Draw up a list of perversions caused by religion:

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, Merriam seems to have reduced Webster's original.

If Religion didn't cause so many unwanted pregnancies to continue (and therefore unwanted marriages), men wouldn't need religion to tell them to do that.

My impression from reading Paul was not that he was asking both parties to submit to each other, he was asking for both of them to try to please each other. Only the wife is supposed to submit to the husband.

Also, I don't think being willing to die for someone makes any practical difference if you never have to do it. I'd rather have a man who was willing to wash the dishes because it would make more of a practical difference to my life. That's off topic, though.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 22 May 2011, 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Only when people with today's skewed perspectives do not understand what Paul had actually written.

As opposed to the skewed perspectives of a much more patriarchal culture in the first few centuries after Jesus?

How does religion cause the consequences of fornication?!

I was actually only speaking of the fact so many people today have skewed perspectives of what had first actually been said (and practiced), but yes, so-called "patriarchy" is definitely a hot-button topic today.

The bible? We are talking about perversions caused by religion in general.

Thanks to the invention of contraception. An unwanted pregnancy is a consequence for irresponsible 'fornication'. Irresponsible fornication comes from religions banning contraception and then abortion. It is Religions' fault for putting blocks on sexual education in an effort to keep a faux purity.

Once again Vex your views are the total opposite of what they ought to be. Its always about the individual with you. All forms of duty are anathema to you because they rest outside of your own view of yourself. If you do not want children, do not have sex. Say what you like about Christianity but its rules relating to sex and marriage are well established. If you get a girl pregnant, do your duty as a man and raise the child as your own. It is not unreasonable for society to expect that citizens do not run from their obligations, much less treat them as some infringement of their right to be selfish.



The same word for submit is used in relation to both parties in the relationship. Eph: 5:21 'Submit (upotassomenoi) to one another out of reverence for Christ.'

Putting the word patriarchy in quotes like that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It also doesn't alter the fact that patriarchal attitudes were behind what Paul wrote regarding the place of women.

How exactly did he mean 'submit' in a non...erm, submissive sense?

EDIT: it's okay, I've seen 91's translation of the word 'submit' in his edit. I guess the problem is more with Biblical translators than with the scripture in this case. It's Christians and not Christianity causing the problem.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 22 May 2011, 8:13 am, edited 2 times in total.

Okay, fair enough.

What about the man being the 'head'? What are your thoughts on that?

It makes no difference to me as an atheist, since I honestly don't have that much of a problem with how Christianity views women, as compared to say, Islam.

Individual morality is superior in any way to made up morality from religion. Once you stop outsourcing your moral compass you will live a happier life. You will become responsible of your actions and you will get some consistency. You will be a true man that makes his own decisions.


I do not have sex. But thanks to technology it is completely possible to have sex without having children. It is unreasonable for religion to expect people to stop having sex. As it is unreasonable for religion to ask people to stop going to the bathroom or eating. (Though I guess that some religions actually do enforce laws about eating).

Your duty as a man is not to get the girl pregnant if she doesn't want a child. Religion's arbitrary morality is an obstacle to this.


It is completely unreasonable to force pregnancies though. It is even cruel in a way. Who exactly wins by that? If the mom and the father don't want the child, then they lose. The child loses as well because it will be born in an unhappy family. Society loses because it will have a new member that will use space and consume resources.

How does "banning contraception and then abortion" cause people to fornicate in any way at all?!

... and I had not even thought it might. Rather, I have yet to know whether you and I (or even anyone else here) might have an agreed-upon or held-in-common comprehension of so-called "patriarchy" either centuries ago or now.


Certainly not, but it does recognize today's many skewed perspectives in relation to all of that.


Please see my previous post where I have described my wife's and my own personal and actually-Scriptural practice.

Religion's silly, outright dumb expectations of being able to stop people from having sex causes people to be less prepared for it when it happens.

This explains religion in a nutshell. They tried to put arbitrary rules to control an aspect of life in a way that the aspect of life becomes much more problematic and risky, and then their fix is not to stop the silly arbitrariness but to just ban that aspect of life altogether, that way it stop being religion's fault. How easy.

What about unwanted pregnancies that happen between a marriage? Oh, no loop hole there, Religion cannot blame the couple anymore.
---
In a nutshell Your claim is that unwanted marriages do not happen because of religion but because of sex. I think it is an insult to everyone's intelligence to pretend that religion does not have at least a 50% of the responsibility for unwanted marriages. I mean, seriously. Whenever I see an involuntary marriage, I see religion involved somehow.

Then there is some religions' ban of divorce. More unhappy marriages that would have been prevented if it wasn't for religion.

Oh, yes, let us blame the individuals for that. But it is so convenient that religion is the one setting the rules and ways for individuals to live and then when things go wrong it becomes the individuals' fault. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If a religion mandates most of what happens in a society, then it cannot just claim not to be a factor in the society's illnesses.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 22 May 2011, 8:27 am, edited 2 times in total.

I've seen 91's edit where he explains how the word 'submit' isn't that good of a translation. That explained it.

Your description of your relationship is just that. If you want to think it's actually Scriptural, then all power to you. I honestly don't mean to be rude.

The thought of reading a text written by an ancient celibate guy for relationship advice seems very strange to me. There is no book of love!

Seriously, nearly all religions screw up when they start to write about how love and sex should happen, but I will concede that the Christian view is not monstrous in some interpretations of it.