Book Review: The Last Testament Of God

If an atheist rewrote the Bible in the 21st century, what would it look like?

Probably a lot like, The Last Testament of God: A Memoir by God / with David Javerbaum. Lol.

Here it is, folks. God Telleth All. Finally!

Here are the answers to your questions about the Bible and why Christians, particularly fundamentalist Christians are just plain wrong.

Did you know that first couple was Adam and Steve, not Eve?

Why does God believe in Evolution?

AND OMFG the shocking revelation that God’s NOT Perfect! He says so himself! So it MUST be TRUE!

Scandalous to be sure but God was pretty scandalous even in his crankier days when he spend all of his time smiting his enemies.

This is scandalous in a modern 21st century way, but of course the smiting continues….

1:19. I am not perfect.
1:20. Yea, I am omnipotent; but there are mortals tramping thy corridors of power who are nearly so, at least within the earthly dominion; and does their great might foster in them perfect righteousness? Or are they not mostly bastards?
1:21. Yea, I am omniscient; but there are mortals waddling the casinos of Las Vegas possessing nearly all information on the handicapping arts; yet does their great knowledge foster in them perfect judgement? Or did they not just lose their shirts on the Seahawks +2 1/2.
1:22. And so, Reader, as thou flippest through these awe-inspiring pages, be not surprised to discover that over the millennia I have erred on matters great and small, and even at times shown slight defects of character.
1:23. For despite all the sobriquets listed above, and all the wondrous attributes contained within me, I am not perfect, and have never claimed to be.
1:24. I have claimed only that my imperfections are thy fault.

And so begins Againesis….

Fast forwarding to Revelations ….

God responds to Christian demands:
1:11. “I want my Judgment Day and I want it now!”.

 God:
1:23. I had made a vow never to be dishonest to thee again, and I meant to keep it; no, this would have to be a clean and total break;
1:24. For mankind, I love thee far too deeply not to destroy thee utterly.
1:25. And so I made the decision: one last crazy year, and then we say good-bye, not in regret but in friendship; valuing the time we spent together, treasuring the memories we shared, and putting behind us the anger thou caused.
1:26. The world began on October 23, 4004 BC; it will end on December 21, 2012; pencil it in.
1:27. (But remember what I said at the end of Facts 5:2-9, about there being a little wiggle room to leave time for a sequel if this book selleth well enough.
1:28. No pressure.)

And so it was, is, and shall be ....

I want every Christian I know to have a copy of this book.

Heh. Maybe I'll give it to them as a Christmas gift from Santa Claus.

The Christ Conundrum

I received a email recently about a new book hot off the press that sounds quite intriguing.

Haven't read it myself yet but here's the plug for it.

The Christ Conundrum – New Book Exposes Jesus Myth

March 15, 2011 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A Historical Biography of The Real-Life Jesus

Written with the express aim of disproving the notion that Jesus is God, ‘The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus’, re-examines the evidence to reconstruct the life and times of the historical Jesus – and guess what? Jesus was a mere mortal man. In fact, as the Christ Conundrum so aptly demonstrates, Jesus was a monotheistic Jew and as such he would have been abhorred and disgusted that Christians have got his story so wrong.

Author, Andrew Carruth says, “I wrote the Christ Conundrum because I wanted to show evangelical Christians that their claims about Jesus are so absolutely wrong. All you have to do is look at the historical evidence for yourself and it’s clear to see Jesus was a Jew of his own time – he wasn’t god, and he most certainly was not a Christian!”

There are sure to be surprises and intrigue as the ‘Christ Conundrum’ takes you on a fascinating journey into a distant past where people believed that disease was caused by demons, where political activity meant crucifixion, and where people thought the end of the world was just around the corner. Into this explosive mix Jesus emerged.

“It’s interesting that many Jews of the period were expecting an imminent end to the world order,” the author says. “We see this same expectation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Jesus’ mission is largely concerned with it. Indeed, in the gospels Jesus explicitly predicts that the end would occur within the lifetime of the disciples who were listening to him. Two thousand years later and the end that Jesus predicted still hasn’t come, clearly he was wrong – Jesus was a false prophet!”

CJ Werleman, author of the now infamous ‘God Hates You, Hate Him Back and Jesus Lied’, ‘He Was Only Human’, praised ‘The Christ Conundrum’ saying, “The book gives a very thorough argument, it’s an intriguing exploration of the life and times of Jesus, and the rapidly expanding readership for atheist books will surely love it.”

~~~~

“The Christ Conundrum: The Skeptic’s Guide to Jesus” (ISBN: 978-0-9564276-5-6) by Andrew Carruth is available from Amazon, on Kindle and in all good bookshops now.

ENDS

WORDCOUNT 331

NOTES FOR EDITORS/JOURNALISTS

SYNOPSIS

Using the latest scholarly research this book deciphers the mystery behind the mythical figure of Jesus and aims to demonstrate, once-and-for-all, that Jesus was a mere, mortal man. By looking at the ancient sources through the lens of the historian, Andrew Carruth reveals Jesus to be a man of his time; Jesus was a first century Jew, with a very Jewish mission and was hardly unique – in fact there were several other historical miracle workers and ‘Sons of God.’ Entertaining, historically accurate, thought-provoking and controversial the Christ Conundrum is a must read for skeptics and believers alike.

REVIEW COPY

Please request a preview copy of this book here:http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

COMPETITION PRIZE
If you’d like to offer your audience free copies of this book as a competition prize along with a review then tell us your plans and we’ll do whatever we can to help:
http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact

WEBSITE LINKS

Andrew Carruth’s Website: www.god-proof.com
Andrew Carruth’s blog: www.god-proof.com/blog
Andrew Carruth on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndrewCarruth
Andrew Carruth on Facebook: www.facebook.com/Andrew.Carruth
Publisher’s Website: http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com

Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0956427650
Amazon USA: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0956427650

ARTICLES/INTERVIEWS
Andrew Carruth is happy to provide free content in return for a ‘plug’ of his book. He is open for interviews, speaking engagements, freelance commissions, or other ideas. Please contact:http://www.dangerouslittlebooks.com/contact or email / call Julie Reeves on jules@god-proof.org, +44-75145-44189

THE AUTHOR
Andrew Carruth is a former journalist and narcotics control officer who has lived in the Maldives and Indonesia, but who has returned to his native UK to focus on his writing. It was during his travels that Andrew came to realize that people are all essentially the same and that it is foolish to divide them according to which superstitious fable they happen to believe in.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Satan by Deidzoeb of AvC

A lot of stories in recent decades give a postmodern twist to classic works of literature (or pop culture) by retelling the story from the perspective of a minor character. For example, "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" is a play that fills in some of the gaps of Hamlet from the perspective of those characters. "Grendel" by John Gardner tells the story of Beowulf from the monster's viewpoint. "The Wind Done Gone" tells the story of "Gone With the Wind" from the perspective of Scarlett's half-sister, a mulatto slave from that plantation. They're all kind of remixing or mashing up earlier stories in order to make new stories, or the same story from an interesting new POV.

I've only seen the movie of that first example, haven't read the others, but I assume they all rely on some of the exact same scenes from the original works, while inserting new scenes or new narration that wasn't in the original.

That's what came to mind when [name removed] mentioned a little about a "Gap Theory", including some assumptions that Satan did something important in between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. It sounds like this important bit with Satan was left out of the Bible, or perhaps we are supposed to infer that it happened at that point even if it wasn't spelled out in Gen 1:1-2. [name removed] wrote: 'Now if you believe in a Gap Theory which states that there is a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 - (where Satan sinned) then Gen. 1:2 makes sense when the *was* is translated *became*.?'  [reference removed]

I razzed her about it and moved on.

Later I got to thinking about these mashup, remix stories that involve minor characters, and how the story of Satan has gradually developed that way from a combination of the Bible and these supplementary stories or traditions.

Plus there's the idea of the "retcon" from comic books. It means "retroactive continuity" and involves either changing or adding to a character's history. For example, let's say you're hired to write Batman, a character whose story spans 70 years of comics, movies, tv, novels, etc. But you don't like some of the baggage that comes along with this character, the fact that he's rich and has a butler. You want him to start off poor. You rationalize this change by saying "It was all a dream, everything you've read about Batman up to this point didn't really happen that way. Now we can tell the real story of impoverished young Bruce Wayne..." That would be a cheesy way to do it, but you'd be able to explain why his history is being changed.Or you could mess with time travel or alternate universes. Why did Batman kill the villain in issue # XIVLM? That seems a little out of character. (Or I don't want that to be part of his character.) So I change the continuity by saying it was really some other person disguised as Batman, it wasn't the real Batman who killed someone. Or you say that was a story that happened on alternate Earth #4, and we here on Earth #1 had a totally different experience.The changes could be large or small, or they could be rationalized well or poorly.

The point is that they're sometimes jarring, a way of rewriting a story or character that the earlier authors or contributors might not have intended.

Before we even consider [name removed] suggestion that Satan did something that was overlooked by Genesis, there are already aspects of the character of Satan that have been retconned or built up later by remixing and mashup. A lot of the history of Satan was really described in Paradise Lost, and not all of it comes from the Bible, or can be inferred from reading the Bible. It was a remix that used characters from the Bible and created a new story, or “filled in” a lot of details. Now people get them all mixed up and think of Satan in terms of Paradise Lost as much as they think of the statements from the Bible.

What I mean by “retconning” Satan is the interpretation that the Serpent in Genesis is a manifestation or avatar of Satan. It’s an interesting theory, but is there any clear scripture elsewhere in the Bible where they say “By the way, that Serpent character in Genesis is totally the same one referred to later as Satan”?

Maybe Satan is the Whore of Babylon too. Why not? Maybe Satan was the character Cain who killed his brother Abel, as long as we're taking every bad guy from the Bible and assuming they are manifestations of Satan. Maybe all the Jews or Romans who supposedly condemned Jesus were other manifestations or avatars of Satan. Maybe Satan is also "Leviathan" and "Rahab" the sea monsters.

How far do you want to take it? It seems to me that those interpretations would be assuming more than what the text says, but go ahead and have fun with it. Just don't pretend that it's a literal interpretation, or that any text of this length in any language is going to have a clear literal message which can't be interpreted or misinterpreted.

Check out the different stories that were eventually merged to become the story of Satan. Isaiah 14:12 talks about an insolent Babylonian king who metaphorically "fell from heaven" like a morning star. (Lucifer is Latin for morning star.) But they don't clearly say that Lucifer is Satan or vice versa. Stories of other angels that fell from heaven were eventually transferred to Satan. As long as you're willing to say that every bad guy character in the Bible was actually Satan, why not assume that this Babylonian king was Satan, and an obviously metaphorical "morning star" was Satan too? see The Lucifer Story

You could do this with almost any character. You could say Daniel and Job and David were not separate humans, they were actually reincarnations of the same character, or they were all human disguises worn by the archangel Michael (or whoever, insert your favorite hero here). Like any other bit of wild interpretation of the Bible, you don’t need good reasons to make this claim. You just need a strong feeling that it’s true, and you bully your way past anyone who disagrees. "Of course Daniel and Job were different aspects of the same character. Just read this part and that part and you should be able to tell how similar they are. If you aren’t seeing that they are meant to be the same character, then you’ve let the Devil get into you," or you aren’t praying on it hard enough, or you don’t have the sincerest pumpkin patch in the neighborhood.

OOOO! Another example is "The Last Temptation of Christ," another story that tries to fill in a gap by showing what Jesus perceived when he was being tempted on the cross, or whenever he was tempted. There are probably lots of stories like this filling in parts of the Bible for fun.

So, we should keep in mind that some of the common modern interpretations of the Bible are based on stories and ideas that came from outside of the Bible, or narrow retcons to explain how the Serpent is really Satan, a star briefly mentioned in Isaiah is really Satan, etc.

Even people who try to keep strict literal interpretations of the Bible don’t realize how much their traditions have been influenced by sources outside of the Bible.

The Biblical God Concept : A Logical Disproof

The logical disproof of the Biblical god concept to be presented involves malice toward none, is not an attack on particular religions nor a statement against religion in general, and is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good.

It involves only three definitions, each of which is self-evident. One is of a being, a second is of worship and the third is of a Biblical type god.

The definition of a being is that of a perceiver who cannot know whether its perceptions have anything to do with an external reality. Of course Descartes defined himself as this type of entity on the basis of obviousness.  Very exactly, in that we have no way to test whether our perceptions have anything to do with an external reality we cannot know whether they do.  Additionally, however, our experiences suggest that when we dream or hallucinate we internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality.  Accordingly, especially with empirical suggestions that we sometimes internally generate perceptions that seem very real but have nothing to do with an external reality, we cannot rule out that it is our nature to do so all of the time. Therefore, our definition of a being is self-evident.

The definition of worship is veneration to the extent that its object is assumed to exist.  In that one cannot worship something without acknowledging its existence this definition of worship is entirely consistent with the actual meaning of the word.

The definition of a Biblical type god is that of a perfect (in goodness) being who holds that it is right for others to worship it. This is entirely consistent with the Biblical god concept.

We shall proceed with a logical technique that involves reductio ad absurdum.  That is, we shall first assume that a Biblical type god exists and from this using only logic arrive at a self-contradictory (absurd) proposition.  This will leave only that a Biblical type god does not exist and the disproof will be complete.  As such, assume that a Biblical type god exists.

By definition it holds that it is right for others to worship it.  By the definition of worship they must acknowledge its existence to do so.  Accordingly, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for others to acknowledge its existence.  However, they are beings.  By definition it is impossible for them to acknowledge the existence of anything more than perceptions.  Therefore, the Biblical type god holds that it is right for them to do something that is impossible. At the same time, by definition it is perfect.  In this it does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible. Consequently, we have both that the Biblical type god does and does not hold that it is right for others to do something that is impossible.

This is the absurdity.  Our only alternative is that a Biblical type god does not exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

It is incidental that the Biblical type god would not know whether others existed.  Notwithstanding, in its perfection it would not decide that they did much less that they did as perceived.  Moreover, in that it would not decide that any who might exist would exist as perceived it would not decide that any who might exist were imperfect.  That is, it would not decide that any who might exist were its subordinate.  In this, a perfect being would not hold that it was right for others to worship it and the Biblical god concept is again self-contradictory.

Analogously, of course, the Jesus concept is self-contradictory.

As set forth at the beginning there is no vindictiveness in this writing.  It is soley in the interest of enlightenment to the good. As it pertains to enlightenment to the good it is meant to convey that our ability to know an external reality (if there is one) is scientifically precluded by our perceiver nature and, in this, meaningful development as the entities we are may only be realized in the form of internal rewards.  That is, it may only be realized through decisions that challenge the self in goodness of motive.  Only these afford fulfillment in effort independently from certainty of result.

John Jubinsky, MA–Mathematics, CPA, Atheism vs Christianity

God and Salvation, an atheist's children's story version

AmyLuv asks: How exactly would you explain the need for salvation to a 7 year old?

Dag Yo replies: I'll give this a shot. [pretend I'm talking to a 7-year-old]

People need salvation because a long time ago God made a neat little
garden for people and animals to live in. There was also a magic tree
in this garden, with a fruit that makes anyone who eats it really
smart, but God said that it was against the rules to eat anything from
that tree. One day your Great Grandma got talked into eating some
magic fruit by a walking talking snake. So your grandma ate the fruit
and got all smart, but then when God found out God was really mad and
after that he hated all the people in the world -- he even hated
babies because they came from their smart grandparents. God hates
everyone so much that the people he really hates, he hurts really
really bad forever. In fact, God even hates you.

But after a few thousand years, God decided it was kinda mean of him
to hurt everyone really bad forever just because he hates them so
much. So he decided he would get a woman pregnant so he could have a
baby of his own. That baby was named Jesus. And then when that baby
grew up God and Jesus made sure that Jesus got hurt really bad for a
few days. And so, God doesn't hate anyone who remembers that Jesus
got hurt for a few days.

So don't ever forget that Jesus got hurt, or God will want to hurt you
forever and ever, thanks to your stupid Grandma.

by Dag Yo of AvC and DR

Answers To A Creationist's Questions

I just had an online discussion with a creationist, and decided to
make a blog posting out of it, linking relevent material, so that the
answers would be backed up with instant hyperlinks. I avoided linking
too much stuff from Talkorigins, because creationists think it's too
biased.

I included a lot of stuff that had actual pictures of relevent
fossils, and timeline charts. The result I hope will help others who
get all the same questions over-and-over again from Creationists. I
spent all day on this, and I know that someone out there has already
answered the same questions a dozens times, and is tired of writing.
So here it is. Enjoy, and let me know what you think:

Psycho Dave's Blog

by Psycho Dave of AvC

Required Reading for all atheists :-) --Trance Gemini

My Descent Into Hell

Isaiah Chapter 59:- They hatch cockatrice' eggs.

I was under the impression that a cockatrice is hatched from a cock’s egg, I tried to purchase some from my local supermarkets, to no avail. Can you tell me where they can be purchased, and advise where I can buy food now that I am banned from my local supermarkets?

Exodus 16:4:- Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you.

Is there any possibility that you could intervene with the Lord and ask for the raining of the odd cookie or bun on me? I am getting awfully hungry now that I have been declared a danger to society and not allowed into any of my local shops.

Isaiah 36:12:- That they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss.

In the absence of the promised raining of food and suffering from the terrible pangs of hunger I sampled the above menu as suggested by the Lord. Could you suggest a good remedy to relieve acute vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and stomach cramps?

4 Kings 2:23-24:- And he (Elijah ) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Another side effect of my current diet is that all my hair has fallen out, and as a result the local homies ridicule me endlessly, I did try luring them to the woods to be devoured by bears but failing in that and being a God-fearing, gun-toting American, I took 40 of them out with my Uzi. For some reason this seems to have aggravated the local Police, and excited Sky News, despite my clear explanation that this was the Lords punishment for mockery of baldness. I now find myself homeless and on the run.

Acts Chapter 5:- The judgment of God upon Ananias and Saphira, killed by the Lord because they would not sell all they possessed and give it to the Priests.

I have been kindly taken and sheltered by some God fearing pilgrims who live under a bridge, and all they want in return is that I give them all I possess, they say God will be angry if I don’t. I have no problem with this as it sounds pretty logical, but I can’t understand what God wants with an old Ford, a tin watch, an empty Uzi, and some old clothes.

Deuteronomy 23:1:- No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Having decided to hang on to my tin watch, (It was a gift from the National Rifle Association, signed by God, I mean Charlton Heston. I suffered a severe beating from the kindly God fearing people, which was understandable as I did not give them everything I had, and in the course of the beating suffering crushed testicles, resulting in the surgical removal of my damaged organ.

I have only three questions,

1. being on the verge of death, how am I going to overcome that ban

2. how do I pay the surgeon now that I am destitute

3. where the hell am I going to get those damned cockatrice' eggs that started this whole thing off in the first place

by Bob600 of AvC

Source: My Descent Into Hell, AvC thread

Westminster Confession Of Existentialism

As we all know, Brock Organ of AvC frequently relies on this document, The Westminster Confession of Faith, and presents it as "objective truth". Brock also likes to dismiss all other argumentation as invalid because he says they rely on "existential premises". The aim of this post is to discredit Brock's claim by showing that 1) The Westminster Confession of Faith is not objective truth and 2) The Confession relies on the very existential premises that Brock so despises, thus exposing his monumental hypocrisy.

First, how do we know the Confession is not objective truth? This one's easy. The Confession cannot be objectively true because it is an interpretation of the Bible. Written in the mid 17th century, it is an interpretation that is not even in the social or cultural context of 1st century Middle East. Rather, it was written by so-called "Divines" who were, in fact, a bunch of Puritan clergy organized for the purpose of reforming The Church of England. It was the abolition of Episcopalian for Calvinism in the Church of England. Basically, that means favoring one interpretation (Calvinism) over another (Episcopalian). Neither of which can be objectively true by virtue of the fact that they are "interpretations."

Having said that, how does that effect the veracity of the Bible? Even if one believes that the "propositions" of the Bible are objectively true (which they are not), the Confession is an interpretation of the Bible and thus a distortion of perceived "objective truth" (this begs the question as to why there is a need for such a document if the Bible is already "objectively true"). As an example of the Confession's methodology, I'd like to look at one chapter entitled "Of Creation":

"I. It pleased God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning, to create or make of nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good."[1]

That is an interpretation of Genesis Chapter 1 and therefore a distortion of the perceived "objective truth" of the Bible--the "word of God." And, it brings me to my second point.

Brock is fond of repeating the phrase "existentialism is untenable." Unfortunately for Brock, existentialism is precisely what the Westminster Confession relied on in Reforming the Church of England (emphasis mine). As a rhetorical question, why would one need a reformation of objective truth? Does objective truth need reforming? Clearly, not. Yet, the synods are constantly revising and reforming their own document. For example, The Association of Reformed Presbyterian Churches states in reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith this qualification:

"Agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster as the same is received by the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church including amendments approved by the General Synods of 1959, 1976, 1984, and 2001."[2]

It is strange "objective truth" would need so many amendments and revisions. Unless, of course, it is not objective truth. Rather, it is the existential interpretation of rambling morons who think they "know" objective truth.

What does this all mean? It means Brock is a hypocritical existentialist who bashes others for using the same skills of observation he uses.

[1] Reformed.org

[2] ArpSynod

Written by Scooter of AvC

Women And The Bible. Part I

Is the Bible sexist?

Ask that question to a liberal Christian and the answer will be a morally outraged, "No, absolutely not. How can you possibly say that? The Bible tells men to love their wives, not be harsh to them, and love them as Christ loved the Church."

In addition to the derision and scorn, Biblical passages will be quoted ad nauseum, in a futile effort to prove this, conveniently overlooking certain critical factors such as context and intent. This, while emphasizing the necessity of looking at context and intent in order to justify redefining terms. This is particularly true if you happen to be having this debate with a pastor or a relatively well indoctrinated member of the "flock".

The two main passages offered as "proof" of the Bible's and therefore God's love for women are Colossians 3:19 and Ephesians 5:25-33.

Let's look at what these passages say and the context in which they were written. For convenience I'm looking at the NIV version of the Bible which is recognized as the most common version. There is no substantial difference in these particular passages between NIV (New International Version) and KJV (King James Version).

Colossians 3:15-25.

This passage states as follows:

"15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. 20 Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.
22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men,24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving.
25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism."

Source: BibleGateway : Colossians 3:15-25

One of the liberal Christian arguments boils down to the following. The Bible says that we are members of one body, that of Christ. True, the Bible does say this. Then the leap in logic follows where the Christian will state that this means that all are equal in the eyes of the Lord.

Note that nowhere in the above passage does the Bible even imply that there is equality between all members of the "body". In fact, different direction is given to each of the components of the "body" which in fact indicates that each one has a different role and the roles are not equal, particularly given the culture at the time. Remember we're talking 2000 years ago here.

A variation of this Christian argument states that we shouldn't take the Bible literally, that is we should look at the intent and not the specific context. However, looking at the statements from either the point of view of context or intent or both actually changes nothing here.

Men must love their wives, and the wives are to submit to their husbands. Sounds like the type of relationship a man would have with his dog. Man loves dog, dog submits.

The controversy that rages here is around the word Submit and what it means. The dictionary definition and current social understanding of the word is:

submit Definition

sub•mit (səb mit′)
transitive verb -•mit′•ted, -•mit′•ting
1. to present or refer to others for decision, consideration, etc.
2. to yield to the action, control, power, etc. of another or others; also, to subject or allow to be subjected to treatment, analysis, etc. of some sort: often used reflexively
3. to offer as an opinion; suggest; propose
Etymology: ME submitten <>
intransitive verb
1.
1. to yield to the power, control, etc. of another or others; give in
2. to allow oneself to be subjected (to treatment, analysis, etc.)
2. to defer to another's judgment or decision
3. to be submissive, obedient, humble, etc.

Source: Your Dictionary : Submit

The definition provided by one liberal Christian Pastor was:

"Submission is a willful yielding to the will of one who has proven he always acts in your self-interest." --Michael_E of AvC.

Source: AvC Thread : Uselessness of Emotional, Heated Posts

He claimed that this was the meaning of the word in the context of the Bible as a whole.

Now frankly, one can jump through hoops to justify whatever one wants to justify if your Dogma is at stake. One can pull in all kinds of disparate Biblical passages to make a claim which is no more or less valid than the more honest (albeit more sexist) claims of the Christian fundamentalists, which are simply that women are inferior and are being punished by God because of the Original Sin.

The fact is that the Pastor's definition doesn't match the existing definition of submission and so can't be interpreted in this way as intent. It also doesn't match any ancient definition of the word as you can see by the etymology part of the definition above. The Pastor is a liberal Christian, seemingly a nice guy, but his cognitive dissonance here is effectively making him a liar.

The reality is that 2000 years ago women were considered chattel, marriages were arranged and her value to a man was not much higher than any other property he owned. There is no requirement for the women to love their husbands only to submit because the woman's feelings didn't matter. She was expected to accept and do as she was told. Men are told to love their wives and not be harsh. The Bible is essentially saying that men should treat their property well.

Treating women nicely has little to do with accepting women as competent equal partners in a relationship no matter how you look at it. So removing the context and looking at intent changes nothing here.

Ephesians 5:25-33.

to be continued in Women And The Bible, Part 2.

Written by Trance Gemini of AvC