachings and then, in turn tell our children "Don't listen to your father" - LOL!
Actually, I can find no fault with this viewpoint assuming both spouses are Christians. Every relationship requires give and take on every level, not just spirituality and that aspect should be treated no differently.
I have to admit this troubles me. I can understand this and I can respect it and I suppose it would do no good to ask you to explain it since I do not share your faith. It still troubles me because what you call faith could just as easily (in my opinion) be attributed to something else.
Do you ever wonder if this fringes on creating your own unique religion? Obviously this method only works if you are approached and the other person hold some belief in a god, right?
HAHAHA
Sorry for all of the questions - one of my friends call me "Machine Gun Mary" with the questions. I have a curious mind - it is how I learn.
Yea I've been asked it. The thread that zarathustra pointed out is where I'm addressing it.
Well in accordance to many here, it already has...so I think the question would by why do I believe it when others say it can't be so? In a word...faith. I think that goes to a later point you had...
Yep..I believe in the separation of church and state. And yes that includes the removal of the 10 commandments from courthouses and whatever. They are not places of worship and, in direct accordance from the bible, I do not need to have something tangible, something I can see, smell, taste, feel, to believe. Let's get religion out of politics since a person's actions are far more indicative of a person's faith anyway.
In accordance to the roles that God gave in spiritual matters, my boss would not be my pastor (that is if she believes as I do). I'm not saying I would be hers as my calling was not to teach, but another man who's calling was to teach, would be our pastor.
You know there is a thread that got started about what would Christian parents do if their child became an atheist. I was asked a long time ago by someone who's son was gay: what would I do if when I have children (if it be God's will that I have children) my child was gay? They basically have the same answer: nothing. I can't deny that it wouldn't hurt in a sense but who am I to disown or stop loving a family member. In the bible, love for one another, especially family, comes right after God. The love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, does not put a limit or a barrier to love. If one person does not believe in my family, I don't love them any less. I cannot convert them but I can pray for them and ask God to give them the same gift he has given me, if it be his will. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Let his will be done. I am not responsible for the salvation or damnation of my wife, my children, or anyone else in my family. All I can do is love them and be an example as best I can of Jesus.
The "delusional" point? Don't think for a second that I don't realize how I must sound to someone who just hasn't been given the same understanding as I have. There have been many times that I feel I really don't need to waste time here on this forum; am I really accomplishing anything by being here? Maybe, maybe not. I do know this though, as "delusional" as I may be, it troubles me just as much, when I see those that are part of RRS or other atheists who are here, to see this the lack of desire to understand and listen, where it overwhelms to the point of hatred against me or other theists, and I begin to wonder, are they like this because they chose to be because of hatred their way from theists or is it because their impression of a theist is wrong simply from hearing those like Comfort? Even if you hate the living hell of what I believe, I just feel like there must be a way to resolve that.
I've heard that yea. Thing is, it's the bible, straight, neat, not stirred or shaken.
Making sure that all Christians are united in their belief, in the message of the bible, is utmost. Understanding that those who do not believe will not believe by our hands will bring clarity to verses like Matthew 28:18-20 where our example and words are not to convince or convert, but to be messengers. If it's God's will to speak those words directly to your heart you will listen. If it's not, you will not even hear the message. It's one reason I really hate how Comfort and others approach the "sinners" on the street. That accomplishes nothing. I've been of the mind that it makes things worse. That isn't you speaking God's words but your words trying to interpret God's.
What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire