Victoria NeuroNotes

Into the Gray

It’s 2015 & Primitive Minds Still Abound


Ten types of women Christian men should not marry.  This video/article was just brought to my attention.  Thanks Tim.


Here’s the bastard’s pastor’s blog post if you don’t want to watch the video, but I recommend the video from The ThinkingAtheist — just uploaded on YT yesterday.


“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.”  ~ Adam Lee — Religion’s Harm To Women


Author: NeuroNotes

Victoria predominately blogs about religion, the psychological techniques used to indoctrinate, and the brain's role in religious-type experiences and attachment.

251 thoughts on “It’s 2015 & Primitive Minds Still Abound

  1. Christians make me ill. Violently ill.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m not sure how you feel about this guy, V. Please, clarify… :op

    One note: I was a minister for close to a decade, and would never have dreamed of teaching/preaching any of these things. Which is not to defend this guy; it’s just to point out that guys like these are not, nor should they be painted as, representative of Christianity as a whole. I would suggest that it’s not Christians who make us ill, but certain misconceived Christian teachings thoughtlessly applied…

    BTW, I’m not a Christian anymore, as you know, but I was one long enough to know that they’re not all bad. This guy’s an idiot and should have his mouth duct-taped shut, but he’s “A Christian” (if that, even), not “Christians.” I would argue that the Christians that make us hate Christians aren’t really Christians at all, or at least don’t understand what it means to be one.

    Sorry for the two cents. Don’t hate me…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Toad, you say, ” guys like these are not, nor should they be painted as, representative of Christianity as a whole. ”

      I don’t think they’re painted this way: I think it’s scripture that is demonstrated to be misogynistic. When people then claim that this scripture is more about Paul than Jesus (and then talk about Jesus accepting various women into the ranks of his followers), they conveniently gloss over the OT that Jesus himself (we are told third hand) recognizes as being God’s word.

      What’s being painted is a landscape of religiously inspired, religiously authorized, religiously justified misogyny. That IS Christianity. It’ take a special case of sophistication and nuance to interpret scripture with just the right squinting to see exactly what one wishes to see rather than read what it actually says.

      So, yes, Christianity itself is misogynistic and only those Christians who reflect this misogyny in their theology are the ones closer to God’s Word (and therefore intent) than those who try to weasel their way around this rather distasteful fact. It is those who deny the misogyny who are doing some false painting.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Well articulated, Victoria. That there are some who call themselves “christians” who do not adhere to all the misogynistic BS in the christian Bible does not mean Christianity, at its core (The Bible) isn’t horribly misogynistic. Again, there are good people who call themselves Christians, but they are not good because they are Christians. They’d be just as “good” minus the archaic rubbish that is the Bible. It simply is not needed to be a decent human being, and, what is written in it, is contrary to decent human dignity and behavior. Toss the damn thing out and be good because it is the right thing to do. $Amen$

        Liked by 1 person

    • My good friend, Vance, I really appreciate your feedback, and totally agree with you about the duct-tape. Let’s duct-tape the Bible, first. Not to take away from your viewpoint, but I was a Christian longer than you’ve been alive. 😉 This is far more common than you obviously are aware of. As Seth says in the video, and I quote:

      “And for those men who protest that Pastor Kim has a distorted view of women and has gotten it all wrong — take a fresh look at the scriptures that he cites in his article and all the biblical commands and opinions in regard to females.

      The problem isn’t a rogue pastor’s interpretation or misinterpretation of scripture — the problem is scripture.”

      Sorry for the two cents. Don’t hate me. 😀 Great to see you commenting again. The Todd’s Toad’s been missed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “I would argue that the Christians that make us hate Christians aren’t really Christians at all, or at least don’t understand what it means to be one”
      A perfect demonstration of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.


  3. Wow! Thank you for this video. I agree completely.

    My philosophy is that, if everyone discarded their ancient, pre-science, exclusive, religious dogma and kept only ONE tenet, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” (I call it Benevolent Reciprocity), the individual, and the world, would be at peace.

    I know. It ain’t gonna happen so long as religion exists. We need at least another millennium of science and cognitive evolution before we, collectively, understand this. Still, the push, by more and more thinking folks, is on.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hey Max. When I see this behavior and belief (which as I mentioned is more common in fundamentalist circles than they will admit), it is confirmation to me that they lack empathy. How is it that they are so far removed from their humanity that they can’t see how inhumane this teaching is and the harm is does? Something has to be wrong with their brain effecting their capacity to put themselves in the shoes of others when they teach such trash.

      Seth is right — it’s straight out of the Bible, and I have to wonder how many Christians actually read their Bible when they say this is not biblical.

      “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

      For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
      10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture:

      Liked by 1 person

    • Max, remember, we’re primates. We have some fabulous mental tools not available to our chimp cousins, but you can see a whole range of human behavior in them. So, with or without religions and gods, there will be really good humans, even more mostly good humans (does that make them human?) and then some really warped and nasty humans. Oh, just like WITH religion and gods!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Reblogged this on The Benevolent Thou and commented:
    As a matter of understanding and a blow for universal empathy between the genders, I reblog this video.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s too bad that stuff like this still exists, and not only that – it is prevalent in too many places on earth.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. This post has been making its way through the Christian world… my friends and I had a big discussion over FB yesterday and we were equally appalled!

    If you go to his site and read the comments you’ll also see this type of Scripture picking and putting down of women is detestable to most Christians. I don’t know what group of Christians agree with his misrepresentation… I know my pastor would NEVER speak about women in such away… as if we should be mindless… dream-less objects!!! Sorry this post seriously pissed me off!!

    The role of women IS debated in the church but sadly the loudest voices to those outside the church tend to be the most unloving… which is opposite to what we’ve been called to be. The loudest voices also tend to be filled with judgement and condemnation which is something we have been called not to do!

    Go figure… wrong on both ends!

    I don’t know this pastor but I assume he lives his life in the chains of dogma and tries to chain others to bring about a sense of power/control, a sense that his views are right and a sense pride for “defending God” (another thing we aren’t called to do as if God needs me to defend him. .. this is my opinion of why Christians push so hard against morality they deem unbiblical… they think its their job when they were never given that job/burden)

    We are free… and this guy needs to rest in that freedom and shut his mouth or go outside or if he has pent-up aggression, since I’m assuming his sex life is probably awful 😉 then go to the shooting range or take up kickboxing!!!

    Truly… my heart goes out to his wife and daughters (if he has any)

    Liked by 4 people

    • What is most curious to me is that, today, fundamentalist Christians will confidently say that the entire Bible is true, and that the god of the OT was a just and merciful god. Even the writer of John 3:16 said it was a god that “loved all the world.”

      So then, fundamentalists should read the Book of Joshua and explain how a god, who would order genocide of a population just to make room for “his people,” could possibly have “loved” that population. (Of course, there is no scientific evidence that the genocide ever took place, but science never trumped the religious beliefs of fundamentalists.)

      From another section, how could a omnibenevolent god have responded to a prophet’s damaged ego (teased for his baldness) by ordering bears to tear apart 42 children.

      2 Kings:

      2:23  And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

      24  And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

      What a loving god.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It’s interesting you bring this point up… I’m studying the teaching of inerrancy right now… very slowly I might add due to having 3 little kids but studying non the less 😉

        I’ve met a few Christians online who dont believe the bible claims to be inerrant. Plus I know CS Lewis held the same view and I agree with many of his views and enjoy his books of fiction.

        What I do know is that dogma leans itself to the act of turning a person into an object and objects can be easily hated. (I think it’s harder when that object you hate has a face… that’s why I tend to enjoy and get into face to face discussion because I’m learning people can be very hateful on the Internet because it’s faceless! I’m new to this whole online blogging world and it’s proving that I’ve lived in a very loving… accepting bubble all my life 🙂 The people I’m around and the church I go to are not hateful towards people due to color, gender, doubts, thoughts etc. We try to love as best as one can within the different strengths and weaknesses we all possess… none of us is perfect!)

        We are all people with thoughts and feelings and hopefully… more than not… the desire live peacefully.

        Liked by 2 people

        • “What I do know is that dogma leans itself to the act of turning a person into an object and objects can be easily hated.”

          How very true. And, of course, I have no argument with religious folks in general, just fundamentalists and, to a lesser degree, organized religion in general. After all, the most confounding question of all is not, “Does a god exist?” but, “why is there anything?” The spookiest thing about existence, is existence, itself.

          I am a person who, now, bases his philosophy on science. I’ve found that the scientific method has brought to modernity a plethora of discoveries that have dispelled so many ancient, religious beliefs, and now it is even taking a close look at the very fabric of the universe. Theoretical physics is making good strides in modeling a mulitverse, where ours is only one in an eternity of universes. Confirmation of such a model would blow “Intelligent Design” out the universal window.

          Philosophy (logic) dictates to me that the existence of an eternal, sentient creator is unlikely to the extreme simply because it’s mind would have to be at least as complex as the universe(s) it created. Whence would it have come by such knowledge in a vast nothingness and timelessness?

          In any case, I always welcome differences of opinion and thrive on civil debate when is is based on logic. The more ideas folks of reason contribute to the collective pool of ideas, the better off is society in general.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Max says “I have no argument with religious folks in general, just fundamentalists…”

            But aren’t ALL religious folk fundamentalist as to the central tenets that give each religion its core identity?

            Liked by 2 people

            • Tildeb, there you go again, confusing the True[INSERT RELIGION HERE]™ with the nasty “Fundamentalist”

              Liked by 3 people

                • I’m married to one. It’s quite possible (and fairly common) to be a Christian and understand the humanity expressed in the Bible by the fallible people who wrote it, without insisting on inerrancy as a deal-breaker. You may not feel that such people are true Christians, but then I’m pretty sure that’s not your judgment to make…

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Toad, I don’t think your example changes the truth value of my statement (asked as a question) at all.

                    Remember, I asked, “But aren’t ALL religious folk fundamentalist as to the central tenets that give each religion its core identity?”

                    You disagree because you define fundamentalism as belief in inerrancy of the whole scripture. That misses my point entirely.

                    If the religious tenet claim is for Christians, then are there not central tenets that are fundamental to this identity, namely, that Jesus lived, died as a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind, and was resurrected? These are fundamental beliefs to the identity. How much or little other stuff from scripture is attached to these fundamental tenets of the faith doesn’t increase or decrease the fundamental nature of christian religious belief!

                    And that’s why I questioned the previous claim by Max that he didn’t have a problem with religious folk; he just had a problem with fundamentalists. My point is that all religious people are fundamentalists. How much or little inerrancy they attribute to the rest of scripture doesn’t increase or decrease the level of fundamentalism, which is already at 100%. All it does is raise the question of how much cherry picking is really going on… exactly the fallacy you fall into pretending that those who cherry pick the least really aren’t really representative of ‘true’ Christians. Au contraire! I think they are more honest than most because you don;t seem to be aware of the scope and extent of your cherry picking because you fail to realize you have no means other than your preferences to choose as you do and no basis other than your preferences to criticize others who cherry pick less than you.

                    Liked by 3 people

                    • This is why I don’t talk to people…


                    • Why?

                      Because you might become aware of something you didn’t know? Or commit a thinking mistake? That’s what learning is.

                      Or are you sure you’re correct so you just don’t have enough good reasons, time, patience, or energy to explain?

                      In my experience, it’s all too easy to do a drive by comment and without any cost… unless challenged. Only then does one’s comment become a springboard… hopefully to something new, something worth pursuing. And I can think of fewer subjects more worth pursuing than understanding why faith-based beliefs – of any kind and about any subject – are a guaranteed way to fool one’s self.

                      This is what I think you and Max have done: fooled yourselves about shifting the burden of fundamentalism to other people and then blaming them for your own foolishness.

                      Too blunt?

                      Why wouldn’t people want to figure out how to differentiate between when one is fooling one’s self and one is pursuing what’s true? That seems worthwhile to me… especially when knowing the difference can make such a terrific impact on raising the quality of one’s life by respecting what’s true more than what is believed to be true. It’s a way to reengage with the real world and finally leaving the childish world of superstition and invisible friends behind once and for all.

                      If you are a Christian, you are a fundamentalist. And as a fundamentalist, you bear some responsibility for promoting these ideas to effect in public domain. I just have the temerity of holding you partly responsible.

                      Liked by 3 people

                    • Vance, I think tildeb brought up a valid point, and I don’t think it was intended to offend. I have said, myself, and only recently (after years of healing from the psychological damage Christianity and the Bible did to me as a woman), that I don’t have a problem with people who want to believe in a god. I understand that death anxiety is real, and I also understand that some people are convinced that prosocial behavior is “godly”, not humanly. I also understand the need for community. But the belief in god usually always has baggage.

                      I have thought a lot about what he wrote and here’s my two cents. Until relatively recently, I got triggers often when Christians would quote the bible or even speak of the Christian god. Why? Because everything they know about their god came from the Bible, and Jesus states that Yahweh is the one true God. Some of the worst crimes against humanity have been condoned and commanded by this Yahweh, including the inhumanity against women and girls.

                      In Revelations 19, Jesus will come back and call the birds from the sky to eat the flesh of the dead unbelievers. That’s me and you, my friend. So in essence, what I gather from tildeb is that, in part, he is saying that Jesus and the Bible go hand and hand. That Christianity and the Bible go hand and hand. So to claim you are a Christian, you directly or indirectly ascribe to the core precepts. Why is their a need for a savior? Why did Jesus have to die? Because woman sinned first.

                      Liked by 3 people

                    • Excellent comment, Victoria. I, like you, have no issue with whatever people need to believe to comfort themselves and feel whole in this world. I have serious issues with beliefs that come from the Bible, however. Why? Because, while the Bible has some nice things said in it, it also has plenty of horrific, anti-human things proclaimed in it. If I were to say I followed Nazi dogma, but only the GOOD parts of Nazi dogma, like getting trains to run on time, and loving my German Shepard, I’d expect to get some very perplexing looks when I expressed that belief to people. If one claims to follow Jesus, then one must accept the responsibility that goes with saying that. The Jesus that people follow is the Jesus from the Bible, a book with just as much horror in it as nice stuff, if not more. Yes, there are wonderfully nice people who love Jesus and only adhere to the nice stuff in the Bible about him, but that does not negate the fact Jesus is part of a book that is horrible. And nice Christians are not nice people BECAUSE they are Christians, they are nice people anyway and just happen to like the nice stuff in the Bible about Jesus. So, why not get rid of the damn Bible, be nice because it is the right thing to do, and stop giving lip service to a bronze age manuscript that has just as much anti-human filth in it as it has nice stuff? Either that, or just rewrite the damn thing without the bullshit parts and start over.

                      Liked by 4 people

                    • Thank you Jeff. You said it a lot better than I did. The Nazi analogy was spot on. God belief doesn’t bother me, per se. It’s about what god they say they believe in.

                      Liked by 2 people

                    • Except it depends on the religion. If we were talking about just theism in general the only required “fundamental” belief is that a deity or deities exist. It doesn’t require any further belief, although I suppose it depends somewhat on the religion in question. Not to mention you’re equivocating.


                      Original phrase: “I have no argument with religious folks in general, just fundamentalists” (he means definition # 1. He has a problem with “the Protestant movement that stresses the infallibility of the bible, etc.)

                      Your words: “But aren’t ALL religious folk fundamentalist as to the central tenets that give each religion its core identity?” (you mean definition # 3)


                    • Dictionary

                      The problem remains with religion and not just protestant evangelical religions in that all religions require a level of fundamentalism – meaning a strict and literal interpretation – towards their basic tenets.

                      I am not equivocating – meaning intentionally using ambiguous language. I am pointing out that fundamentalism is basic to all religions and to cherry pick one for being too literal compared to another is avoiding the very problem that makes ‘fundamentalists’ acting on their beliefs such a problem. And it is such a problem because there is no way to differentiate where the line is between a religious identity and a fundamentalist religious identity. They are one and the same. Can I be any clearer?


                    • No, the problem remains that for certain categories to be meaningful it requires defining characteristics that allow us to differentiate between categories. This doesn’t apply solely to religion. For example, the mystery genre requires there to be some detective who solves a problem (usually a who-done-it or to locate a missing object) using clues and reasoning. If it lacked these “fundamental” characteristics it would stop being a mystery and be some other fictional genre. A chair is a raised piece of furniture in which we sit upon. When it loses those fundamental characteristics it becomes some other piece of furniture or object. Really that is all your argument actually is, which then hides behind the word “fundamentalism” to create a false equivalence.

                      You also seem to be suggesting that if one believes any part of the Bible literally, but not all of it, that, too, is fundamentalism in so far as they strictly and literally believe the part in which they’re cherry picking. You’re trying to separate the extent of literalism as part of fundamentalism, yet every definition including the OED implies that extent is a defining characteristic of fundamentalism. You remove the “extent” characteristic of the literal belief in scripture, you’re no longer speaking about fundamentalism, but rather just a belief which simply defines one category from another.

                      I can tell the difference between someone with a religious identity and a fundamentalist just fine.


                    • Well, you say there is a difference and assure us that you can tell where this is, but I don’t think there is one except in your mind. In reality, religious believers must accept fundamentalism as the core. Now the only difference becomes one of extent. It’s like being pregnant: you either are or are not. The same is true in religion: you either are a fundamentalist (to have that religious identity) or you are not (in which case you do not have a religious identity but a deistic or simply vague theistic belief). You presume a middle ground that does not exist.


                    • Who is this imaginary “us”? Based on the responses to you, Toad and Howie don’t agree with you either and seem perfectly capable of distinguishing between any old religious identity and fundamentalism.

                      I don’t disagree that religious believers must have some fundamental beliefs, which is really the same thing as saying they must have some core beliefs. But the very thing that defines something as fundamentalist is the extent! One might put it this way, you’re confusing the word “fundamental” with the word “fundamentalist.”

                      I don’t presume a middle ground, I know a middle ground exists from experience.


                    • The middle ground you speak of is simply one of the extent of the cherry picking. You have some notion that a certain amount is perfectly fine to avoid the charge of being a fundamentalist but too much suddenly justifies the charge. I’m saying you have no means to differentiate… other than your opinion that grants immunity to same ‘crime’ based on nothing other than a feeling you have. I’m saying call a spade and spade and call those who commit to fundamental religious beliefs what they really are: fundamentalists. Why you wish to prevaricate isn’t a supposed fault in my reasoning; it’s nothing more an accommodationist tactic to artificially present religious belief to be something that it isn’t: reasonable and respectable.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Like I already stated your entire argument is based on not understanding the difference between the words, “fundamental” and “fundamentalist.” Differentiating is pretty easy actually.

                      I understand fundamentalism to refer to a specific Protestant Movement that believes in the inerrant word of G-d that must be read literally. If a person isn’t part of that Protestant Movement, doesn’t believe in an inerrant word of G-d, and that the bible must be read literally then they aren’t a fundamentalist. That simple!

                      Or if you insist on using your slightly broader OED definition:

                      If the person practices a form of religion that upholds belief in a strict literal interpretation of scripture, then they are a fundamentalist. If they do not have a strict literal interpretation of scripture, then they aren’t a fundamentalist.

                      No opinion needed at all. Just figure out the definition of the words, ask person about beliefs, and see if they meet the criteria. I personally like to use words correctly, but you can engage in all the sophistry you like if it’ll make you feel better!

                      Also, what an interesting word choice. Do you see religious belief as a ‘crime?’


                    • Your ‘pretty simple’ definition doesn’t even include fundamentalism of other religions; it isolates by fiat evangelical protestants… and not even the whole group but a small subsection of it connected to the entire bible being inerrant! Oh look… there are hardly any fundamentalists left! How very convenient.

                      And you accuse me of sophistry claiming that those who hold fundamental religious beliefs best fit the definition of the term ‘fundamentalist’. No, that plays with words far too much, eh?

                      See, your way of selective thinking that assumes your interpretive abilities with language are superior because they are more tolerant and accommodating. yet this is exactly how we end up with such ideas that up is another kind of down, that white is another kind of black, that non belief is another kind of belief, and so on. It’s really the kind of language skills bureaucrats and politicians rely on to obfuscate and misdirect appropriate and justified criticism.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    • Actually I responded to two definitions of the word. The first one is definition # 1 as offered by I’m not isolating evangelical Protestants by fiat, but rather by historical reality. There was an actual movement called Fundamentalism, which is what people typically mean by the term and what the original interlocutor seemed to mean by the term. The other definition came from the OED, which you offered, and is broader so that it applies to any religion in which there is a strict literal interpretation of scripture (Judaism, Islam, or Christianity, etc.). If you look above I responded to that as well.

                      Put simply what both definitions have in common is it refers to someone who reads their scripture literally (all the parts of it, not some). So all one has to do is ask a person if they read their scripture literally or not. Most of your argument hides behind tricky language games, which makes the rest of your statements ironic.

                      I don’t presume that my interpretive abilities are superior to others necessarily, but it doesn’t require particularly complex interpretive skills to know actual definitions of a word and understand the differences between them. I’m tolerant to anyone who displays kindness and thoughtfulness to others and who shows an overall good character.


                  • Toad, I really don’t like it when theists paint all atheists with the same brush, so I agree with you.

                    How’s that for a drive by comment – that’s right tildeb – reply to me all you want, you won’t see a reply from me. Oh shame shame shame on me!

                    Liked by 1 person

            • Good point, but one picks one’s battles. As I debate fundamentalism, others of less strident positions will read the arguments and, perhaps, see the logic. So, I suppose you could certainly say that I am debating religion in general. I just like to go after the hard-core. 😀

              Thinking about it, however. I think you are correct and I will change my thought on that.


        • Dear Moderate Mom, one dangerous question that you might ask (even if only yourself) is why on earth assume one set of primitive myths is true, and not only true but inerrant, and not one of the other myths? I mean, sure, the book seems to say somewhere that it is the word of god, but lots of books say things like that. There really isn’t anything about the Bible that is compelling of belief. Well, except for the excellent lifestyle that can be had from convincing a bunch of people to pay you to talk about it all the time…. Like the song says, would Jesus wear a Rolex on his TV show?

          Liked by 1 person

          • I’m going to write this with hesitancy due to interactions I’ve had with other Atheist in the blogging world… I ask for mutual respect in responses to my reply. I’m not asking for anyone to try and convince me of how wrong they think I am for believing in a Creator and in Jesus and how absurd they think the teachings of the Bible are. I do desire to live in peace with all people… I’m called to this and to do this with love. But to live in peace we all have to watch the way we push our own thoughts onto one another… Christians and Atheist alike. As humans I think we all want a fight to fight BUT I’m not looking for a fight now 😉

            So…. here goes!

            I think there is truth in other religious books. As stared by Max, the Golden Rule is one that many people deem good and would be fabulous is more people actually put into practice!

            I’m not going to go into why I believe in a Creator or Jesus because I know y’all believe in the material only and not the spiritual so talking about this would serve no purpose for any of us. I’m can not write out on a reply why I hold to that the Bible is God’s Word but what I can reply to is how I think the Bible is misused and what I assume causes y’all to have such issue with it (PLEASE correct me if I am wrong in any of these thoughts!! I’m here to learn how to better love those who are different from me 🙂 )

            The Bible and Jesus himself calls Christians to love and to live in peace with others where possible (I will fight someone who is trying to hurt my kids as an example of not living in peace) We are never told we have the right, the ability or the power to judge or condemn. Only He who made the heart knows the heart. Christians using the Bible and the name of Christ to “scare” people, to enforce their own convictions, to silence open debate, to lord over others and to make themselves rich is WRONG… sinful… if I can be so bold!!

            I don’t fear others thoughts. I don’t fear living in a country that doesn’t hold to seemingly Christian morals. It is not in my power nor my burden to fight for God. If He is God He is able to do what needs to been done with out me. He has a plan and I trust that plan even if it means I live in a world that would lock me up in chains for what I believe!

            I think Atheist should be able to run for office, to be able to go to work with out being “witnessed to” (sidenote: Christians are also called to WAIT until they are asked about the hope they have… not to be God’s salesmen (or women 😉 ), to live the way they deem correct (example, I have not issue with gay marriage being legal.. again it’s not my place or the governments place for that matter, to force morality between to adults) I do however have my thoughts on what is moral that might be thrown back at me as dogma due to my belief in God but I know unbelievers who hold the same values so for someone to do so would be wrong and misplaced. I also don’t understand why some Christians won’t hire Atheist… I think this is weird but it’s their business… if I had my own business I’d hire whoever is the best at the job. Same for my children’s teachers… I want the best teacher… I don’t care what their beliefs are!

            So there it is…

            oh and no… I don’t think Jesus would wear a Rolex 😉 and the only place He has a TV show is on South Park 🙂


            • MM — thank you for your contribution on this post, and welcome. We have been in discourse on Ark’s blog in the past, and I really like you. Yesterday, I had to remove myself from discourse here because I didn’t want to say anything that would offend you and I was, quite frankly, pissed beyond measure after viewing that video. It brought back memories of my own experiences, and as Madalyn (M.M.J Gregory) said below, that thinking (about women) is all too familiar. That thinking is far more common than many realize, even Christians such as yourself. It’s abuse and it literally affects the brain. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I just recently moved back to Mississippi. A state I left 15 years ago and spent a good portion of my life living in. It’s become much more religious (fundamentalist) since I left.

              The first week I arrived, the headlines in the local news paper lawmakers (with support from both parties) want to make the Bible the “Official State Book”. If you have seen the stats ( ) — Mississippi is the most religious state in the Union. It’s the most conservative and ranks as the worst state to live in (well-being wise), not only for it’s citizens, but ranked last for women, too. I don’t know if you are familiar with Neil Carter. He’s a school teacher in Mississippi who went through a deconversion and has paid dearly for it. He writes for Pathos now. He wrote a post today about the Bible becoming the official state book, if you want to check it out.


              Christian fundamentalism is invasive and unhealthy across the board. I think that is why you will sometimes see us become indignant and/or come across as rude. It seems that those who are bringing awareness about the harm fundamentalism does are unbelievers. Fundamentalism is on the rise in America, even though people are leaving the more moderate Christians churches. There are few Christians, like you, who address the ills of fundamentalism, and I thank you. I also appreciate your open-mindedness and inclusiveness. Belief should be personal, IMO, not shoved down people’s throats, and laws implemented to make everyone conform to a book reflecting an ancient culture.

              Liked by 5 people

            • You’re a cool frood, MM –!
              (And in case you haven’t read Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, that’s a GOOD thing!)

              Liked by 2 people

            • Maybe I should introduce myself to you, I’m the token Polytheist around here. Like you I believe in the Almighty, it’s only a matter of identity where we differ. She is our Divine Mother. She also has a very different take on things than some of the other characters that people think are gods. In the long run, inspite of the fact that I’m also a theist, I usually think the same way as our many atheist friends here. Christianity and the Bible and the God it’s written about are, in general, a major pain because so many of the people who believe all of that want to cram it down the throats of the rest of us. They seem so caught up in their cult that they don’t seem to be able to understand that not everybody has the same definitions of things like morality and such. Mom (as She is usually referred to, not One to stand on formality) doesn’t hate homosexuals, She thinks they are just fine. As for things like “adultery”, well, there are a whole bunch of definitions given to that term that have nothing to do with making a vow to someone and then breaking it. Going back on your word She doesn’t approve of generally.

              So that’s who you replied to. While I have a bit of a problem with Christians holding positions of authority in the secular sphere, that’s not a condemnation of the fact that they are Christians, but rather a leeriness based on past behavior. The last thing the world needs is a President who thinks that getting a war going in the Middle East will help bring his Jesus back. Or even one who thinks that people who have a different take on the gods should be forced to bow down to some guy he thinks is a god. As for teachers, well, just keep your opinions to yourself in public schools. Want to indoctrinate kids into your cult? Get a job in a religious school. Oh, and save me from the nursing assistant I once had who regularly called in sick on Sunday mornings so she could go to her church and sing silly songs to her god while leaving us short handed in the custodial section of a nursing home where, thanks to her and her religion, some poor old helpless person had to lay in their own excrement waiting for someone to get free to cover her section. I guess she missed the part about “Whatsoever you do for one of these, the least of mine, you have done it unto me”.


              • Hi Mariah! Thank you for sharing more about yourself.

                I would love to respond to a couple of things you’ve said but not on an open forum. To be honest, I’m over my head with sick kids and I feel the need (like I’m a rude meanie if I don’t 😉 ) to respond to whomever might reply to something I say, directed to you, and I don’t have the energy right now 🙂

                But I would love to get to know you and hear more about Mom… I’ve never met anyone from your group of belief and I always look forward to learning how I can better represent the love of my God to those who think/believe differently than I.

                Is there away to email you?


        • I’m studying the teaching of inerrancy right now… very slowly I might add due to having 3 little kids but studying non the less” – It’s been my experience, MM, that a couple of shots of Wild Turkey 150 each, will put them down for a nice looooong nap – just sayin’ —


      • Some would say that God in the OT was misrepresented by men just like God is misrepresented today. I don’t know… again I’m in the mists of studying inerrancy. My thought goes to Why would God allow that? But I do believe we have freewill but we’re does that fall in light of the writing of the Bible. I do know that Jesus’ teachings and life seem opposite of the actions men in the OT took in God’s name or claimed to be commanded by God. I probably butchered that thought but I guess all this to say, I don’t know how a loving God would cause a bear to come out to kill children. Maybe it was happenstance claimed to be an act of God… I don’t know which is why I studying to find out if the bible itself claims to be inerrant…

        I’ll get back to you in 10 years which is about the rate I’m going 😉

        Hope your day is well Mr. Max!!

        Liked by 1 person

        • … I don’t know which is why I studying to find out if the bible itself claims to be inerrant…

          If you give it a hundred and fifty years of study – or, say 1,500 years of study – guess where you’ll end up? Editing that sentence to it’s honest core: “I don’t know.”

          Hopefully, that will save you some time and allow your imagination to consider what other useful, practical, enjoyable, and knowledgeable area you could study for 10 years! I’ll bet you would end up with something far more worthwhile and rewarding than what is known as biblical apologetics, where it takes some time to fit the round peg of reality into the square hole of theology.

          Liked by 2 people

        • I understand your position and indeed my day has gone well. Hope yours did too.

          I was once in your position. Then, the idea that hit me many years ago when I was an “almost,” fundamentalist not long after high school, and debating three Mormons who were trying to convert me, was that everyone of every religion believes his to be the “true religion” simply because that, in the vast majority of cases, is what he was taught from tothood to believe, and that no one, including myself, had any basis to suppose his religious beliefs were, indeed, “The Truth.”

          When I realized that indisputable fact, I vowed to go back to school and learn all I could about world religions, paleoanthropology, and philosophy. That education was an evolution away from dogmatic, religious belief to Reason, and was the impetus that moved me to write a philosophical/spiritual novel that addresses society’s cognitive dissonance with the claims of the NT and the stories of the OT. We do not, as the philosopher Leibniz suggested, live in the “best of all possible worlds.”

          Most organized religions, and the ancient sages as well, teach us that, what I call “benevolent reciprocity” (the Golden Rule)is the greatest tenet of all. Another term might be “universal empathy.”

          It is my firm belief that if the world were to reject all its exclusive, religious dogma and truly live with benevolent reciprocity, peace, internally and externally, could be achieved. As Plato believed, social justice and harmony begins within each individual.

          Liked by 3 people

          • That world will not only never exist, if you really looked at it, you wouldn’t want it to. We’re humans, not angels. Behave any way that suits your beliefs, but count your change.

            Liked by 2 people

            • I do not believe one can be certain the rule of empathy wil “never” happen.

              Think about how far the world has come since the Enlightenment. We tend to forget the old witch hunts and the Catholic auto de fes of the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention all the gruesome, murderous holy wars and pandemic disease often spread in part by strong, religious opposition to emerging medical science. Look at the society of Charles Dickens’ London not so long ago. Times do change and the trend is for the better.

              The Constitution of the U.S. recognized the necessity for empathy, fairness, and respect for everyone’s religious and philosophical beliefs and put them on a level playing field (to the chagrin of many fundamentalist Christians even today).

              So we have advanced, even though war still exists and self interest rules especially in Washington and Wall Street. I’m not so naive as to believe that our collective mental development has evolved to the point we could see such a world within at least another millennium (if humanity survives that long), but we are progressing.

              I like to hope.

              Liked by 2 people

              • We tend to forget the old witch hunts and the Catholic auto de fes of the Spanish Inquisition

                I find it difficult, Max, to forget that for 1000 years \, Mama Church, by edict, made it illegal, upon penalty of death, to own a Bible printed in any language than Latin, which only a minuscule few could read, making it almost mandatory that you get your religion from a priest. One man was burned at stake for translating the Lord’s prayer into English for his children.

                Yes, we have incrementally improved, but at the same time, our weapons of war have become more terrible, making those few who may not have evolved – at least those in alpha positions – capable of wiping out entire civilizations. Someone once said that if we experience World War III, World War IV will be fought with sticks and rocks.

                Liked by 3 people

                • Good call and I agree. That is why I often say that I think world peace not come for at least another millenium, IF and only if we survive our primitive, emotion-driven mentality and allow it to evolve to the point where empathy, not self interest, is our primary motivating force. Dogmatic religion and indifference, of course, would have to become a thing of the dark past.


                • “I agree Max. I think people tend to forget that it’s only been in very recent recorded “his”tory that women (not all, yet) have autonomy, and children and women are not the property of men, or that owning slaves, discrimination (i.e., towards LGBT) and racism are unethical. ”

                  An excellent post! Thank you.


                • Don’t knock Latin, not only did people understand it, but it’s still being spoken all over the world. The only difference is that nowadays it’s called Spanish or Portuguese etc. When I took Spanish some years back, the teacher was amazed at how fast I picked it up and had no problem dealing with verb conjugations. Duh. I explained that I knew Latin, Spanish was just bad Latin. Or is Latin bad Spanish. As for reading the Bible in Latin, the bigger problem would be trying to decipher the handwriting! have you ever seen a medieval manuscript? They save paper by running the words together, using strange abbreviations, and breaking words at the end of a line where ever it hits. It took a while for printing to straighten out the problems.


                  • I’m not knocking Latin, Mariah – I have a few years of studying it myself, and speak Spanish fluently, as well as understand Italian if it’s spoken slowly. I’m knocking the practice of the Church to refuse to allow the Bible to be written in the languages that the majority of the readers of the time were able to freely read.


              • ” but we are progressing. I like to hope.”

                I agree Max. I think people tend to forget that it’s only been in very recent recorded “his”tory that women (not all, yet) have autonomy, and children and women are not the property of men, or that owning slaves, discrimination (i.e., towards LGBT) and racism are unethical. Also, I’m sure you are aware of Dr. Pinker’s research. In this informative 19 minute Ted Talk, he charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species’ existence. We have come a long ways in a few short years.

                Liked by 2 people

        • MM, have you had time to check out any of the links I gave you on Ark’s blog, about the four groups who wrote the Torah?

          Liked by 1 person

          • That world sounds wonderful 🙂

            And I too am a fan of the Golden rule… it’s what I break my actions and thoughts against.

            Liked by 1 person

          • Some… I’ve decided I need to read what Christians claim is evidence for what I believe before I look at what nonbelievers say is evidence against what I believe.

            Not knowing what backs my belief gave me nothing to break the “facts” presented in the links you gave me and I want both sides.

            Nate recommend Evidence for Christianity by McDowell which is where I’m at… like I’ve said… it takes this this mama awhile due to lack of time and metal energy 😉

            I’ve also become close to a blogger named Eric who writes at theway.

            Liked by 1 person

            • The important thing is making your own decisions – watch out for mind seduction, whether theist or atheist.

              Liked by 3 people

            • RE, The Documentary Hypothesis: “I’ve decided I need to read what Christians claim is evidence for what I believe before I look at what nonbelievers say is evidence against what I believe.

              I don’t think you get it, MM – somewhere you’ve gotten the idea that the analysis of the Torah – the first five books of the Bible, attributed to Moses – is an atheist concept. It isn’t. Those who originated the concept were devout Christians, who were simply open-minded enough to recognize different writing styles in the literature, and to recognize newer versus older forms of the Hebrew language – much as you would easily recognize the writing style of middle-England’s Chaucer, versus that of a present-day author – and realize that those differences pointed to the different times in which they were written, and in some cases, where.

              The Yahwist Source, for example, is called that because throughout their writing, god is always referred to as Yahweh, or Jehova, whereas the Elohist Source always calls him Elohim.

              Note – these people were NOT atheists – read more on the subject or don’t, your option, but don’t decline on the basis of a mistaken belief that it’s atheist propaganda:
              In 1574, A. Du Maes, a Roman Catholic scholar, suggested that the Pentateuch was composed by Ezra, who used old manuscripts as a basis. Thomas Hobbes, the English philosopher, concluded in 1651 that Moses wrote only parts of Deuteronomy (Leviathan III:33). In “Tractatus theologico-politicus” (1677), Baruch Spinoza, the Jewish philosopher, recognized as one of the founders of modern biblical criticism, reached a conclusion much like that of Du Maes, that Ezra compiled Genesis to II Kings from documents of varying dates. Shortly afterward, Richard Simon, a Roman Catholic priest, often called “the father of biblical criticism,” gathered together the substance of critical analyses up to his time and raised the problem of literary history, thus opening the door to the application of techniques used in the study of non-sacred literature to the Bible.

              By the seventeenth century a number of scholars had wrestled with the problems of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Carlstadt, a leader of the Reformation movement in Germany, wrote a pamphlet in 1520 arguing that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, for the style of writing in the verses reporting Moses’ death (Deut. 32:5-12) was that of the preceding verses.

              In the eighteenth century Jean Astruc, a celebrated physician, published a treatise on Genesis in which he postulated that Moses used two major sources in writing the book of Genesis. The source in which the name “Elohim” is used for God, Astruc called “A,” and that which used “Yahweh” was labeled “B.” Ten fragmentary sources were also recognized and given alphabetical designations. Additional criteria for defining sources were worked out by J. G. Eichorn, sometimes called “the father of Old Testament criticism” or, on the basis of his five volume “Introduction” to the Old Testament, “the father of the modern science of introductory studies.”
              Others built upon these foundations. In 1806-7 W. M. L. DeWette, a German scholar, published a two volume introductory study of the Old Testament in which he suggested that the book found in the temple in 621 B.C., during the reign of King Josiah of Judah (II Kings 22-23), was the book of Deuteronomy. In the work of Julius Wellhausen, who built upon the research of K. H. Graf and Wilhelm Vatke, the most significant analysis of the Pentateuch was made. The thesis known as the Graf-Wellhausen theory, or as the Documentary Hypothesis, still provides the basis upon which more recent hypotheses are founded.

              The Graf-Wellhausen analysis identified four major literary sources in the Pentateuch, each with its own characteristic style and vocabulary. These were labeled: J, E, D and P. The J source used the name “Yahweh” (“Jahveh” in German) for God, called the mountain of God “Sinai,” and the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine “Canaanites,” and was written in a vivid, concrete, colorful style. God is portrayed anthropomorphically, creating after the fashion of a potter, walking in the garden, wrestling with Jacob. J related how promises made to the patriarchs were fulfilled, how God miraculously intervened to save the righteous, or to deliver Israel, and acted in history to bring into being the nation. E used “Elohim” to designate God until the name “Yahweh” was revealed in Exod. 3:15, used “Horeb” as the name of the holy mountain, “Amorite” for the pre-Hebrew inhabitants of the land, and was written in language generally considered to be less colorful and vivid than J’s. E’s material begins in Gen. 15 with Abraham, and displays a marked tendency to avoid the strong anthropomorphic descriptions of deity found in J. Wellhausen considered to be earlier than E because it appeared to contain the more primitive elements.

              The Deuteronomic source, D, is confined largely to the book of Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, contains very little narrative, and is made up, for the most part, of Moses’ farewell speeches to his people. A hortatory and emphatic effect is produced by the repetition of certain phrases: “be careful to do” (5:1, 6:3, 6:25, 8:1), “a mighty hand and an outstretched arm” (5:15, 7:19, 11:2), “that your days may be prolonged” (5:16, 6:2, 25:15). Graf had demonstrated that knowledge of both J and E were presupposed in D, and having accepted DeWette’s date of 621 B.C. for D, argued that J and E must be earlier. J was dated about 850 B.C. and E about 750 B.C.

              The Priestly tradition, P, reveals interest and concern in whatever pertains to worship. Not only does P employ a distinctive Hebrew vocabulary but, influenced by a desire to categorize and systematize material, develops a precise, and at times a somewhat labored or pedantic, style. Love of detail, use of repetition, listing of tribes and genealogical tables, does not prevent the P material from presenting a vivid and dramatic account of Aaron’s action when an Israelite attempted to marry a Midianite woman (Num. 25:6-9) or from developing a rather euphonious and rhythmical statement of creation (Gen. 1). The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis noted that P contained laws and attitudes not discernible in J, E, or D and reflected late development. P was dated around the time of Ezra, or about 450 B.C.
              Here’s another reliable source for you – once again, not an atheist source:

              Liked by 4 people

              • On a sidenote, I found the passage in Num. 25:6-9 rather amusing in an ironic sort of way, in that Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, was so upset about an Israelite man marrying a Midianite women, that he grabbed a spear and thrust it through both of them. The irony was that Moses himself married a Midianite woman, the daughter of the Midianite priest.

                Liked by 1 person

      • One other thought… just because Elisha or anyone curses anyone else in God’s name does not mean God causes that to happen. Saul cursed his men and son, in the name of God, for eating and that curse is viewed as selfserving… I’d think the same of Elisha ‘ s curse. I’d hope he felt remorse just like one would if they quickly said some sort or ugly reply like… “you’re better off dead” if that person then in fact died soon after. God judges the heart not man… we know one heart… our own!

        Liked by 2 people

        • But, Elisha is considered to be a “prophet of God.” A “holy man.” Or, was he a magician thought to be a prophet?

          In either case, the highly unlikely story was of a hideous and cruel act whether it was condoned by a god or not. But since the story is about Elisha, a man sanctioned by a god, surely that god approved of the curse, since only a god could move bears to do its will.

          Or are we now believing in magic and, without the power of a god, a mortal can call bears from the forest to do his will? If that is the case, then was he doing an evil magic act approved by a god?

          Interesting. Of course, such indifference to life on the part of Yahweh is seen again in other stories, including the one where Yahweh killed 70,000 of David’s men as punishment for DAVID ordering a sensus against God’s will.

          Bottom line is that one cannot, in my opinion, with intellectual integrity, believe that the god of the OT–who is supposed to be the same god of the NT and whose being and temperament does not change–was just, merciful, and omnibenevolent. It flies in the very face of Reason.

          In your studies, don’t neglect to read Dr. Carl Jung’s “Answer to Job.” It isn’t long, and likely you can find it online.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I understand your thinking with the disconnect with the OT and NT God.

            As for Elisha… he was a prophet but also a human… he was not perfect. The while the bear thing might have been by happenstance or a lie told by those who win. Or it might have been done by God (I have a hard time believing that but again I’ve just scratched the surface of the idea of inerrancy)

            Liked by 2 people

            • I suggest that if any story in the Bible is not true, then the Bible isn’t inerrant and cannot be trusted.

              While you are researching, you might want to look up independent, objective, archaeological investigations of the story of Joshua’s “invasion” and genocide of Canaan. One would think that such an event, especially that of the destruction of Jericho, would leave indisputable evidence (artifacts) that it was destroyed by the Israelites, and evidence of the destruction of the cities and armies after Jericho would be found in proper time sequence.

              Then, of course, we have the “Noah’s flood,” which is a retelling of a more ancient tail (by about 800 years). The Sumerian “Noah” was “Utnapishtim,” and some lines in the Noah story read almost verbatim with the Utnapishtim story.

              Liked by 1 person

              • “When the seventh day arrived,
                I sent forth and set free a dove.
                The dove went forth, but came back;
                Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round.
                Then I sent forth and set free a swallow.

                The swallow went forth, but came back;
                Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round.
                Then I sent forth and set free a raven.
                The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished,
                He eats, circles, caws, and turns not round.
                Then I let out (all) to the four winds
                And offered a sacrifice.
                I poured out a libation on the top of the mountain.
                Seven and seven cult-vesselsI set up,
                Upon their pot-stands I heaped cane, cedarwood, and myrtle.
                The gods smelled the savor,
                The gods smelled the sweet savor
                The gods crowded like flies about the sacrifice.
                The Epic of Gilgamesh
                (written 2800 BCE)

                Genesis 9:20-21:
                And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings onto the altar.
                And the Lord smelled the sweet savour.

                The global flood was alleged to have occurred around 2600 BCE – two hundred years after The Epic of Gilgamesh was written, but wasn’t set to papyrus until about 950 BCE by the Yahwist (J) Source, a group of Levite priests, writing from Jerusalem in the southern Kingdom of Judea.

                While the biblical story was blatantly plagiarized from The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Epic itself was a deliberately fictional account of an actual flood that took place in Surruppak, a city-state in what is now modern Iraq, in 2900 BCE, when the Euphrates River overflowed its banks and covered an area equivalent to what today might be three counties (hardly global) to a depth of 15 cubits (c.22.5 feet),

                exactly the same 15 cubits the Bible tells us, above which, the highest mountains on earth were covered. The actual, historical king of Surappak, Ziusudra, escaped the deluge on a trading barge, loaded with cotton, cattle and beer, floating down to the Persian Gulf, where he had a limo waiting to take him back.

                Liked by 3 people

    • Good to see you again, MM! You could learn a lot from Neuro.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. This ALMOST makes me speechless. What utter claptrap. But more worrying: is it only the tip of the ice berg. How many people subscribe to these inhumane, holier-than-thou, plank-in-my-eye, foot-in-mouth attitudes, this ‘sanctified’ misogyny?

    Liked by 2 people

    • No Christian men I know but I’m around a lot of wonderful loving men. I would love for this type of man to come to my church. He needs to be shown up close and personal what it means to “submit to one another” and “to love your wife as Christ loves the church and gave himself up for her” (which is a sacrificial love not a dominating rule!)

      The oppression of women by men, by dogmatic religion, by traditions and by other women is heartbreaking and something we should all be able to rally behind (Atheist, Christian, agnostics and whoever else wants to join!)

      We are not objects!!!!!!!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Tish, it’s so common it blends into the fabric of society unless a spotlight is shown on it. For example, marital rape didn’t become illegal in all 50 states until the late 70’s. When my mother got married, she had to state in her vows that she would promise to obey her husband.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I stumbled across that blog post and was absolutely disgusted with this guy’s opinions. It makes me sad to think that people like this still exist in 2015. It’s such an archaic, narrow minded thought process. And I agree that it’s even more devastating when women believe this stuff because it’s an insult to the female gender.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. At first I thought to myself, “Self…do you really want to watch something that is only going to simmer then BOIL-UP your blood and heart-rate during such a beautiful delightful day?” As you know Victoria, oppressive fundamentalism, disguised as ‘freedom’ from some mythical damnation, grates on my nerves and patience… patience I try to maintain in earnest with equal verbal composure, BUT with distinct limits. Everyone has their limits. But alas, I started the video anyway because, well it’s you Victoria, and your most enjoyable blog. 🙂

    Raawwwwrrrrrrrh! Right off-the-bat, #1 and #2 of the 10 reasons dropped my jaw and made my eyes poke out! Not to worry though, I slapped my face, rejoined reality and reminded myself fear keeps many in ignorance and ignorance keeps many in fear. That has been a tool-of-control from Attila the Hun to Adolf Hitler to David Koresh. However, after #3 —older women(!?)—I couldn’t stomach anymore. Sorry Ma’am.

    With my apology Victoria, I’m going to just skip a lot of counter-points to Abrahamic love-counselors and the religious apologists, and go directly at the root, to the jugular of these fallacies: Divine revelation. Is it a viable argument of evidence or truth?

    Assuming of course that divine revelation does exist and is theistic, not deistic, revelation comes to us/those which are “chosen” in three possible ways: (1) General revelation, (2) Special revelation—of which can come in two subforms: (2.1) the Holy Spirit/miracles/the paranormal, or (2.2) Scripture, or the Bible. General revelation is simply discovering design in creation and nature’s systems. It arguably points to a Creator. This is a slippery-slope however, because Creation, or Nature is a deeply complex operation as we endlessly discover more and more each century! Duh, the cosmos is vaster than vast! LOL But general revelation is open to… well ANYBODY and EVERYBODY and their interpretations and interpolations, including the 3 Abrahamic religions. Not so precise, or as Xian’s might say, not so infallable or truthful. Scratch general revelation. Too wide open.

    Next is the special revelation 2.1, miracles, or the Holy Spirit. This diving revelation is very powerful, very emotional, and very convincing… personally. Many many a tale of dire lows and hopelessness followed by unimaginable, unprecedented, extraordinary turns-of-events and of rescues abound. And to be fair, they cannot be discounted. They are stories of ONE PERSON’S traumatic and miraculous turnaround! Everyone loves a happy ending; most everyone. On the scale of major religions however, and their impact and accuracy, almost none of the countless Holy Spirit intervening stories are identical, i.e. there is no consistent prologue and there is certainly no consistent epilogue. They are each unique! Valid on a tiny scale (a population of 7.2 billion plus!), but not verifiable on the grandest scale; roughly 4,200 different religions. Duh. Scratch miracles or the Holy Spirit. Way too individualized.

    Special revelation 2.2, however, IS much more precise—according to fundamentalist—because it can be tested by the truthful-infallable Scriptures, or Bible. To this method, I have just one question: Which Bible? 😀 And that Can-O-Worms has fortunately been thoroughly examined; and thank goodness examined and reexamined by unbias non-Abrahamic scholars!

    Does fear and evil really exist? Must they exist?

    Sorry Victoria for the length & breath of my comment. You knew I could not remain quiet on this. 😛

    Liked by 2 people

    • Professor, my apologies for taking so long to get back with you. I’m still getting settled from a major move this past month, and I’ve gotten myself spread thin. Thank you for taking the time to comment at length, and especially because I know how busy you are. The video was interesting. I think the “ego” is often misunderstood. The ego is, for the most part, our left hemisphere. That is the hemisphere that has the most dopamine receptors. One of the men in the video said that many (most) religions believe that the ego is the devil. I had a chuckle at that because when you start to peel the onion of an ego, it boils down to biology.

      When people say they use religion to tame their ego, again, I have to laugh because all they are doing is trading one method of getting hits of dopamine with another, only it tends to be more dangerous because now they are saying “God said so”. Neuropharmacological studies, using fMRI scans show dopaminergic activation is the leading neurochemical feature associated with religious activity. So that goes back to the other data I posted from Dr. Ian Robertson’s research about power and how it affects people’s brains, their neuropharmacology. I’m still digesting the rest of your thought-provoking comment.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oh my my! I get all tingly when you talk science and neurology to me!!! 😈 **fans self**

        Nothing but areements here on all your biological points Victoria. As someone who teaches science to 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th graders, nothing excites me more than to inspire them to examine, test, re-examine, re-test, repeat… the wonders of all atomic systems up through to the grandest macro-systems! Their facial expressions are PRICELESS when it astounds them and it clicks! Here in red-neck Texas, feelings of laboratory mischief creating little scientific minions (like in the film Dispicable Me) overcome me! I feel so…… well, a part of this planet & Universe/Multiverse and its never-ending trails and evidence of impermanence and evolution! Can you relate? 😀 **chuckles maniacally under breath**

        I’ve recently learned a new life principle during my engaging dialogues with antiquated world-views I’m constantly in contact with here… wanna here it?

        Well, I’m sharing it anyway! 😛

        Anytime a proselytite/evangelical begins abusing or hijacking the word “truth” to me, I will soon ask them politely to stop and replace that word with “information”. Then kindly explain that my/your God gifted me the intellect & wisdom to decide what is information and what is truth — thank you. Nine times out of ten that seems to dampen, even terminate the discussion rather quickly, unfortunately! 😦 😛

        Of course as you know, I am MORE THAN HAPPY to get into the long long examination of the very beginning of “Holy Scriptures” from Judaism, Judeo-Christian, Christian, or Islam…my bread-n-butter. Can imagine what sort of team you and I would make!? Oh my! Confession: you might have to throw me off of you when you start talking neuroscience and biology. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        • “Nine times out of ten that seems to dampen, even terminate the discussion rather quickly, unfortunately! “

          *Gasp* you should know better than to use the “information” methodology if you are not intending to kill a thread. 😀


          Liked by 1 person

          • LOL…so true Victoria. I try to keep things…less emotional(?), because if the heart-strings are being intentionally played, I start to get the feeling that I’m in a used-car lot being ‘pitched’ but they mysteriously won’t let me check under the hood, research the background, much less test-drive tha thing or take it to several reputable mechanics! 😮

            THEN if they do allow me the freedom to examine with a fine-tooth comb, they only want me to use Early Church Father resources from Emperor Constantine’s court!!! *scratches head* Things that make you go….


            Liked by 1 person

  10. As Jeff taught me, this pastor can be said to have the intelligence of 10 years of rotten wet cabbages.
    Those saying this pastor is misrepresenting the bybill have probably not read the book. In that good book, women are treated so lowly to the extent that most times they go nameless. Anyone tell me the name of Lot’s wife. Am patient, I will wait.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. I spent some of the day on ColorStorm’s blog, where a Christian woman, “Freedomborn” mentioned a Women’s Bible Study group. I innocently asked why a woman would need to study the Bible, when Paul clearly told women that if they had any questions, to ask their husbands. ColorStorm, of course, didn’t care for my comment, but admitted later that he wasn’t too sure about the Woman’s Bible Study group himself.

    This was the significant part of her response:
    “But I do like to confirm with Scripture God’s Truth when needed for others who may need assurence, so what does God think about us woman, He has used woman profoundly in History under His Authority to share His Truth to His people which Paul also acknowledges but a woman must not be in Authority over men in The Church and it has been found to also not be profitable in Secular and Government positions where Male Leadership is needed, woman are not created for the man’s role, we are Helpmates which we can see confirmed in Deborah’s life and in other Scriptures and also through the woman in the early Church who walked in obedience.

    What Male Chauvinists in the Church forget, is Paul sharing God’s Truth, tells men to Love us just like Jesus does the Church, sacrificing their own wants for our needs and putting us before themselves… Wow I’m so blessed to be a Woman, God cherishes us we are precious to Him.

    Blessings – Anne”


    Edited by Victoria NeuroNotes to add quotes and italicize. Note: Due to a glitch, blockquote no longer works on this template. If you want to cite a quote, use “cite” in brackets.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Good call on the repost. I loled at some of Seth’s commentary.

    Maybe it’s for the better that the bible is not totally clear and consistent, and that believers can contort and rationalize away certain aspects – in this case, anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Why didn’t blockquote indent it? If I’d known that, I would have set it off with quotation marks.


  14. Actually, this pastor’s advise to his congregation is very good. Any man warped enough to belong to his church should never marry a real woman. God obviously meant for his followers to have Stepford wives.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yep. Your comment reminded me of something archaeologist Roland de Vaux stated:

      “The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about… all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance… A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce… the wife called her husband Ba’al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king.

      The Decalogue includes a man’s wife among his possessions… all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession.”


  15. Sit down, and Shut up. Dear Sweet Veles, this is 2015, isn’t it? 😦

    Liked by 1 person

  16. I can’t eyeroll or headdesk enough for that list. I feel like one of those cartoon characters that got hit with an anvil and needs fo shake their head out so they can get back to normal. This type of thinking is all too familiar.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I quite agree. While the gender bias in religion is undeniable (and undeniably bad), the larger question, though, is where did our concept of a patriarchal society originate – since it’s been around longer than religion.

    Liked by 1 person

    • chicagoja, my comment below didn’t post to where it would notify you directly.


    • I would suspect that it originated with men going out to hunt while women stayed back, carrying for their children or being pregnant with them. This likely resulted in men evolving the greater upper-body strength needed for hurling spears or wielding clubs, while women had no such necessity. Due to this greater strength, it was a simple act to physically dominate women. I’m not saying it was the right thing to do, only that that’s likely how it came about. Men became the more powerful, and we all know what they say about power.


      • Yes, and if you read the link I posted you will see more clarification — but in hunter/gather societies, women also hunted. They hunted smaller animals where as men left to travel further away (for larger kills). From the research I’ve gathered, women were the primary bread winners in hunter/gather societies. The upper body strength that you mention was most likely due to male competition for mates.


        • if you read the link I posted” – I DID read what you said, but when I posted a comment with an arrow point UP to where I thought your post would be, it turned out that my comment came out ABOVE your comment, leaving mine pointing at nothing.


      • And more importantly, what SHE ^ said about power!


  18. Hi Chicagoja, welcome and thanks for your comment. Perhaps this might assist in answering your question.

    I am of the opinion that both Sociobiological explanations and social constructionist theories play a role and it is primarily based on environmental conditions. In his article, Peace Among Primates, Dr. Robert Sopolsky writes:

    “In less aggressive species, such as gibbons or marmosets, groups tend to live in lush rain forests where food is plentiful and life is easy. Females and males tend to be the same size, and the males lack secondary sexual markers such as long, sharp canines or garish coloring. Couples mate for life, and males help substantially with child care. In violent species, such as baboons and rhesus monkeys, the opposite conditions prevail.

    In other words, based on my own research, when resources are scarce, and/or there is a shortage of females, males have to compete for mates. These conditions cause an increase in testosterone, and this increase tends to cause men to become more dominant. Studies show that the higher the testosterone, the higher the neurotransmitter, dopamine. Dr. Ian Robertson wrote in his book “The Winner Effect: How Power Changes Your Brain”:

    “Power changes the brain triggering increased testosterone in both men and women. Testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol, are addictive, largely because they increase dopamine in a part of the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens.

    But too much power – and hence too much dopamine – can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others.”.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That’s certainly a textbook answer. i was thinking, though, where religion got its ideas from. Religious scriptures claim that they got their code of morality and their very way of life from God. Ancient texts state that kingship, itself, was handed down by the gods because they, themselves were patriarchal.


      • I would assume that religion got its ideas from its culture which is where social constructionist theories come in. Certainly, not all religions were patriarchal. I once watched an interview with Christopher Hitchens and he said that men created patriarchal religions so they could own women.


        • There’s no question that man’s desire to be dominant affected religion’s position on women and yes culture was the source. My question is where did the culture come from? It normally is determined by an authority figure of some kind who imposed their will on the rest (for better or worse). Thus my reference to ancient texts and the gods (e.g. the Viracocha and Quetzalcoatl) who brought man culture. That pattern has been repeated throughout history in any number of ethnic groups and is recorded in their “mythologies.”

          Liked by 1 person

            • I think, yes, the root cause of the reverence and acquiescence display is a matter of responding to greater strength, aggressiveness, and awareness of past pain inflicted for defiance.

              Shaking of limbs by the dominant male is a response to perceived threats (lightening/thunder), just as the male would respond to a perceived threat from another animal or rival male. Establishing dominance by aggression is simply a function of the genetically based survival imperative, developed and honed over the eons by natural selection (which likely you already know).

              Of course, for humans, the male’s aggressive response to “aggressive” weather, once human cognition developed sufficiently, translated easily into thinking that since the clouds often come in such a fury, there must be sky beings causing the lightening and thunder, and since they keep coming despite my defiance (and their angry flashes split trees asunder), I must submit to their dominance. Thus, we have fear and reverence for the “gods,” and fear of humans who remain defiant, especially by unbelief.

              Too, since aggressiveness and dominance is still present as genetically based impulses (no longer instinct), I can protect my possessions (including female) from those I can fight.

              Interesting stuff.


              • It is fear that first brought gods into the world.
                — Petronius —

                That fear first created the gods is perhaps as true as anything so brief could be on so great a subject.
                — George Santayana —

                (I was amused at Petronius’ remark regarding the death of a friend: “He has gone over to the majority.

                Liked by 1 person

  19. Victoria, while I can see there are advantages to staggered responses, it does make for a lot of confusion when the notification emails come in. And also, like Arch pointed out, sometimes the response doesn’t show up where it’s most reasonable.

    Of course, it’s your blog to do with as you see fit. I’m just throwing out something to think about.


  20. I guess there are advantages and disadvantages to both ways. The thing I notice is when a posting incurs a lot of comments, using the staggered responses gets really confusing when the notification emails come in (that I elected to receive). I never know what comment is being replied to. But like I said … it’s your blog. 🙂


    • “I never know what comment is being replied to”

      It shows it right above the reply via email or in the notification box. Otherwise, if you do it the generic way, you have to ask your posters to copy/paste what they are replying to before they return the reply. Is that clear as mud? 😀

      Sometimes I don’t have time to keep up with every comment being posted on an active thread, which is why I prefer nesting.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Why did sleepy Roughseas miss this? Ok, I was asleep. I laughed, I thought it was unbelievable. Obviously not. Anyway, my lucks in, no right on evangelical fundie will want to marry me. But, yes sir, no sir? Are they into BDSM?

    Liked by 1 person

  22. 10 out of 10. Man am I in for a life of loneliness !!! ( hehehe) Some kinds of submission can be fun. 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Oops, nearly duplicate comment – but still no answer.


  24. @Neuro – I believe you gave me this link – Critique of Lee Strobel’s The Case for the Real Jesus, from “Case Against Faith

    Did you note what he had to say in his “Conclusion” near the end, regarding psychologist, Dr. Robert Cialdini, and his book, “Influence“? Cialdini indicates that when people were faced with failed prophecies, they tend to dig in and hold to their beliefs even more strongly, due to how much of themselves/time/money, etc. that they’ve already invested in the belief.

    Liked by 3 people

  25. Found this, from the Washington Post, interesting: “A brief political history of religious exemptions.”

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Thought your Luther header quite something so went and dug around a bit.
    This was interesting ….

    Let me know what you think?


    • Ark, thanks for the link. I’ve been on that site before when looking to verify other quotes by Luther. The interpretation from the writer(s) apparently reflected the times and attitudes towards women. There weren’t many options for women back then. For the most part, women either got married or became prostitutes if they wanted to survive. The good ‘ole bible, NT, made sure of that when it (and the church) forbid divorced women to remarry.

      I’ve added a different quote (from John Knox) in the header — one that has been verified. If you want to get an eye-full read the link below. This attitude towards women was (and still is) prevalent no thanks to the Bible.

      “To promote a woman to bear rule, superiority, dominion, or empire above any realm, nation, or city, is repugnant to nature; contumely [an insult] to God, a thing most contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance; and finally, it is the subversion of good order, of all equity and justice.

      As I’m sure you are aware, Knox set the moral tone of the Church of Scotland and shaped the democratic form of government it adopted.

      Read more from Knox. It’s disgusting but pretty much represents the biblical teachings regarding women.

      >>The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women 1558 John Knox

      Thanks again for the link providing clarification of interpretation.


      • Please forgive – god forbid 😉 – I wasn’t questioning your judgment; far from it, I merely wanted to read the background. His entire discourse is still misogynistic.

        Based on the prevailing attitude and the reinforcement from the church women were still regarded as little more than chattel even if there was a bit more behind Luther’s quote; the implication is still there and such attitudes remain today in so many insidious ways.


    • …to tear the veil from the chastity which is of the devil – I can’t tell you how often I’ve said that chastity was diabolical. Chastity is and has always been, it’s own punishment.


  27. I probably did miss this. Maybe I was in Spain (no internet) but if I did comment I’m not wading through 241 to check it out. Do I need to say it is insulting, derisory, derogatory, sexist and misogynistic? If that’s not clear enough …

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yeah, you did pop in for a bit and comment on Jan 23. You wrote: “Why did sleepy Roughseas miss this? Ok, I was asleep. I laughed, I thought it was unbelievable. Obviously not. Anyway, my lucks in, no right on evangelical fundie will want to marry me. But, yes sir, no sir? Are they into BDSM?”

      With regard to it being insulting, derisory, derogatory, sexist and misogynistic, I will also add narcissistic, inhumane and unethical — but people like him have lost their humanity and lack empathy. They are so “heavenly” minded they are no earthly good.


      • You know, I saw it on Violet’s too about the submission thing. Christians seem to epitomise it. Yes sir, no sir. Weird. Each to their own in the bedroom, but total life submission? Um. Seriously, you can tell me what fix that gives though?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yes — the fix is lots of dopamine. In his book, “The Winner Effect: How Power Affects Your Brain”, Dr. Ian Robertson writes:

          “Testosterone and one of its by-products called 3-androstanediol, are addictive, largely because they increase dopamine in a part of the brain’s reward system called the nucleus accumbens. Cocaine has its effects through this system also, and by hijacking our brain’s reward system, it can give short-term extreme pleasure but leads to long-term addiction, with all that that entails.

          But too much power – and hence too much dopamine – can disrupt normal cognition and emotion, leading to gross errors of judgment and imperviousness to risk, not to mention huge egocentricity and lack of empathy for others.”

          These “godly” men are accountable only to their invisible alpha male fairy in the sky, and believing that they have power, the rule over their partner (Genesis 3:16) gets them high (“dope” short for dopamine) whether they are aware of it or not.

          Liked by 1 person

          • So what’s the fix for the sub?


            • From an article in the New York Times, titled The Housewives of God, Priscilla Shirer, who obeys and submits to her husband said this:

              “If I will follow him as he’s following the Lord, then the responsibility for navigating our family well falls on him, not me,”

              Rather disheartening isn’t it? I’d be embarrassed to admit that. When she was pregnant, she and her husband couldn’t agree on a name. Here’s what she wrote:

              ” Gratefully, I’m married to a husband that values my opinion and values my ideas. . . . We have lots of discussions, there are times of discontent.” She recalled their fierce debate over what to name their youngest son, Jude. When they couldn’t agree, Jerry [her husband] asked the advice of male mentors he calls his “accountability guys,” “strong Christian guys who I’ve put in my life.” (Promise Keepers and other “biblical manhood” ministries encourage men to form and submit to “accountability groups” to keep one another on a godly path.)

              When the men ruled in Jerry’s favor, Priscilla states:

              “It was a tough pill for me to swallow for a minute,” she said. “But when he told me why, and told me he’d talked to several different people about it that we both trust, then I was able to just relinquish and not be upset. . . . What made all the difference in the world is he cared about what I was feeling.”

              Can you believe this? She frickin’ gave birth to the kid and some guys in the cult called the Promise Keepers had more influence over this guy than his own lover and mother of their child? How insulting is that, and she says that her husband values her feelings and opinions?

              “Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt” ~Mark Twain

              Liked by 2 people

              • I knew you’d have the answer. But only sort of. Is the sub fix dope too?


                • Oh wait, curry, rice, submit, eat. Not necessarily in that order. Or maybe.


                • I’d have to say yes, based on some primatology research, but the fix is not as much as the alphas or fake alphas (men who expect their partners to obey and submit) get by having the rule over them. For example:

                  A study published in Current Biology describes how primates will “pay” — give up a cherry juice reward in order to view images of dominant specie members.
                  [ S.V Shepherd, R.O. Deaner and M.L. Platt, 2006, Social Status Gates Social Attention in Monkeys, Current Biology 16(4):119-20.]


                • Kate, I’ll also add that women who submit like this think they are honoring their god, and by honoring their god they think they are being acknowledge by this god for being obedient to “his” word (the Bible), therefore the illusion of acknowledgment from this so called higher power, and the promise of eternal life is rewarding. However, there are so many negative psychological and societal side-effects to this belief of women’s subjugation that the cons far outweigh the pros.


Share your thoughts

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