Skip to main content

Attention Mothers: Faith is Trust

By Carl S. ~

The duty of mothers, according to God: "Mothers, raise your children to obey God's word, as revealed in scripture and through his appointed authorities. Raise them to be innocent of sin by protecting them from the influences of the world outside, where the devil goes about seeking those he would entice and devour. Tell your children what you've been taught, what the bible says. Teach your sons theirs is the responsibility of heading a household, and your daughters the duty to obey their husbands, since they represent Christ (even though Jesus never preached this.). Teach the daughters virginity is virtue for, in the bible, "virgin" always means female."

It really is a dangerous world out there. And maybe you're overlooking the danger in trusting the wrong people.

Is it okay with you for Sunday school teachers to lie to your children, since they mean well? Does “meaning well" justify deception, or indifference to whether something is true or not? Should you trust religious men to dictate sex education? Religions make actions that have nothing to do with morality, immoral. Sex is natural, therefore one of the things trusted religious males try to control, sometimes with “authority figure" male clerics to back them. But prohibiting something which is perfectly natural and wonderful is doomed to failure. When something is punishable and at the same time, good, pleasurable, and harmless, the child will all the more be inclined to investigate and participate in discovering what it’s all about. When a child finds that even doing the right thing can bring punishment, he or she will do it in secret. The resulting loss of innocence is necessary for growing up. Religion's tradition of using fear and ignorance to control behavior is a stinking method for raising a child, if you expect that child to become a morally responsible adult. When the good is as punishable as the immoral, what is the lesson conveyed?

Ahem. Isn't religion truly all about sex? More to the point, isn't it male-dominant with a male god made in the image of males; a testosterone-driven deity of creation and destruction? The three Abrahamic religions are created and ruled by males for the benefit of males. Did those ancient beliefs originate by copying other animal systems, like those of male lions with their prides, alpha chimp males with their tribes, etc., all transferred into human harems, where females exist as property, sex partners of the male's choosing? Think of biblical concubines. And how was it Joseph Smith converted so many men to Mormonism, if not by the promise of multiple wives available for their sexual pleasure?

Nowhere in scriptures, nor theologies or teachings of these religions, are the sexual feelings of women considered.According to misogynists St. Paul and St. Augustine, sexuality is to be tolerated (though, they believed, depressingly necessary for breeding), since, they proclaimed, abstinence from sexual relationships is considered a sign of superior morality. Thus spoke those males who couldn't deal with their own sexual urges and inclinations. They preached a "spiritual" side of human nature at war with "sensual” naturalness! This rationalization for not dealing with those "adultery in one's heart" moments when gazing upon a gorgeous woman, is laughable. Today, well known evidence reveals how many of "God’s spokesmen" are in denial and/or hypocritical, about their sexual inclinations. Consider the words of God as delivered by all such males, who really needed/need to see a psychoanalyst.

Nowhere in scriptures, nor theologies or teachings of these religions, are the sexual feelings of women considered. Their feelings don't exist. They are Sirens, drawing unsuspecting men to their doom. Someone must protect men from them, tame them from doing this. Dogmas preach women are to be the property of men, and women are taught to control themselves, while being controlled. (Under Islamic law, if they follow their hearts, they can be, and are, murdered.) This is God's will.

Religious institutions exist for male privileges. They are good old boys clubs. There, men make the laws in their favor, and there they cover for each other when they misbehave. Damage to others and dealing with it, is dealt with through long established male "internal affairs" systems. One example: pedophile priests are permitted to absolve one another. This is a legal method covered under the clergy-confessor privilege, thus making both parties free of prosecution from withholding evidence. Is this evasion of prosecution for raping children something a woman would invent? Religions cover a multitude of their own sins.

Male clergy are given access to children who have been taught to trust them. The rape of children begins with trust. Faith is trust. In no other occupations will you find men who hold themselves experts and authorities on things they are absolutely, totally ignorant about: the existence and minds of supernatural beings, supernatural realms, about what happens after death, etc. - as if they owned such knowledge. (And isn't God always, "the one that got away?")

Biblical scriptures uplift procreation to the height of sacredness. According to those "divinely-inspired” texts, women are just a means to the end of creating ever more babies. This should be no surprise, as all religions are fertility-based. This primitive belief system even now leads to regarding fetuses as having rights of entitlement more valuable than women’s lives.

In Catholicism, women can't be priests. The party line reason for this: If Jesus had wanted women priests, he would have made them. (Of this, another man said, well, since he only made Jewish men priests, ergo, there shouldn't be non-Jewish Catholic priests.) Of course, naturally, only males have the power to absolve anyone of sins! So, if a woman or girl goes to a priest and tells him of her most intimate feelings and urges, if she masturbates or is carrying on an affair, the cleric can vicariously enjoy this secret knowledge. He can also "advise" her on how to handle these matters morally, since he's an expert on the male God's will for her. And all this takes place while refraining from intercourse! So, for women, "Confession" is hardly a "sacrament." Oh no. It's just another exploitation.

The hatred of women and the denials of human rights to them are at the roots of religious dogmas. These are just a few examples. Don't they derive from irrational fears of the power of women over men, and from men ignorant about women? Men who are dedicated to deeply ingrained religious beliefs will never elect a woman to become a head of state. They would sooner vote for a tyrant - preferably a misogynist like their God. All exploitation begins with a "Trust me." Hmm…


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Why I left the Canadian Reformed Church

By Chuck Eelhart ~ I was born into a believing family. The denomination is called Canadian Reformed Church . It is a Dutch Calvinistic Christian Church. My parents were Dutch immigrants to Canada in 1951. They had come from two slightly differing factions of the same Reformed faith in the Netherlands . Arriving unmarried in Canada they joined the slightly more conservative of the factions. It was a small group at first. Being far from Holland and strangers in a new country these young families found a strong bonding point in their church. Deutsch: Heidelberger Katechismus, Druck 1563 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) I was born in 1955 the third of eventually 9 children. We lived in a small southern Ontario farming community of Fergus. Being young conservative and industrious the community of immigrants prospered. While they did mix and work in the community almost all of the social bonding was within the church group. Being of the first generation born here we had a foot in two

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not