Take that Divorce! Or, my kids better not EVER divorce!

[emmiedahl]

So it still comes back to the Bible not saying that a woman can leave and divorce an abusive man unless the man lets her, which most abusive men won't.

Right, basically. Women are not automatically granted the right to a divorce unless it is put in their marriage contract (and, I assume, in modern times it always is included). Part of the contract is the amount a man must pay if he divorces his wife. I think he traditionally had to return any dowry or property she brought into the marriage as well. So it was advantageous, and common, for a man in Jesus's times to simply put the wife out, to kick her out without an official divorce, and illegally marry another woman. My understanding is that Jesus chose the words carefully and was referring to this practice rather than a divorce.

It's an interesting hermeneutical thing to me because the New Testament is used as a weapon against women, especially this verse. Even if you are a Bible literalist, some of these Biblical justifications for mistreating women are based on poor translations. I think this might be one of those places where the misogyny comes from a lack of academic knowledge about the time, the culture and the language.

Not that the Bible does not justify plenty of violence and misogyny. I spent the last half hour looking for a photo I saw a while back with a Bible with tabs marking misogyny, violence, etc to illustrate my point. There were so many tabs it was ridiculous, but now the pic is hiding on teh interwebz.

[formergothardite]

Right, basically. Women are not automatically granted the right to a divorce unless it is put in their marriage contract (and, I assume, in modern times it always is included). Part of the contract is the amount a man must pay if he divorces his wife. I think he traditionally had to return any dowry or property she brought into the marriage as well. So it was advantageous, and common, for a man in Jesus's times to simply put the wife out, to kick her out without an official divorce, and illegally marry another woman. My understanding is that Jesus chose the words carefully and was referring to this practice rather than a divorce.

It's an interesting hermeneutical thing to me because the New Testament is used as a weapon against women, especially this verse. Even if you are a Bible literalist, some of these Biblical justifications for mistreating women are based on poor translations. I think this might be one of those places where the misogyny comes from a lack of academic knowledge about the time, the culture and the language.

Not that the Bible does not justify plenty of violence and misogyny. I spent the last half hour looking for a photo I saw a while back with a Bible with tabs marking misogyny, violence, etc to illustrate my point. There were so many tabs it was ridiculous, but now the pic is hiding on teh interwebz.

But if a person is going to claim that they are going to follow the Bible completely (like most fundies) then they are correct when saying the Bible doesn't say a woman can divorce a husband over abuse. So the blogger in question is actually just agreeing with the Bible even if it is a horrible thing to do.

[emmiedahl]

Kind of. Most likely. You are allowed to ask for a divorce if your marriage contract specifically says it, and that clause is commonplace now. I suspect it was not so common then. However, by accepting a secular marriage you are basically agreeing to a ketubah that includes a wife's right to divorce. That's what I would think at least. But it sounds like Paul put a stricter rule down for divorce, and you know how they love their Paul...

[Boogalou]

Not that the Bible does not justify plenty of violence and misogyny. I spent the last half hour looking for a photo I saw a while back with a Bible with tabs marking misogyny, violence, etc to illustrate my point. There were so many tabs it was ridiculous, but now the pic is hiding on teh interwebz.

Was it this picture?

[emmiedahl]

That's it! Thanks for digging it up!

[wtfrenchtoast]

I'm inclined to agree with currywurst here, actually. If you're the type of Christian to believe that the Bible is the divine word of God, you would be a hypocrite if you got divorced for any of the reasons not laid out in the Bible. It's like Newt Gingrich, claiming to be a Catholic, yet having 4 wives. He would actively try to legislate his religious views on marriage, but he can't even follow them himself. I think that if you're going to claim the Bible as God's word, you should follow all of it. I don't think ANYONE does that, so those that don't, are hypocrites in my opinion. It's fine if you want to use the Bible as a set of guidelines, but the majority of fundies don't say that. They believe so strongly that it is divinely inspired that they want legislation to enforce Biblical principles. Well if you're going to do that, I say take it all, not just the parts that you happen to agree with.

However, if you're more of a liberal Christian who just tries to be a good person and believes that Jesus is the savior, and anything else is open to question, more power to you. I personally don't understand that, because if I were a Christian, I would be inclined to follow the Bible to the letter. I'm just literal like that. But as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs, I don't care what they are.

[currywurst]

I don't know, something seems off.

currywurst, if you aren't trolling then your problem seems to be that you think there's one true way that all Christians should be following the Bible. There is no consensus about that. There are loads of interpretations of the same verses. You seem to want everyone to agree on one right way but that will never happen. You're also super concerned with liberal Christians picking and choosing what they believe. As long as people don't want to inflict their beliefs on others I don't understand what the big deal is there. That's the difference between your run of the mill religious person and a fundie. Run of the mill person minds their own business, fundies want everyone to do it their way. One of those people affects me, and one doesn't. If it doesn't affect me, it's none of my business.

Well, I guess this is my issue, my problem, whatever you want to call it. These people DO want to inflict their beliefs on me. I did a rather cursory reading of the Bible years ago. I did that reading as an atheist not brought up in any religion. My own reading of that book lead me to totally different conclusions that I see with the average Christian. For example, using Bible quotes to justify your exit from a weight loss televised game show struck me as being totally sacrilegious. I was hoping that my post would inspire some thought and dialogue. Apparently, I was wrong.

I admit I was totally wrong about vows and what, based upon my interpretation of the bible, I had thought them to be. I though vows were something holy and sacred, and thus something that was unbreakable without offending God (according to Christian belief). Well, I stand corrected. A poster here correctly informed me that vows were just like any other agreement and could be broken at any time. I did not know that and to be honest, that explanation surprised me enough to ask the question, "why make vows then if they have no consequence?" I thought that was a reasonable question. I thought that question deserved a reasonable debate. That is not trolling. That is, IMO, a perfectly legitimate question to ask. And it is also a perfectly legitimate question to debate and argue about. I personally see absolutely nothing inherently wrong with an argument. People discussing their disagreements is, IMO, a potentially positive thing. it is one of the best ways to go into critical thinking mode. Reading the answers to many of my questions has given me something to ponder for the past days. I hope that some of my questions have done the same. I am not going to shut down people asking questions just because someone has called me a "troll." I think asking these questions is critical to being an educated, contributing member of society.

So when I point out that Mark quoting the Bible to get out of being on a TV show is sacrilegious, well, that is the way I (currently) see it. From what I have read of Christ's teachings, something like that would be totally not within the scope of a Godly, Christian life. I could be wrong about this. That's fine. I am only going by the way I personally understand Christianity. I got a lot of insight these past few days into the way others understand Christianity. I thought it was incredibly interesting and informative.

BTW, I never, ever, ever apologize for "offending" or "upsetting" another person, so I shan't be doing that here. I hope, however, that my explanation has perhaps changed your perception of me a bit.

[currywurst]

The Bible isn't subject to change, due to cultural norms necessarily. However, Christians are no longer bound to Old Testament laws, due to the New Covenant made with Christ. Due to the sacrifice of Christ, we no longer need to make our own sacrifices of animals, keep the old laws or anything like that.

Well, then, as someone else pointed out, why would the Bible always contain both the old and the new testament? If the Old Testament is irrelevant, then why would it be part of the book that Christians read from?

And, I suppose I will never stop typing this: This is a serious question that warrants serious discussion. I know many would rather not think about this and blow me off as a "troll," but for everyone else, I am interested to hear the justification. It makes absolutely no sense to me, thus I must ask those who were raised in this religion, or who at least understand it.

Oh, here is something I did not think of before, but just now occurred to me: is the Old Testament included as sort of a comparative thing? Like this is how it used to be, and here is how it now is? Is that why the two are bound together (for Christians)?

[Guest Anonymous]

BTW, I never, ever, ever apologize for "offending" or "upsetting" another person, so I shan't be doing that here. I hope, however, that my explanation has perhaps changed your perception of me a bit.

Then you're probably a shitty excuse for a human. That's fucked up.

Personally I don't care in this case because you neither offended me nor upset me, but if that's some kind of personal philosophy of yours to never apologize for hurting people then I imagine you're so far up your own arsehole that I don't know how you can see to type. I won't apologize unless I think I'm wrong, but everyone messes up and to say that you never apologize no matter what makes you look like a miserable bastard.

[currywurst]

I think that if you're going to claim the Bible as God's word, you should follow all of it.

Well, that is what I have been trying to get at. Regular Christians rip on fundies, but are not most fundies sincerely trying to actually follow God's word? That is where my (honest) confusion set in. I learned from this board, though, that following God's word is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. In fact, in theory, so long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you do not even have to know the Bible exists.

So far no one has come forward to explain to me what accepting "Jesus as your savior" actually means, but, based upon the responses I have gotten, I am going to have to conclude that it means nothing more than saying that either in your own head or out loud in front of others. As far as I can tell, nothing tangible attaches to it. And, for the 100th time, I am not trolling. I would honestly love to know what "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior" truly means. I have heard this many times in my life and I never understood what it meant. Although many asked this of me, not one single person ever bothered to explain to me what it entailed. Well, I like explanations and meanings. I have always been that way, unfortunately.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, that is what I have been trying to get at. Regular Christians rip on fundies, but are not most fundies sincerely trying to actually follow God's word? That is where my (honest) confusion set in. I learned from this board, though, that following God's word is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. In fact, in theory, so long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you do not even have to know the Bible exists.

So far no one has come forward to explain to me what accepting "Jesus as your savior" actually means, but, based upon the responses I have gotten, I am going to have to conclude that it means nothing more than saying that either in your own head or out loud in front of others. As far as I can tell, nothing tangible attaches to it. And, for the 100th time, I am not trolling. I would honestly love to know what "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior" truly means. I have heard this many times in my life and I never understood what it meant. Although many asked this of me, not one single person ever bothered to explain to me what it entailed. Well, I like explanations and meanings. I have always been that way, unfortunately.

If you actually care about knowing this stuff, I have a very hard time believing that you're so oblivious to it. Take five seconds to google "What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?" and I guarantee you will find out what a lot of people think that means. If you want a definitive, absolute answer on what it means to all Christians, you are out of luck because there is no consensus. Ask three people, get three different answers.

[currywurst]

currywurst wrote:

BTW, I never, ever, ever apologize for "offending" or "upsetting" another person, so I shan't be doing that here. I hope, however, that my explanation has perhaps changed your perception of me a bit.

Then you're probably a shitty excuse for a human. That's fucked up.

Personally I don't care in this case because you neither offended me nor upset me, but if that's some kind of personal philosophy of yours to never apologize for hurting people then I imagine you're so far up your own arsehole that I don't know how you can see to type. I won't apologize unless I think I'm wrong, but everyone messes up and to say that you never apologize no matter what makes you look like a miserable bastard.

Well now why is that fucked up? To me an apology should mean that you are sincerely sorry for the thing you actually said or did. Saying I am sorry that the thing I said or did made you react badly is not an apology. In fact, it only furthers the insult. Thus, I will never say it. When you say something like that, you are being rude twice. I willingly will make an apology for the thing I actually said or did. For example "It was rude and inappropriate of me to say you looked ugly in that dress." But I would never, ever, EVER be so rude as to say "I am sorry you were offended when I said you looked ugly in that dress." That is being rude twice over.

[desertvixen]

currywurst, if you aren't trolling then your problem seems to be that you think there's one true way that all Christians should be following the Bible. There is no consensus about that. There are loads of interpretations of the same verses.

I think this is pretty spot-on. Christianity isn't some monolithic thing - there are a ton of divisions, and not even everyone within those divisions believes the same thing.

You seem to want everyone to agree on one right way but that will never happen. You're also super concerned with liberal Christians picking and choosing what they believe. As long as people don't want to inflict their beliefs on others I don't understand what the big deal is there. That's the difference between your run of the mill religious person and a fundie. Run of the mill person minds their own business, fundies want everyone to do it their way. One of those people affects me, and one doesn't. If it doesn't affect me, it's none of my business.

This, except I do think there is a reason to worry about the more hard-core fundie-ish teachings trickling down into mainstream Christianity.

[currywurst]

If you actually care about knowing this stuff, I have a very hard time believing that you're so oblivious to it. Take five seconds to google "What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ as your savior?" and I guarantee you will find out what a lot of people think that means. If you want a definitive, absolute answer on what it means to all Christians, you are out of luck because there is no consensus. Ask three people, get three different answers.

Okay, that's fine. My question is still, "is that a religion?"

[fluttershies]

Well, that is what I have been trying to get at. Regular Christians rip on fundies, but are not most fundies sincerely trying to actually follow God's word? That is where my (honest) confusion set in. I learned from this board, though, that following God's word is not a prerequisite to being a Christian. In fact, in theory, so long as you accept Jesus as your savior, you do not even have to know the Bible exists.

So far no one has come forward to explain to me what accepting "Jesus as your savior" actually means, but, based upon the responses I have gotten, I am going to have to conclude that it means nothing more than saying that either in your own head or out loud in front of others. As far as I can tell, nothing tangible attaches to it. And, for the 100th time, I am not trolling. I would honestly love to know what "accepting Jesus Christ as your savior" truly means. I have heard this many times in my life and I never understood what it meant. Although many asked this of me, not one single person ever bothered to explain to me what it entailed. Well, I like explanations and meanings. I have always been that way, unfortunately.

Believing in Jesus as your saviour means believing that by His death He took the punishment for humanity's sins, and therefore allowed people to have a relationship with God, and that because he was raised from the dead believers in Him will be too, and will have eternal life.

Also, you talk about Christians affecting you by going on about the sanctity of marriage and stopping gay marriage, but liberal Christians who do not care about those things don't affect you. Why complain about Christians not taking the Bible literally when that means they don't cause you any problems?

[Guest Anonymous]

Well now why is that fucked up? To me an apology should mean that you are sincerely sorry for the thing you actually said or did. Saying I am sorry that the thing I said or did made you react badly is not an apology. In fact, it only furthers the insult. Thus, I will never say it. When you say something like that, you are being rude twice. I willingly will make an apology for the thing I actually said or did. For example "It was rude and inappropriate of me to say you looked ugly in that dress." But I would never, ever, EVER be so rude as to say "I am sorry you were offended when I said you looked ugly in that dress." That is being rude twice over.

Oh goodie. Semantics and more pedantic condescension from you, fun!

Fine. "I'm sorry you were offended" is absolutely a fauxpology and most people realize it's bullshit. But your original post was extremely unclear if that's what you meant, because it came across like you never apologize at all. It's not uncommon to see someone howling about how they're not "PC" and they never apologize for "offending" people and that's the way I read your statement.

[kpmom]

Okay, that's fine. My question is still, "is that a religion?"

I would say Christianity is a faith rather than a religion. A religion is the various denominations within Christianity. And because of so many denominations, you'll get different answers. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

[Guest Anonymous]

I think this is pretty spot-on. Christianity isn't some monolithic thing - there are a ton of divisions, and not even everyone within those divisions believes the same thing.

This, except I do think there is a reason to worry about the more hard-core fundie-ish teachings trickling down into mainstream Christianity.

I completely agree with that, desertvixen. I think there is a slide towards fundamentalism going on in a lot of formerly mainstream churches and it concerns me as well.

[Renting with Raggles]

However, if you're more of a liberal Christian who just tries to be a good person and believes that Jesus is the savior, and anything else is open to question, more power to you. I personally don't understand that, because if I were a Christian, I would be inclined to follow the Bible to the letter. I'm just literal like that. But as long as you're not trying to legislate your beliefs, I don't care what they are.

I don't think liberal Christians can follow the Bible literally. As an atheist, the thing that seems to distinguish the liberal from the fundamentalist (especially those in the intellectual and leadership sets) is the understanding and acceptance of the history and evolution of the faith. A great deal of Christian doctrine was made up for the Emperor Constantine to have a tailor-made faith that could be established as the state religion as he salvaged the Eastern half of the Roman Empire as his personal kingdom. Lots of Roman Catholic ideas are later innovations created to deal with the problems of trying to tame and integrate barbarian invaders into the culture of Western Europe. People who know that the most significant aspects of their faith (the nature of God, Jesus, definitions of the Trinity, etc) were executive decisions taken by political and religious leaders 400 - 500 years after Christ (Council of Nicea, Chalcedon, etc) really do have to accept that their holy book is just a 'broad set of guidelines'.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have this really weird, ahistorical outlook that prevents them from engaging with information in the same way - so you get an odd combo of Biblical literalism mixed with anachronisms and non-facts "the Bible says America is a Christian nation, and all the early Christian were good Calvinists whose SAHD made them TTC while denouncing Charles Darwin". This is what I really don't understand. Do the 'intellectuals' like Dougie actually believe this BS, or is it just a means of keeping the Duggaresque masses in check?

[currywurst]

Oh goodie. Semantics and more pedantic condescension from you, fun!

Fine. "I'm sorry you were offended" is absolutely a fauxpology and most people realize it's bullshit. But your original post was extremely unclear if that's what you meant, because it came across like you never apologize at all. It's not uncommon to see someone howling about how they're not "PC" and they never apologize for "offending" people and that's the way I read your statement.

I guess I see it as being something more than just a matter of semantics. I see it is being doubly rude. If I was sincerely sorry, then I would always apologize to that person. That is just part of being a decent human.

But, as I said, I would never "apologize" for offending someone, as that is like sticking a middle finger in someone's face a second time. I see these "apologies" all the time these days and it always makes me wince.

[currywurst]

I would say Christianity is a faith rather than a religion. A religion is the various denominations within Christianity. And because of so many denominations, you'll get different answers. I'm not sure why that's so difficult to understand.

Well, I have always heard Christianity described as being a religion. If you're saying that it is not a religion, but rather a faith, then that's cool. I can accept that. In what ways is a religion different from a faith? I guess I have always heard them used interchangeably. I suppose that is why, for me at least, it is difficult to understand. Obviously it is not difficult for you to understand, so would you mind explaining it?

And, once more, disclaimer: I am seriously asking this. I was not raised in any faith or religion and so I really honestly do not understand the difference between the two.

[desertvixen]

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, have this really weird, ahistorical outlook that prevents them from engaging with information in the same way - so you get an odd combo of Biblical literalism mixed with anachronisms and non-facts "the Bible says America is a Christian nation, and all the early Christian were good Calvinists whose SAHD made them TTC while denouncing Charles Darwin". This is what I really don't understand. Do the 'intellectuals' like Dougie actually believe this BS, or is it just a means of keeping the Duggaresque masses in check?

Funny but accurate...

[kpmom]

Well, I have always heard Christianity described as being a religion. If you're saying that it is not a religion, but rather a faith, then that's cool. I can accept that. In what ways is a religion different from a faith? I guess I have always heard them used interchangeably. I suppose that is why, for me at least, it is difficult to understand. Obviously it is not difficult for you to understand, so would you mind explaining it?

And, once more, disclaimer: I am seriously asking this. I was not raised in any faith or religion and so I really honestly do not understand the difference between the two.

This is strictly my understanding and opinion; If you're of the Christan faith you're a follower of Jesus Christ. But within the Christian faith there are many differing religions and beliefs. An Episcopalian (for example) and a Southern Baptist might both call themselves Christians, but how they express their faith, and what beliefs they follow, are very, very, very far apart.

[currywurst]

I completely agree with that, desertvixen. I think there is a slide towards fundamentalism going on in a lot of formerly mainstream churches and it concerns me as well.

It concerns me enough that I would like to understand the belief system. I know a lot people here are rolling their eyes at me right now, but I think I am asking perfectly legitimate questions. I really want to understand what exactly this "religion" is (in quotes because someone just wrote it is not a religion, but a "faith") and what its tenants are. I constantly see politicians talking about God and Christianity and whatnot. Is it really too much to ask that this be explained to us?

Someone brought up Newt Gingrich, and I think that person made an excellent point. Apparently lots of Christians take this guy on face value as a real Christian. Okay...fine. From a bald reading of the Bible, I cannot fathom how anyone could. He strikes me as a consummate "unbeliever." This is where I have a lot of sincere questions about Christianity. I thought I understood it, but apparently I don't. I learned from this board that being a good Christian has nothing to do with following the rules of the Bible or breaking vows, or anything like that (I always thought it did). You only have to believe Jesus is your savior and that is that. Then I learned that Christianity is not even a religion at all, but merely a faith. Now I still am not 100% sure what any of this actually means. You can all call me a troll all you want, but I really want answers to my questions. We have millions of people who want to run our country and rule our lives based upon the tenants of Christianity.

Is it really too much for me to ask for an explanation as to what this actually means?

[Guest Anonymous]

It concerns me enough that I would like to understand the belief system. I know a lot people here are rolling their eyes at me right now, but I think I am asking perfectly legitimate questions. I really want to understand what exactly this "religion" is (in quotes because someone just wrote it is not a religion, but a "faith") and what its tenants are. I constantly see politicians talking about God and Christianity and whatnot. Is it really too much to ask that this be explained to us?

Someone brought up Newt Gingrich, and I think that person made an excellent point. Apparently lots of Christians take this guy on face value as a real Christian. Okay...fine. From a bald reading of the Bible, I cannot fathom how anyone could. He strikes me as a consummate "unbeliever." This is where I have a lot of sincere questions about Christianity. I thought I understood it, but apparently I don't. I learned from this board that being a good Christian has nothing to do with following the rules of the Bible or breaking vows, or anything like that (I always thought it did). You only have to believe Jesus is your savior and that is that. Then I learned that Christianity is not even a religion at all, but merely a faith. Now I still am not 100% sure what any of this actually means. You can all call me a troll all you want, but I really want answers to my questions. We have millions of people who want to run our country and rule our lives based upon the tenants of Christianity.

Is it really too much for me to ask for an explanation as to what this actually means?

Yes. Because it means something different to every person that you ask. FFS, there is no consensus. There is no consensus!

If you want to know what religion and Christianity mean to a particular person you can ask them. If you want to know how different fundies interpret Christianity there are a slew of blogs listed in the sticky post at the top of the forum. Get to reading. But even within fundiedom - there is still no consensus.