A Slave to Religion

While researching the subject of gender equality, I decided to read a few online articles to see how fellow bloggers approached the subject. I happened upon a blogger named Larry who uses the nom de plume BiblicalGenderRoles. He looks at the subject from a biblical standpoint in a post called “How to help women learn their place”. There was very little in the way of “help” in his writing. It should have been titled “How to put women in their place”.Needless to say he’s against gender equality in any way, shape, or form. Women are to be silent unless spoken to, modest, meek, submissive, dependent, and for all intents and purposes confined to the home with children. At first I thought it was an attempt at black humor, or that he was a “poe”. But the more I read, the more it became clear he was dead serious. He meant every word about women barely even having second-class status because that’s what his God wanted. But the part I found most amazing in his article was his defense of slavery, even stating that it should be permissible today by claiming “in modern terms – God would not consider it immoral for us to bring back slaves from Muslim nations that we conquer.[i.e. Iraq and/or Afghanistan.]

Grammatical and spelling errors left intact, in his February 23, 2016 post at 4:55 PM he wrote: “Absolutely I think people owning other people (under the right circumstances – not because they kidnapped them) is OK if the country you are in had laws that allowed it. If I thought one person owning another person was immoral than [sic] I would have to throw out my Bible because it says it is moral under the right circumstances. Now I realize for that reason and also the reason that the Bible clearly rejects social and gender equality as we define it today that many people have in fact thrown their Bibles out and rejected Christianity completely.” Gee, I wonder why? 

After writing about a passage regarding slavery in Exodus, BiblicalGenderRoles writes this gem: “So it’s pretty clear in Moses’ Law that God not only allowed slavery, he regulated it. Slaves from pagan nations were automatically regarded as permanent property, and could actually be left as an inheritance to the children of their Hebrew slave owners. Male Hebrews (countryman) could not [be] kept as permanent slaves, but had to be treated rather as hired hands and they had to be freed after six years of service. Female Hebrew slaves could be kept indefinitely, but they could not be sold to foreign people. If a man bought a woman and gave her to his son he had [to] treat her with the full rights of a daughter, and his son had to give her the full rights of a wife.” Keep in mind, women had few if any rights at the time, so giving them the “full rights” of a daughter or wife meant little. BiblicalGenderRoles even acknowledges that Hebrew female slaves could be kept indefinitely. They just could not be sold to foreign people. Being sold to other Hebrews though was perfectly acceptable. Women were on the same level as a man’s livestock. I like how he whitewashes the idea of slaves from pagan nations who were “automatically regarded as permanent property.” And then he wonders why people have “thrown their bibles out.”

Astoundingly he follows it with this explanation of how slaves were to be treated, taken directly from Exodus 21:20-21: “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property…If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.” Notice God’s imprecise time-keeping “a day or two” and only mentions destroying an eye or knocking a tooth out. Anything else apparently is fair game. But BiblicalGenderRoles clears the air for us by stating, on no evidence whatsoever, that the slaves of that time were not allowed to be physically abused or murdered. How is striking them with a rod or anything else in a manner that they might not be able to get up for a day or two, but manage to survive, not considered physical abuse? Would BiblicalGenderRoles like to be owned by someone and be beaten bad enough so that they would not be able to move around for a day or two? And to put a little icing on the pro-slavery cake, BiblicalGenderRoles then quotes from Colossians 4:1: “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.” BiblicalGenderRoles gloats over scripture that claims we are the slaves of God. Nice to know, isn’t it? Poor slaves don’t get a break here or in the next life. They just trade one tyrant for another.

But BiblicalGenderRoles isn’t done gloating yet…he offers his best defense of slavery by making this pitch aimed at low-income parents needing a ray of financial hope: “In Biblical times it was not uncommon for a father to have to sell one or more his children as slaves to a wealthier family. This served two purposes – it would ensure that his children would be feed [sic] and cared for and often times it would help to pull his own family out of poverty because of the money he would receive in return.” So from this passage, he surmises that the family’s economic well-being outweighs their own offspring. The kids are simply commodities to be bartered away in order to obtain better groceries. ..to hell with any maternal or paternal bond the children may have. This lays bare just how stupid, cruel, and family-unfriendly Christianity is, and how it lacks any morality at all. This is the standard BiblicalGenderRoles wants to reintroduce in the United States because he claims it will make us a better nation to practice biblical slavery. What this proves is that his god is a moral thug, and BiblicalGenderRoles is an even bigger moral thug for defending it.

Any wonder why people view Christianity so negatively when its most ardent defenders justify the indefensible. 

Here is the link if you want to read BiblicalGenderRoles entire post on gender inequality and pro-slavery: http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2016/02/21/how-to-help-women-learn-their-place/

Keep a barf bag handy.

Insanity meets Insanity in the Orlando Sentinel

Insanity - The dictionary describes it as a relatively permanent disorder of the mind, state or condition of being insane; a defect of reason as a result of mental illness, such that according to the law, [the defendant] does not know what he or she is doing or that it is wrong.

Keep that in mind when you read the Opinion column in the Orlando Sentinel on February 9, 2016 written by Pat McFarland, a member of the Orlando Sentinel Advisory Board. Her letter is titled “Learn to Recognize Insanity and Face your Fears with Faith”. What she is suggesting is facing insanity with another form of insanity.

After listing several issues that reflect insanity on the part of the perpetrators…from the woman in Las Vegas who used her car to drive over and kill people on the city's sidewalk, more soldiers killed in Afghanistan, and Climate Change denial to a 12 year old being gunned down by Cleveland Ohio police, a retched wealthy teen who’s affluence blinded him to right from wrong as he killed four people, spending more to incarcerate people than educate them, and Donald Trump’s latest blathering…she goes completely off the track by then quoting from the bible as a stab at Trump. Quoting from a book that promotes genocide (you know...the flood, the destruction of the Amalekites and Midianites, etc.), slavery, talking serpents and donkeys, and a blood sacrifice as an effective method of salvation is not just wrong, it is delusional, a mental illness, and it defends a being who appears to not know right from wrong.

How could Ms.McFarland have such a firm grip on the baffling events (or as she calls them, the madhouse, where disordered minds exist…an insane asylum) happening around the world, and then quote from one of the most baffling and insane books ever written as a way to face down her fears over what all the insanity represents? She claims she is “helped by the bountiful love and compassion that God allows all of us to receive daily”. How does she know just WHERE that comes from?  She indicates it’s the same God whose “bountiful love” created a place called hell to send us to if we don’t love him back enough, a compassionate God who, according to the Genesis account of Noah and the flood, drowned virtually EVERY LIVING THING in the world…toddlers and babies, all the animals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, even the plants. What did any or all of those do to offend God? Only an absolute lunatic with a complete defect in reasoning…the very definition of insanity…could do that. Yet, it's that very same vile monster that Ms. McFarland says is filled with “bountiful love” for us. By threatening us with hell? That’s what a terrorist does. Do as I say or I’ll throw you into a lake of fire and leave you there FOREVER! By allowing the torture, slaughter and supposed death of his son in order to forgive us for being exactly as He designed us? Why resort to this kind of insanity when he could just forgive us. Or, when Adam and Eve are in the garden, don’t put the tree you don’t want them to touch where they can find it? How hard would that have been, especially given God KNEW what was going to happen but allowed it anyway, knowing 99.99999999...% of all the people who ever existed will end up in hell? That sounds like someone with a permanent mental disorder. It’s insanity on a universal scale. And it can all be laid at the feet of the being Pat McFarland says we should call on in order to face our fears. That beast sounds like something to fear far more than the stupidly insane things people do every day on this planet.

If it’s okay with God, then it’s already legal

          

 You women stop fighting against the word of God!

I don’t know why people are being so hard on Daryush Valizadeh, or Roosh V, the male chauvinistic blogger who has recently called for rape to be legalized when not on public property. How else do you expect him or many of his fellow travelers,to get any sexual release, or potential brides? Besides, Roosh V clearly has the bible on his side. Oh sure, Deuteronomy 22:22-23 says “If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city." (Yes, she has to be killed with him if she didn’t scream loud enough while he was raping her.) But Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her…” Evidently, if a rapist just ponies up the silver, the victim is his to keep. So why all the harsh comments and attitudes over legitimizing rape? Seems God’s word in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is pretty clear…it’s not illegal.

          As psychologist Dr.Valerie Tanrico writes “the Bible never teaches that women should have a choice about sex…male-female relationships in the Bible are determined by a property ethic."

Roosh admits he’s a ‘pick-up artist’ and prides himself on luring unsuspecting women into a compromising situation where what he then calls consensual sex with them can blithely be referred to as a “snuggle with a struggle”. In the misogynistic world of religion where only men matter rape is seen as the right of conquering soldiers, as Moses proposes in Numbers 31:15-18. No, the passage doesn’t order them to rape the girls, but why else would all the male and female prisoners be put to the sword except for the youngest girls who are spared only if they have not known a man? How was that confirmed and why was it important? They weren’t being kept by the soldiers to carry around water basins. In Genesis 19:8, Lot shows us that offering his daughters for raping to a howling mob is perfectly acceptable for any dad to consider when the horde is at the door to molest the two visiting men who claim to be angels. In Judges 19:25-28, the woman IS thrown out the door to a mob where she is raped all night and then dies. And no one is held accountable. Biblical justice.

The greatest example of all is from Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18. Mary, betrothed to Joseph, is raped by God (although he could dodge that in court by claiming the Holy Spirit did it without his knowledge) so God could arrive on Earth in human form as Jesus…or so we are led to believe. Did Mary have any say in all this? Were her wishes consulted, her desires known, her freewill considered? If so, where? And if not, why not? This God, who created the universe out of nothing, doesn't then create his son out of nothing too; He forces sex on an unsuspecting woman to have her give birth to Himself in human form and He sees nothing wrong with this. How is that any different than what Roosh V is proposing?

Furthermore, if God (or the Holy Spirit) had been caught in the act of raping Mary, would both of them have been stoned to death as it calls for in Deuteronomy 22:22-23?

Nuggets of "wisdom" from the Roosh.

          Roosh V wrote in his blog last year that to stop rape, all the U.S. Government needs to do is legalize it on private property. From Roosh’s vantage point, a woman has consented to sex the moment she consents to entering a man’s house. So evidently, Roosh V is not out of sync with the supposed Christian creator of the universe. Do Not Rape is not one of God's commandments...it’s not even a suggestion. Needless to say, if God finds it okay to rape a young betrothed woman and then have his angels tell her how lucky and blessed she is, and how she has found favor in His eyes, certainly Roosh luring a young woman of at least 18 years of age into his house (or rather his mom's house since, even at 36 years or age, he lives in her basement) can’t be considered wrong, now can it? Especially if he tells her afterward how lucky she is and that she's found favor in his eyes. (Yeah, I'll bet!) So if God set the standard for this kind of violation, why is anyone surprised when some dim-witted male decides to demand its legalization, and then act on it? Maybe he ought to find the girl's dad, pay him off up front with 50 silver coins, and go from there. It's stupidity like this from a supposed holy book that gives legitimacy to douche-nozzles like Roosh V.
And people wonder why I object to the bible.

If you're still not sure, keep this handy guide in your wallet.