The impact of fundamentalism

[B.H.]

Look, I've never been married nor had any kids, but I do think this observation is accurate. If people biblically speaking had no restrictions on divorce and remarriage would you see some people getting divorced for the silliest and shallowest reasons? Yes, you sure would. I know of a man who lived over in Tyler who married a really pretty woman. She came down with breast cancer and they had to take her breast off. He divorced her because he didn't want a woman with one real breast anymore. That is not something you should divorce for. Don't feel too bad. He was very well off an she got a lot of his money in the divorce (and I am glad she did shallow [derogatory term] he was)

But you can be so afraid of people getting divorced for shallow reasons and try to protect the weaker spouse (usually the woman historically speaking) that you go the opposite direction and end up causing more harm by forbidding divorce all together. You stick two people together and they cannot seperate practically speaking and end up causing more harm and danger in the end, good intentions aside. This is what Jesus supposedly did in the New Testament, and I say supposedly because people may have put words in Jesus's mouth he did not say.


This is an area where Islamic theology, when propery followed, is superior to the Christian theology. Islam thinks of divorce as a horrible thing but we allow it. However, when a man divorces his wife she automatically gets so much of his material possessions and he still has to support her for a certain period of time.

[agricola]

Jewish sources say, that when a couple divorces, there is weeping in heaven. It is never seen as a 'good and desirable' thing, but it is also seen as a sometimes necessary thing.

The IDEAL is a loving, long lasting close pair bond. That's the IDEAL. But ideals are rare birds. Divorce in Judaism is (again ideally) rare, but not something impossible or overwhelming to get. There are inequities in current religious law concerning divorces, which bear particularly hard on the wife. That's an issue which concerns many people, but changing long-standing religious law takes much time and commitment, and is a lot of trouble.

Then ancient Near East was an admittedly patriarchal place, in all known cultures. The father/head of the family had near-total ownership of all other family members. Women in particular were without much power. A girl belonged to her father/head of the family and could be disposed of as he wished - he could marry her off, sell her, refuse to let her marry - anything.

In THAT context, Jewish law was a bit more 'easy' on the women. They could refuse a marriage and couldn't be married off without their consent. They could own property that remained theirs even when they married (they could not always control it, but it still remained their property). Jewish law mandated that a man who had purchased a woman as a wife couldn't downgrade her status to concubine or slave. Jewish law required that a man had to notify a woman, and write her an official paper, in order to divorce her. He couldn't simply kick her out and keep her possessions (which was generally allowed).

The Talmud records the basic job requirements of a husband and a wife - he was required to feed and house her, supply her with cosmetics and personal supplies, and it was the man's duty to supply his wife with sexual satisfaction (the Talmud even goes into details of how often and when, depending on the man's job). It was the wife's responsibility to manage the household (and servants). To make sure the husband was fed, and had suitable clothing to wear. It was her responsibility to see to the training and supervision of the household servants, and to make sure the children got an education.

Failing on any of those duties (by either party) could be grounds for a divorce, but the husband still had (and has) one huge advantage: he is the only one who can actually make a divorce happen.

There wasn't a huge emphasis in Biblical times, on 'personal attraction'. Marriage was much more usually seen as an economic partnership of an intimate kind, in which each partner did their duty by the other, and together they produced the next generation. The only marriages in the Torah which speak to strong interpersonal relations are really just Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Rachel, as far as 'love' type relationships go.

[ena]

Jewish sources say, that when a couple divorces, there is weeping in heaven. It is never seen as a 'good and desirable' thing, but it is also seen as a sometimes necessary thing.

You caught point exactly. If you have a private sin should you criticize a public one. I believe everyone has trouble with some sin in their life some times not visible to other. Trashing someone for their sin while not recognizing your own private one was commonplace in my CoC. It is what Jesus was talking about when he talked about the spec and beam in eyes. He was one perceptive guy. Nothing is hidden from God. You cannot judge completely because of hidden things. For many years I had trouble with whether divorced people did so properly or not. Today I leave it to God. I have my own sins to deal with. Very different my CoC days and much kinder.

[Tsathoggua]

Here is the thing. You get tricked into marrying a nutjob who beats and abuses you later. He was all nice and kind when dating (or she was was if you are a guy)

You divorce other than for adultery but can't remarry.

In my opinion a wife who beats and abuses her husband or a man who beats his wife is doing much more physical and psychological harm to their spouse than screwing the mailman or maillady though that is a bad thing.

Imagine what the world would be like if you were manager of a store and could no longer be manager (forever) if you accidentally hired someone who turned out to be a thief.

Or imagine you are a doctor and the surgery would be routine, no signs of any problems in the pre surgery tests, and your patient has a heart attack and dies on the table. Because you lost a patient you can't be a doctor again, ever.

Why be like this about picking a spouse who turns out to be a bad apple but doesn't cheat on you. What is so magical about it having to be adultery before you can divorce and remarry. And this "except for fornication" clause in the gospels we have in our bibles today is actually missing in many manuscripts. I do not know how many compared to those that have it in it but some have speculated the orginals did not allow divorce, period, and the phrase excepting fornication was forged in later.

Yeah, I always thought the "adultery is the only legitimate grounds for divorce" was a bonkers concept, myself.

[Ivy]

I bet we've all seen and heard of a lot of insanity related to that particular "rule" in cofc. I know I have. There is no grace (well, not unless you are from a cofc royal family.....then you may get a partial pass.....but will still be looked at side-eye from time to time).

[Cootie Brown]

Religious people are consumed with the concepts of sin, forgiveness, Grace, & redemption, but most of all hell. What a terrible burden it is to carry that stuff around with you all day, every day, of your life.

What strikes me as even more bizarre is to proclaim how much God loves you. How does love, torture, & fear go together? If you love someone why would you continually terrorize them with the threat that you burn them alive forever if they disobey you. That is a really odd definition of love.

[Ivy]

Religious people are consumed with the concepts of sin, forgiveness, Grace, & redemption, but most of all hell. What a terrible burden it is to carry that stuff around with you all day, every day, of your life.

What strikes me as even more bizarre is to proclaim how much God loves you. How does love, torture, & fear go together? If you love someone why would you continually terrorize them with the threat that you burn them alive forever if they disobey you. That is a really odd definition of love.

"His ways are higher than our ways", Cootie.

[Cootie Brown]

Religious people are consumed with the concepts of sin, forgiveness, Grace, & redemption, but most of all hell. What a terrible burden it is to carry that stuff around with you all day, every day, of your life.

What strikes me as even more bizarre is to proclaim how much God loves you. How does love, torture, & fear go together? If you love someone why would you continually terrorize them with the threat that you burn them alive forever if they disobey you. That is a really odd definition of love.

"His ways are higher than our ways", Cootie.

Thank you for pointing out another fallacy that believers use to justify stuff in the bible that makes no sense. The solution to these problems is easy. God didn't create Christianity humans did. God didn't write or inspire the Bible, human's wrote it & there is a ton of historical evidence that proves that.

Karen Armstrong's book A History of God makes it abundantly clear that humans created God(s).

[CbroX27]

Religious people are consumed with the concepts of sin, forgiveness, Grace, & redemption, but most of all hell. What a terrible burden it is to carry that stuff around with you all day, every day, of your life.

What strikes me as even more bizarre is to proclaim how much God loves you. How does love, torture, & fear go together? If you love someone why would you continually terrorize them with the threat that you burn them alive forever if they disobey you. That is a really odd definition of love.

Cootie, are we related? LOL! I love your signature! May I ask you some questions even though I know am asking them in a way that I know it may spark a debate that starts with the premise that I am already wrong?

I am assuming by your statement that you are not religious. May I ask what you believe in and what would be your definition of "religious"?
Let me be forthright in admitting that I do not consider myself religious, however I am a believer in Christ. And by that, I mean by definition that I believe that He was and is who He claimed to be, that He lived as a real historic person in the flesh, was raised from the dead, and that He was coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that He is the only thing that could save me from my sin, and there is nothing in me that did any kind of religious act to deserve that. So by that definition you may label me as "religious", and I would agree that is fair for you to do so even if I don't necessarily like that label.

With that being said here are my questions I must ask based on your statement above...

Does sin exist? If not, why is their evil or do you deny that there is evil?
If sin does exist, who or what defines what sin is? The government? The culture? You perhaps?

What is forgiveness? Do you forgive? Why or why not?
What is grace? Do you offer it? Is it even a real thing?

Redemption...what is that? Have you ever felt redeemed from something you did wrong?
Who offered that grace or forgiveness to redeem you and how did that make you feel?...relieved, thankful, or perhaps maybe worse because you didn't deserve it...or maybe you feel you did deserve it and it made you feel nothing?
Or have you not ever done anything wrong to be redeemed from? (If sin and evil is not real I assume this would be the logical answer.)

If religious people carry a horrible burden about hell, do you not carry any burden if there is no belief in hell?
What about the belief that religious peoples believe about heaven? Could that be more emphasized for their motivation rather than just hell?
Is there a real heaven but no real hell? If so, how does one get there?
If no heaven and no hell because there is no proof, is there still the possibility of one or both, or do you confidently believe that neither exists?

What of burdens?
When one comes non-religious do burdens cease to exist?
Are burdens some psychological phenomenon that only happen to people who have not been enlightened my non-religion?
Do you feel burdened reading these questions as I do in writing them?

How does love, torture, and fear go together? Are they even real?
How do you define love? Are their different kinds of love? Is love real? Who or what do you love and why?
What is torture? If sin or evil is not real could torture be real? Can non-religious people not be tortured or feel tortured?

And last but not least, what of fear? What is fear exactly? Could fear be real?
I assume you felt it at one time, do you not feel fear anymore if you are non-religious?
If you do feel fear, what do you fear and why? Would it be logical to feel fear anymore if you are non-religious?

To sum it all up, by your language I assume that you may no longer fear hell because you do not believe in it, but could you be wrong?
If there is the possibility that you are wrong and there is a hell, and there is a heaven, then where do you think you deserve to go?
If heaven, why?
If hell, why?
Is their the possibility that just the simple belief in Jesus (not a religious action or activity) could be the starting point for the answer to all of these questions as He claims?

Does none of it still not concern you because you are at peace now regardless of any of it is real or not?

If it doesn't concern you and you are at peace, can you explain how you came to that logical conclusion?

Sorry for the redundant questioning, but I am sincere in asking them?

Grace and Peace to you my brother Cootie!

I look forward to your response and consideration of my questions. Please know they are not communicated in a heart to condemn or belittle, but meant to offer an opportunity to communicate a logical framework for one to understand your worldview.

Blessings,
C.R. Brown

[Cootie Brown]

CR I was a devout Christian for most of my adult life. I taught Bible classes for 30 years, served as a deacon numerous times and an Elder once in the c of c & once in an independent community church. While in the c of c I was trained as an evangelist. I conducted numerous bible studies. I don't believe I ever lead anyone to Christ, but I converted a lot of Baptist to the c of c. Oh yeah, and I did a little preaching on the side too.

At the risk of being arrogant, which I am, what do you think you're going to tell me that I don't already know? What argument do you think you can make that I haven't already heard?

You want to discuss (debate) from a faith/apologetics position, but that would be pointless. An apologist job is to defend the faith. I compare them to defense attorney's. Apologist use words to defend their position not evidence because they don't have any evidence.

I left the faith when I saw the inconsistencies, contradictions, & outright absurdities in the Bible for myself. At that point I became a serious student of religious history. For more than a decade I've been studying & researching the origins & evolution of both the Bible & the Christian faith. History puts both the Bible & the Christian faith in a very different light & context. In a nutshell, it simply isn't true...none of it.

Historians have yet to find any evidence of a historical Jesus, which leads to the obvious conclusion there never was such a person. The only place Jesus can be found is in the gospel story. History provides evidence that dieing rising demigods are found in many cultures. In other words the gospel story isn't unique.

No one knows who wrote any of the bibles stories. Bart Ehrman, a noted religious historian, notes the bible has been edited, redacted, & sections completely rewritten more times than there are even words in it. In other words, present day bibles are forgeries. There is a thread I stared providing evidence that the book of Acts is pure fiction, but so is the entire bible for that matter. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John didn't write one word of the gospels that are named for them.

The emerging Catholic Church assigned those names to unnamed but popular manuscripts of the gospel story as a way of identifying them & to give the allusion of their authenticity. I could go on for hours but I think you've got my point by now.
Obviously after investigating Christianity & the Bible from a historical perspective my faith evaporated & it simply isn't possible to resurrect it again.

Oh yeah, I have also studied the psychological reasons for why people are religious. That is also a really interesting study too. I don't try to deconvert people, because that generally isn't possible, but I do try to educate them in the hope a few will stop taking the Bible literally & avoid becoming indoctrinated fundamentalists zombies like I once was.