http://www2.albertacourts.ab.ca/Home/JudgmentsfromAllCourts/tabid/72/ctl/searchJudgmentsResult/mid/662/Default.aspx

very consistent with his current blog… http://starbirdcanada.wordpress.com

He certainly is a model citizen for protection of women and children!!!

“As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.”

That is the problem when dealing with such an emotional issue, and Paul’s teaching tend to be a lightning rod for people on both sides.

You are correct in stating that I was not labeling BPL as anti-woman.

I think an example of this kind of interpreting scriptures in different ways is perfectly illustrated by the number of denominations present within Christianity. It’s not just a matter of Catholic/Protestant, but each division breaks down even further. For example, there are dozens of Baptist denominations, that may all believe basically the same thing, but have a different view on one passage that causes them to split from other Baptists.

(Apologies to BA – this was not meant to be a scriptural debate.)

“I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian.”

I’m always amused when Christians assume I must be anti-Christian because I no longer follow…

Pot calling kettle black?

“Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.”

Correct, and my point exactly. Paul does state that there is neither Greek, nor Jew, now male nor female. In fact, one could argue that Paul ELEVATED the status of women. BUT, it is the individuals that have taken Paul’s words and twisted them. My point about Paul taking a stand merely means if he had come out and clearly condemned slavery, clearly condemned the abuse of women, there would have been no gray areas that would leave his teachings open to abuse.

When I ministered in the church, I spent a great deal of time covering Paul’s teachings on women in the church, and how one needs to interpret the Bible, not only based on what is being said, but also through the cultural lens of the writer.

BPL said
“Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.”

That is a very sad story, and you did exactly what I would have done. Sadly, in the ultra conservative denomination I was part of, many pastors would have told that woman to “buck it up” and stand by her man. Thankfully, as younger leaders are taking over, that attitude is passing away. I’ve never sat across from someone that has responded in that way, but I have counseled battered wives with children. I think you gave her some wise words. In that situation one has to throw themselves at the mercy of the legal system.

“Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.”

Not true. I have studied Paul’s life extensively, and, I do understand that his teachings have been misinterpreted by both sides. Even if one does not agree with his message, one has to admire the fact that he, almost single-handedly spread Christianity throughout much of the Roman world, against incredible hardships.

As far as me misunderstanding you, BPL, that goes both ways.

Hopefully this response will clear up some of that.

“Iâ??m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because Iâ??m a Christian.”

Where does Michael accuse YOU of being anti-woman? I must’ve missed that part. But thanks for stating it as fact and then espousing upon it.

Right or wrong, (and I’m not saying I support his claim or not), Michael’s point is that the idea of the “submissive woman” seems to be a common theme within Christianity. Wasn’t that the reason the story of Lilith, who preceded Eve in original biblical texts, was thrown out? Because she was created from the same earth as Adam, and not created from Adam and therefor an equal? Lilith refused to be seen as less than ean equal, uttered the true name of God and ascended to the heavens. God sent arch-angels to retrieve her, she refused, and thus God created Eve from Adam’s rib… making her a creation from man and therefor subservient. Or do I not have this story correct?

Either way, Barton, your work with NOW is really good to hear and is to be commended. I applaud that… But please don’t accuse Michael of accusing you of being anti-woman, when his statement was clearly meant as a generalization, IMHO.

As far as Paul is concerned… I’m afraid that you are both right in each instance where you quote his writings. And that’s the problem. Many of Paul’s writings, from my view anyhow, seem contradictory. For every quote you present, Michael, I’ll be willing to bet an opposing quote can be found, and either of you can twist it to support your conclusion. Bblical quotes are so often so damn cryptic that you have no choice but to try and interpret them, and will do so based on pre-defined leanings.

Barton gives an excellent example of this when he quotes Paul:

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

OK… well, to ME, this is in NO way a condemnation of slavery or bigotry. I could easily interpret that as “yes, you may be a slave… and yes, you may be a woman, but we all are children of the Lord”. Now how is that in any way a statement against slavery? It isn’t. And I think Michaels point is that a person of Paul’s influence could have easily come out with far stronger positions against slavery and proper treatment of women. Regardless of the era, wrong is wrong, and if it’s wrong in the eyes of the Lord today, as I’m sure you would state slavery and abuse are, then was it not wrong in the eyes of the Lord then? So why not speak out against it, and in no uncertain terms? Not vaguely to be left to interpretation. Maybe I’m speaking incorrectly for Michael here, but I think that was his point… it wasn’t to label you as “anti-woman”, and claiming that he did so I think is unnecessarily inflammatory.

[[If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?]]

“There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Galatians 3:28.

[[Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”. ]]

I’m always amused when Christian-haters assume I must be anti-woman because I’m a Christian. My mother, of course, is Beverly Levenson Darwin, who founded Squirrel Hill NOW in Pittsburgh (you know, the one Ellie Smeal joined) and Metrolina NOW in Charlotte. Betty Friedan stayed at our house when she came to Charlotte to debate Phyllis Schlaffly. I myself was a lobbyist for NOW and pushed the ERA extension (unsuccessfully) to congressmen and senators from North Carolina. (We skipped Jesse Helms’s office.)

Yes, Paul does say wives should submit to their husbands. He also says husbands should love their wives as Christ loves the church — sacrificially. To say Paul somehow justifies wife-beaters is just stupid.

Yes, I’ve known abused wives and children. My church operates a shelter for them. I had a nice conversation with one I was counseling about when killing is justified. She had killed her abusive husband and was, understandably, upset about it. I told her that whatever the apparent ethical quality of the killing was, the situation surrounding the incident was such that it was psychologically impossible for her to have done anything else. I think it helped.

Your view of Paul is as shallow and uninformed as your view of me. In either case, you could learn a lot just by asking some intelligent questions and doing some research. But you prefer to make dramatic points without doing any checking.

[[I was responding to your statement concerning a life of slavery being no picnic in his day, and making the point that the Bible seemingly gives it a seal of approval.]]

I know. And I was pointing out that the Bible actually does no such thing, and that those who think it does are reading it superficially.

“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

Maybe if Paul had spent as much time speaking against the injustices of slavery in his day, as he did against homosexuality in Romans and Corinthians, the slave trade could have been stopped far sooner, sparing the lives of untold millions of men, women and children.

I guess since Paul wasn’t a slave, but a very privileged Roman citizen, he didn’t really feel the need to speak out against it. Funny, how he had no problem telling women to shut their mouths in church? How they should obey and be submitted to their husbands? I know there is another part to that, I did teach this at one time, but conveniently, most “God fearing” *cough**choke* men tend to forget about that part. If Paul had actually taught that women are on an equal footing with men, I wonder how many Christian women would have been spared hellish abuse at the hands of men empowered by the rhetoric spewed from across their pulpits on Sunday morning?

Have you actually sat across from abused women as I have? Have you witnessed first hand, the damage that Paul’s teaching has brought on women that have been beaten into submission by their husbands, who claim to be so Godly? Maybe when you have, you will come back with a very different view of the “Great Apostle”.

I find it interesting that many who post here have studied the Bible, and come to the same conclusions about it that I have. Maybe you actually need to hear what those people are saying, but not only WHAT, but WHY they are saying it.

Probably as much as or more than you have through the church I had attended at one time. I have donated thousands to anti-poverty campaigns helping entrepreneurs in Third World countries be able to expand their small businesses and create jobs. I also have been involved in the Fair Trade Movement, supporting businesses and buying Fair Trade products. While the things I involve myself in, such as providing micro loans for those entrepreneurs may not be part of the organization that you mention, it certainly helps to alleviate slave labor, child labor and the curse of extreme poverty.

I can give you info on Fair Trade, ONE campaign, KIVA, DATA and other organizations I have supported?

(Don’t assume that you are the only one that “puts” his money where his mouth is. While I may not attend a church anymore, I try to make sure a certain percentage of my income goes to worthwhile projects.)

Oh, and before I forget, most every Saturday I, along with another friend could be found walking the seediest street in Edmonton, (118th Ave.) passing out sandwiches and buying coffee for the homeless in -25 Celsius temperatures, when I lived there. Now, you were saying?

(Sorry folks, that was not meant to be a rant about all the good I have done, as I am sure many of us have done more, but I get tired of BPL making unfounded accusations and assumptions, and the fact that he fails to actually READ previous entries.)

Again, you have failed to actually read all of my previous posts, because if you had done, you would have seen that I already addressed the biblical slavery issue in either this thread or a previous one. You are correct in stating that Paul did not address the issue of slavery because it was a part of his society, as was the denigration of women. I was responding to your statement concerning a life of slavery being no picnic in his day, and making the point that the Bible seemingly gives it a seal of approval.

You also fail to have read my post where I stated very clearly that it was the Evangelical Christian church that was a part of the Anti-slavery movement. How nice that one can pick and choose what one wants and present it as a twisting of what another individual has said.

Well, that comes as no surprise, really. A good many Christians (and atheists) are good at taking important statements (like Scripture verses), and twisting them to say what they want them to.

BPL, if you are not going to bother to actually read what myself, and other individuals write, do us all a favor, and keep your narrow opinions to yourself. I for one get tired of having to re-state what I have already written.

[[I guess that’s why St. Paul supported slavery then. “Slaves obey your masters…”]]

You haven’t read the letter to Philemon, have you?

St. Paul never questioned slavery as an institution. The idea that you might have a society without slavery never occurred to him. That doesn’t mean he “supported slavery.” He was giving practical advice to people when he told slaves to obey their masters. What was he going to say — “Disobery your masters! Be like Spartacus!” (And maybe share Spartacus’s fate.)

When the time came for him to put his money where his mouth was — Onesimus and Philemon — he arranged for the slave to be freed. What have you done about slavery, Michael?

I can give you the contact information for Antislavery International again, if you’ve lost it.

The PM is an Evangelical Christian, but tends not to wear it on his sleeve, at least at this point. Now, if the Conservatives ever got a Majority, that MAY change.

Ok, understood… however, you didn’t include that part of BA’s quote in your initial post, and you still make your argument as if the statement were presented as fact. The very inclusion of the inquisitive “if” should confer to you that there is a question… He didn’t choose to follow it up by sayin “I believe that it has already happened”. He posed the question… IF. Perhaps you infer from that that he is insinuating it is fact. I choose to let the comment stand on its own.

As I said, my response to his inquiry to “if” would be no… I don’t think we are at that point, and don’t believe we are on the precipice… at least not yet. But that doesn’t mean I can’t see where the argument comes from, or that I don’t agree with the need for vigilance, lest we do end up in that position.

The quote of belief on his part was:

This weekend is the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasnâ??t already. — Emphasis mine.

It is this last part that I find most troubling of them all. He is suggesting that this nation is on some road to rule by religious leaders in the name of a god, if we have not reached this point already.

Well I must admit I am not an absolute expert on U.S. government, but last time I checked we have no religious leaders who rule over us as part of the government. This nation cannot even claim a state religion let alone all the trapping of theocracy. So I argue the idea of America heading towards or may be a theocracy isentirely without merit.

This country may be a religious one culturally and socially, and religious institutions and denominations have influence on government because of the number of members and supporters they have, but that has nothing to do with theocracy, but how in democracy, those with the most supporters tend to have the most influence. We do not have a supreme religious leader or authority and our laws are not based on any holy texts or writ. We may have religious men and women in office, but the offices themselves are entirely secular and there has been no move within the government to make them otherwise. So yes, I do scoff at his statement because the bathwater has no baby in it.

The quote of belief on his part was:

This weekend is the Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, where bloggers around the world (or at least the US) write about how this country is turning into, well, a theocracy. If it hasnâ??t already. — Emphasis mine.

It is this last part that I find most troubling of them all. He is suggesting that this nation is on some road to rule by religious leaders in the name of a god, if we have not reached this point already.

Well I must admit I am not an absolute expert on U.S. government, but last time I checked we have no religious leaders who rule over us as part of the government. This nation cannot even claim a state religion let alone all the trapping of theocracy. So I argue the idea of America heading towards or may be a theocracy isentirely without merit.

This country may be a religious one culturally and socially, and religious institutions and denominations have influence on government because of the number of members and supporters they have, but that has nothing to do with theocracy, but how in democracy, those with the most supporters tend to have the most influence. We do not have a supreme religious leader or authority and our laws are not based on any holy texts or writ. We may have religious men and women in office, but the offices themselves are entirely secular and there has been no move within the government to make them otherwise. So yes, I do scoff at his statement because the bathwater has no baby in it.

However, important to that point is the persistent vigilance of those who would bring things to light to make sure that a theocracy is not put in place under our noses without us as a society even realizing it. And that’s the danger of allowing laws to be passed that begin to chip away at the principles of a secular government… it doesn’t take long to do the damage… but it could take generations to undo it.

That’s why at the very least the discussion has merit, and the topic deserves attention.

“Honestly man, your so intelligent and talk about skepticism and then do some fear-mongering nonsense like this. Honestly, we are in a theocracy? Do you know the definition of a theocracy?”

First… take a breath. Second, do you understand the difference between the statement “We ARE in a theocracy” and the phrase “this country is turning INTO a theocracy”? You even quoted the line yourself! One implies that we are there already (what YOU said). The other argues that we are headed that way (what was actually said). Now, you can argue that point, and i think it’s rational to do so… I’m not entorely sure I agree with BA on that point myself. Although I respect his reasoning for proposing the thought and am more than willing to enter into a dialog on the issue. But you went off on the post without actually understanding the tense of the statement. Poor job on your part.

@ Jason Perry

I guess I can’t argue with your post in general, although I would point out that church attendance figures are not necessarily a relevant statistic in determining a culture’s slide into theocracy. You don’t need a majority of the populace attending church to support the claim, you just need enough people in power to have the affect of a theocracy. And maybe I’m wrong, but my guess is that BA’s meaning isn’t that we are going to become an “actual” theocracy, but that the people we keep putting in power might have the inclination to operate the governament from a theocratic point of view.

The point of marriage, from a social standpoint, even dating back to ancient times, is to place a set of rules around certain societal elements, such as the handling of property, protection and succession of bloodlines, and as a way to certify a man’s “rights” or “ownership” of his mate. Marriage in early cultures was seen as a contract to solidify these principals, IIRC, and this surved a purpose in ensuring the survival and perpetuation of the society, even pre-dating Egyptian and later Greek and Roman concepts of marriage.

The concept of marriage as not just a contract but as a holy sacrament I think is attributed to St. Paul, and comes much later in human history than the simple “contractual marriage” that existed before that.

So I guess what I’m saying is that from a societal standpoint, laws and rules regarding legal unions of people has had an important place for the survival of the species. I would however state that I don’t think it’s always been regulated properly from a legal standpoint, this country (US) especially included. I think the institution of marriage from a civil standpoint, needs to be treated in a more secular way than it is… just like other aspects of government and law should be, IMHO.

And I hereby assert that Phil is turning into a three-headed tree sloth from Venus . . . if he hasn’t already.

I don’t know. I am a Catholic and yes, I am a Republican (please put the tar and feathers down, I saw the first episode of the John Adams miniseries last week, tar and feathering looks rather painful…). I don’t want a theocracy in this country. I much prefer a secular society and government because it guarantees that I have the right to worship how I want (yes, I am a scientist and I pray at church, what heresy!) And, shock, I want evolution taught in schools, and not creationism or what ever they are calling it these days. The latter can be discussed in church, where it belongs. But it really irks me when people assume that just because there are a few nutty Christians, that the whole group is. I believe there is a word for such ideas….

Honestly man, your so intelligent and talk about skepticism and then do some fear-mongering nonsense like this. Honestly, we are in a theocracy? Do you know the definition of a theocracy? In a theocracy do you honestly think there be freedom of speech or religion, do you think this blog would exist, let alone exist without any realistic or rational fear of government censor? Or any of the numerous secular, skeptic, atheist societies, clubs, conventions, organizations could openly exist and operate as they do freely in this nation without fear of government shutdown? Or art that mocks religion? Or the fact you and I can freely speak or write out against religions?

No one is forced to worship any particular god by the state, or made by government law to attend a house of worship, or to pray, or to tithe, or even to respect religion, so excuse me while I dismiss outright your idea we live in a theocracy. I do not see the evidence. This is no different then those religious conservatives who cry up and down that they will be oppressed and their religious freedom is about to be wiped out by the secular government of this nation.

No different.

Like supporting Blue Laws until they find they can’t go shopping at Wally Mart after church? Yes, I can see that. And I say that as a Christian and a church-goer.

The “liberal church” model was made from dark gray cardboard and the “Christian church” was made of white and gold cardboard.

As he spoke on the weakness of “Liberal churches”, the “Christian church” collapsed.