Watch Where You’re Bathing

David and Bathsheba031It’s not a popular position today to say that how a woman dresses has anything whatsoever to do with how a man might act, but let’s face it—women bear responsibility for suggestive behavior.

For example, an eighteen-year-old Notre Dame football player just recently grabbed public attention by posting pictures of his date with a hot porn star—a forty-two-year-old porn star. She’s old enough to be his mother, and a few months earlier, she’d be guilty of statutory rape. (Yes, reportedly some of the pictures were of the two of them having sex.)

Of course most of the attention is on the young man. Some think he scored big or that he’s looking for a role in the porn industry himself. Others wonder what his Catholic university might have to say about his actions.

But I can’t help but think, would he have taken pictures of himself and his date having sex if he hadn’t been drawn into porn by the women he watched?

Women have been seducing men since the fall, and men have been guilty of sexual sin for just as long, but only today, it would seem, we acquit women of all culpability.

Perhaps the most famous seduction story in the Bible is King David’s adultery with Bathsheba, though we generally think of Bathsheba as an innocent party. She was anything but innocent.

Yes, David had plenty of guilt in the matter. He did all the wrong things a man could do, it would seem. He stayed at home instead of going with his troops to battle, as he had been doing. It was the equivalent of staying home from work to watch porn.

He was lounging on his bed and only arose in the evening to take a walk. He saw Bathsheba—not a quick glance, because he made an assessment of her beauty—and inquired after her. When he found out she was married, he pursued her anyway.

But what about Bathsheba? She “just happened” to take a bath in full view of the king’s residence. Did she not realize how close she was to the palace? Or that someone walking on the roof (the equivalent of a porch) could see her as she bathed? I doubt if she was so oblivious.

In truth, we don’t know for sure because the story is told from David’s perspective. For example, when David had Bathsheba’s husband Uriah killed, how did she feel about their affair then? We only know that she mourned Uriah, but I suspect she carried a lot of guilt with her to that funeral and even to her subsequent wedding with David.

We know David grieved the death of their child, conceived in adultery, but we don’t know how Bathsheba reacted. We know God confronted David, through the prophet Nathan, because of his sin, and David repented. Did Bathsheba have that same encounter with God and the opportunity to confess her sin? We simply don’t know. Scripture doesn’t tell us because the story is focused on David.

Because the Bible doesn’t explicitly point out Bathsheba’s responsibility or perhaps her open seduction of the king, I think a lot of people bypass her part in the sin. He was the king, after all, and she had to go to him when he sent for her. Really?

If she had wanted to remain faithful to her husband, she could have refused to do David’s bidden the same way Uriah did when David tried to cover up Bathsheba’s pregnancy by sending Uriah home. He wouldn’t go, choosing instead to sleep with the king’s servants. His sense of duty wouldn’t allow him to be with his wife while the rest of the army was out in the field of battle. Too bad David didn’t have that same sense of duty.

Too bad Bathsheba didn’t either. When David sent for her, “she came to him.” Would he have sent if she hadn’t been bathing where he could watch her? Clearly not or the affair would have happened sooner.

I want to be clear on one thing: I am not saying women who are raped are at fault. That kind of blanket statement is foolish.

I am saying that women dress to be attractive and that can mean, draw the attention of men to their sexiness. In other words, how some women dress is with intent to make themselves sexually appealing. How is that any different from what Bathsheba did?

If tight or short or low cut get men to turn their heads, is dressing that way really innocent, innocuous conduct? How can we continue to think women bear no blame for setting men up to fail when it comes to their lustful thoughts?

Of course David bore his guilt for his affair with Bathsheba, and so must every man who has lust in their hearts, whether they act on it or not. But because David sinned doesn’t mean Bathsheba was without sin. I suspect many of us women bear guilt of like kind to Bathsheba’s. If only we could value purity above the world’s requirement that women “be attractive”–i.e., head-turningly sexy.

Instead Christian young women swallow what society says: men want sex so women should show their sexiness. And we wonder why divorce rates are high in the church and young people are sleeping around. We might be preaching purity and abstinence, but we aren’t teaching young people, or married couples, for that matter, what steps to take to avoid sexual immorality.

One thing that will help for sure is if young women pay attention to where they are bathing.

Advertisements

115 Comments

  1. All I would have to do Rebecca is post a link to this article in certain alcoves of online Christendom I know of and there would be a blitzkrieg of waling banshees over here proclaiming you a self hating, rape enabling, dupe of patriarchal fundamentalism for this.

    Of course I wouldn’t do that and truth be told? If anything, I might say you actually did go a little easy on the guys here. I’m guessing though that may be just how it appears because the focus of this piece is on the gals.

    I don’t think most women understand the snarling clawed and fanged beast our post fall sexual selves actually are. That said, yes, we are responsible, and by God’s grace we CAN help it, but it is WAR. Can ya be on our side please ladies?

    Thank you for your fair mindedness Rebecca and commitment to the word.

    I’m not sure what to think of Bathsheba btw. There is no record of resistance at any level on her part. The question remains though, would there be a record if she had? From my reading of the general tenor of God’s revelation overall, I’d have to say….. maybe 🙂 Which leaves me where I started which is I’m not sure what to think.

    Like

    • Greg, I appreciate that women’s obedience would be a help to men, but in reality, it’s first for our own spiritual well-being as well as relational health. I think we make a mistake to think that women should be virtuous simply to “help guys out.” Women should be virtuous because life is closer to what God intended if we walk in holiness and obedience.

      In truth, guys, actually, could “help women out” if they showed a little interest in something other than a woman’s appearance and sex appeal.

      It really is a two-way street and both men and women bear their own responsibility before God. For these last few generations we’ve been letting us women skate a bit, I think. God doesn’t.

      Becky

      Like

      • AMEN!!! I couldn’t agree more Rebecca. A woman’s (or man’s) motivation to purity should first be in pleasing our Lord. When that’s the case, most of the rest of this takes care of itself. I apologize if I left any other impression.

        “In truth, guys, actually, could “help women out” if they showed a little interest in something other than a woman’s appearance and sex appeal.”

        The last several years God has indeed shown me the way I had slighted my own wife and by extension women in general with an attitude of male superiority that fell short of His own regard for them as fellow bearers of His image.

        Inadvertent though it was, it was wrong. I very much undervalued and hence under appreciated her as a person of immense substance beyond being a simple provision for MY needs in our home and our bed.

        Like

  2. Thank you for this reminder Rebecca. It is one that does not seem to be heard often enough anymore.

    Like

    • Cherylu, I agree—the Church doesn’t talk enough about a woman’s responsibility before God to be chaste in our appearance. Most people probably think the word “chaste” is so old fashioned, which illustrates the point. It should be as contemporary as holiness. Oh, wait, I guess that’s sliding into the old fashioned column too. 🙄 Sad.

      Becky

      Like

      • I guess that’s sliding into the old fashioned column too. 🙄 Sad.

        I believe there’s a reason for that —

        Like

  3. Well stated, Rebecca. Women seem to be good at justifying their own errant behavior; JUST AS GOOD AS MEN! 😉
    We all need to walk straight and help each other – help a guy out, to paraphrase Tiribulus.

    Like

    • Lyn, I do think women should be more aware of serving others rather than glorifying self, but that’s not exclusive to our gender. Men should help women out by being more concerned about inner beauty.

      Let’s face it, in today’s society, Christian men and women are swimming against the tide. There will be porn and sexy TV ads, scantily clad women at the beach, and men will continue to give the most sexy women their attention. All the more reason for Christians to be united in our effort to live morally pure lives.

      Becky

      Like

      • I do think women should be more aware of serving others rather than glorifying self

        I would think gods should be more aware of serving others, rather than glorifying themselves, but throughout the Bible, it’s “Me, me, me”!

        Like

  4. […] struggle that heterosexual men face in everyday life. I’m ashamed to admit that until I read Watch Where You’re Bathing by the ever misguided Becky, I thought it was okay for me, as a female of the species, to wear […]

    Like

  5. Good post. It’s quite ironic to me, in our quest for female sexual empowerment, we’ve created this situation were women are not required, indeed, not even perceived as capable of, taking responsibility for ourselves.

    To make matters worse, we then encourage women to dress provocatively as if that is where all our self worth should be coming from.

    So, now we have rendered women somewhat helpless, reduced their worth to nothing more than their sexuality, and sent them forth into the world armed with nothing but this idea that they have full autonomy over all things at all times. It’s so diabolical, it’s somewhat brilliant.

    Like

    • So, now we have rendered women somewhat helpless, reduced their worth to nothing more than their sexuality, and sent them forth into the world armed with nothing but this idea that they have full autonomy over all things at all times. It’s so diabolical, it’s somewhat brilliant.

      It really is amazing to me in this day of feminism that women, apart from any Christian motivation, are OK with being objectified. You’d think someone would stand up for women being more than bodies to be used.

      Of course the Christian understands there’s more at stake than the here and now, and that the here and now holds much more promise than the “passing pleasures of sin.”

      Anyway, great comment. Thanks for joining the discussion.

      Becky

      Like

  6. Becky, I understand you come from a culture of a certain kind of Christian mindset where these views are the norm. What I can’t understand is where you think the line in modest dress could possibly be drawn when this is exactly the kind of thinking that leads certain Muslim societies to force women into burkas.

    We are sexual animals, and there is no end to what part of our bodies can make others have sexual thoughts. It’s ludicrous to pretend that by altering our clothing we can somehow avoid sexual thoughts. I’m sure you’re aware of the effects of thought repression (clearly haunting your first commenter above). Indeed, as Victoria commented on my post, several studies have shown the that biggest consumer areas of porn in the USA are the religious areas – thought repression out of control.

    I hope you can find the time to read the post below, an excellent, historical analysis of the story of Bathsheba from a fellow Christian, that doesn’t perpetuate the pattern of blaming women for the actions of men:
    https://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/myths-i-believed-about-women-of-the-bible/

    Like

    • Violet, I’ll try to find time to read the article—can’t promise because things are busy just now (which is why it’s taken me so long to get to these comments. Sorry about that).

      I see that despite my efforts to the contrary there’s a lingering idea that I think women are to blame (and men are poor victims) in immoral relationships. That is not my position. Rather, I think it’s time to stop blaming men for everything. That’s gone on long enough.

      Why not simply tell the truth—in an affair, like David with Bathsheba, both parties are at fault, the woman for seducing the man, the man for using the woman.

      What I can’t understand is where you think the line in modest dress could possibly be drawn when this is exactly the kind of thinking that leads certain Muslim societies to force women into burkas.

      Violet, you’re absolutely right to point out how any body part can be considered sensual in a particular day, time, or culture. Modesty today is a world away from what modesty meant in 1914 or 1814 or 1714. Society mores change. There’s no line we can draw in the sand to say, This is the definition of modesty.

      At the same time, there is a world of difference between refraining from dressing in a suggestive way in 21st century western society and being covered by burkas. My guess is, most people who are alive and can see, know when a woman is dressing to make the most of her “assets”—or to put it another way, when she is advertizing her body.

      Bathsheba was doing that. Unless she was stupid—and the rest of the story about David and Solomon would make that idea seem less than likely. She was not bathing in private if David could see her from his roof. And she would know he could see her if she looked! (Oh, my, the king’s palace overlooks my backyard. I wonder if I can bath out there without the king noticing!—Only someone in a horror story would have such dimwitted thinking! 😉 )

      Becky

      Like

      • Please do check it out when you get a minute. A key quote to address you misunderstanding of the cultural context of the story is this:
        “Bathsheba wasn’t bathing on her roof. Bathsheba was in the mikveh. In the communal pool, the one designated for ritualistic cleansing, the one constructed for privacy, and the one David would have KNOWN naked women went into at least once a month, as the Law commanded.”

        I think your misunderstanding of this story can be projected to your perceptions in life generally. You are looking for women to have blame from the outset, and it’s odd that you seem to be pleased to point the finger in story of rape without looking at the context.

        Your point about any part of the body being considered sensual at any time is key – once you ban one area from view (e.g. cleavage), another becomes desirable (e.g. shoulders), and like I say, it’s just a slippery slope to burkas.

        Like

        • Like

          • archaeopteryx1, this has no relevance to this discussion. Apparently you missed the point of the article. I’m sorry I wasn’t clearer.

            Becky

            Like

          • I find it extremely relevant, in that it clearly demonstrates what can happen when a theology decides which parts of a woman’s body may be seen, and which may not.

            Like

      • Violet, there are a couple points this article made that need to be clarified.

        First, David didn’t rape Bathsheba. Compare the account of David’s son Amnon raping his sister Tamar (see 2 Samuel, chapter 13), and you can see that the Bible doesn’t quibble on such matters.

        Since the Bible is the only source information we have about David and Bathsheba’s affair, it’s quite clear that there’s no “he forced her” language as there was in connection to Tamar’s rape.

        As far as the “consent” issue is concerned, as I pointed out in my article, Bathsheba’s husband had no problem disobeying David. He had higher principles, so when David said, Go on home and be with your wife, Uriah did not go. Bathsheba had that choice, too, when the messenger from David arrived.

        As far as Bathsheba’s bath, the author of the article is mistaken on two fronts—nowhere does the record say Bathsheba was on her roof, so I don’t know why she thinks she has to refute that idea. But David clearly was on the roof of his home: “Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing.” He wasn’t off peering through screens into a private bathing area as this article suggests.

        In addition there is no indication whatsoever that Bathsheba was engaged in ritualistic cleansing. Perhaps it’s the 400 year old translation the author apparently was using that made it hard for her to realize that Bathsheba was doing nothing more than taking a bath . . . in full view of the king’s house (see the quote above).

        As I tried to make clear in my article, David is one hundred percent culpable for his actions. That’s why God sent the prophet to him to expose his sin, why He passed judgment on him, why David had to repent and cry out for God’s mercy.

        But we don’t know if God also dealt with Bathsheba—this passage simply isn’t a record of her life. Anyone with a thread of honest reflection, however, would have to say, a woman taking a bath in full view of the king’s roof is unwise, at best, and acting in a seductive manner, at worst.

        Which was Bathsheba doing? It’s pure speculation, but from what happened in the rest of the account, I lean toward her making an intentional play for David. But maybe she was simply thinking, It’s hot, there’s probably no one up there, I’ll just grab a quick bath and no one will notice.

        Back to the covering body parts issue. I don’t think that is the key. I think it goes to this issue of intent—is the woman dressing the way she is so she can sell herself to men? Two hundred years ago, the issue wasn’t whether a woman showed some ankle but whether she was trying to make men notice her body.

        I really am astounded that this point seems controversial. I would think all women, of whatever persuasion, would be united in saying we are not simply sex objects and we want to be treated as intelligent, capable beings, not just as things to stimulate a man’s lust.

        Becky

        Like

        • I don’t think the Bible is quibbling over whether or not David raped Bathsheba, either.

          When Nathan comes to David to force him to see what he’s done, he uses a story about a sheep. A poor man loves his sheep and takes care of it and cherishes it.

          The rich man steals the sheep– but does he steal it because he also wants to care for it and cherish it? No: Nathan says he slaughters it and EATS it.

          The Bible seems to be pretty clear about what David did, and it’s not just the crime of taking another man’s wife.

          Like

          • Samantha, Nathan was telling a story, not creating an allegory—which is clear from the fact that he was not accusing David of cannibalism. When he said, “You’re the man,” it was clear that David, who had a harem of women to choose from, had stolen his neighbor’s one wife.

            Besides, Scripture needs to be read in context. Compare this account to that of Amnon raping his sister and you’ll see that the Bible doesn’t skirt around the subject. If David had forced Bathsheba as Amnon did Tamar, the language would have been similar. There are other rape stories in the Bible and the account is never circumspect. The only people who think David raped Bathsheba are the ones who want to think of David as a rapist. It’s simply not in the text!

            Becky

            Like

  7. Oh I know Samantha. She is a bisexual, gay affirming ultra (and I DO mean ULTRA) liberal child, without the first flickering clue of how to handle the holy scriptures and who curls up and whimpers in the face of anything like a real challenge. I tried. With complete grace and respect and as a 10th grade dropout, I challenged her on her own self declared graduate school specialty and she threw me out.

    She’s a cowardly intellectual lightweight who surrounds herself with fellow immoral libertine apostates whose mission in life is to attack Christ’s church in the name of the sometimes legitimate claims of abuse at the hands of some backwoods independent cult. But just as often it’s people who simply hate God and His truth, who make unsubstantiated claims, and delight in the company of others who will affirm their debauchery and heresy.

    This is not my blog and I can’t tell you what to do, but what are you doing here? What do you care what Rebecca or I think? Could it possibly be a still barely living conscience gasping for breath that you are trying to extinguish once and for all? I’d like to think so.

    I don’t care what you say about me and I care even less about your tired worn out preposterous arguments which I’ve seen a hundred times, but the way you hateful pagans came after Rebecca last night is despicable and truly telling of what kind of mindset you bring to your unholy campaign. You have an entire galaxy of like minded people to romp around in your filth with.

    I ask again. Why are you here in this place attacking a woman who has more sound scholarship on every level in her pinky toenail than all of you pathetic revisionists combined? Why?

    Just for the heck of it, try THIS

    Like

    • @ Tiribulis

      I truly believe you have some serious anger issues to deal with.
      I have read the link provided and her assessment is spot on.
      Perhaps you ought to dig out your own bible and do a bit of studying?

      Like

      • Thank you 😉

        Like

        • Always a pleasure to help the ‘Christians’ – especially if it helps them become atheists

          Like

          • And thank you again. Please DO keep talking.

            Like

          • Most certainly – but are you listening?

            Like

    • Greg, as you say you don’t care what others say about you, so I don’t care what they say about me. They can take potshots at my appearance or my opinions if they want, but they are still welcome at my site. Still. Welcome.

      Please don’t suggest that my visitors should leave. It isn’t what I want. I appreciate your intention to waylay attack, but please understand. When I post on controversial subjects, I am not shocked when someone releases a few salvos in my direction. It’s fine. Really.

      And it doesn’t serve you well to release your own shots at this Stephanie, who I assume is the author of the article Violet linked to. She’s not here, for one thing, but even if she were, it wouldn’t be any more appropriate to attack her than it is for those who went after me to do so.

      Becky

      Like

      • Samantha, not Stephanie. Sorry.

        Like

      • Rebecca says: “Please don’t suggest that my visitors should leave.”
        I wasn’t suggesting that anybody leave Rebecca. I was wondering about their motivation for being here.

        Rebeca says: “And it doesn’t serve you well to release your own shots at this Stephanie, who I assume is the author of the article Violet linked to. She’s not here, for one thing, but even if she were, it wouldn’t be any more appropriate to attack her than it is for those who went after me to do so.”
        The difference is I never went after her person behind her back, like they did you and made every effort at up front substantive engagement which SHE retreated from.

        It’s all still there. (not only on her “about” page) I did not bring Samantha up here. I merely reported on my recent interaction with her after someone else did. Of course this is your house and I will try to abide by your wishes.

        Like

        • Thank you for clarifying, Greg. I can see how your question could be asking about motive whereas I took it to mean, “You have no business here.” I’m thinking when you get into debates or take a stand against someone else’s demeaning comments, your tone seems to become strident, so I guess I took the more negative interpretation of you question. I’m glad to know that wasn’t your intention.

          Becky

          Like

          • Rebecca says: “Samantha, not Stephanie. Sorry.”
            No trouble. You don’t know her and I have a feeling I know which Stephanie you were reminded of.

            Rebecca says: “Thank you for clarifying, Greg.”
            Of course 🙂

            Rebecca says: “I’m thinking when you get into debates or take a stand against someone else’s demeaning comments, your tone seems to become strident, so I guess I took the more negative interpretation of you question. I’m glad to know that wasn’t your intention.”
            Completely understandable and for the reason you give. You’ll find that with unbelievers making no claim on Christ I have all the patience there is. Even when they wish slow gruesome death upon myself and my family (true story). These folks are who the commands of grace to those who oppose are for.

            However, people in the visible church, who by the standards of historic reformed orthodoxy show themselves to be clear moral and or theological heretics? They get anathemas. Again, as in, especially Paul’s writings, but also Peter, John and Jude. There is a zero tolerance policy until repentance is forthcoming. It’s the western church who has moved. Not me. God’s standards of truth and holiness don’t evolve with cultural acceptability. I can’t help it if most professing Christians today would have been unrecognizable as such before the last half of the 20th century. My standards will NEVER change because God’s don’t.

            And yes. Your arguments with our new friends are right on. God has never pronounced judgement on an innocent person in all of history. These were debauched, bloodthirsty, idolatrous pagan nations with whom He had withheld His wrath for a long time. Even His horrific judgements on His own covenant people Israel were executed in punishment for equally horrific sin. According to Romans 3 there are no innocent people anyway. God could have justly exterminated and damned everybody after Adam’s fall. The miracle of grace is that He saves anyone. My method is most times more biblically philosophical is all.

            Like

    • Thanks for the link, I’ll try and find the time to look through your blog.

      Like

    • That’s an … interesting presentation of your behavior.

      Rebecca: I am bi, I am affirming, and I am a liberal/progressive Christian. That’s no secret. However, I banned this person from my blog because he would not respect my other commenters and insisted on insulting multiple people even after I asked him to stop.

      Like

      • I insulted no one Samantha.

        Just I like I asked before you banned me. “Links please”. Show where I insulted multiple people. Show where I insulted ANYbody. Go ahead.

        All I did was demand some kind of verifiable support for your outrageous and evidence free allegations. Along with attempting to engage you in a discussion about epistemology which you claim was your graduate focus and yet you still ran away.

        Funny how you show up over here, but silence my perfectly reasonable and polite engagement at your own place. Anybody visiting your site will see that the real insults came from your readers toward me to which I did not even once respond in kind except to defend you and tell them that I didn’t care what they thought.

        Not everybody is used to believing what you say, just because you say it. Now. Where are your links? (watch this folks)

        Like

        • You kept insisting that you had “more respect” for me than the other commenters, implying that they were “disrespecting” me for trying to engage with the questions you were asking. That is an abusive tactic called isolationism. You were not willing to talk to anyone else except me, and every single comment you addressed to me was patronizing and condescending in the extreme.

          http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/about/#comment-10788

          You spent most of your time baiting people:

          http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/about/#comment-10796

          When people talked about their own lived experiences, offering you eye-witness testimony, you would completely dismiss everything they said because it wasn’t enough “proof” for you.

          http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/real-marriage-review-3-18-new-marriage-same-spouse/#comment-11224

          When someone said they’d experienced something in church, or heard something being taught, you’d completely ignore how that doctrine or incident had been hurtful and repeated “they’re not REALLY CHRISTIANS” ad nauseum.

          http://defeatingthedragons.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/real-marriage-review-3-18-new-marriage-same-spouse/#comment-11228

          You’ve been banned in multiple places for the exact same behavior, and yet keep trying to paint yourself as some sort of persecuted person that people are too “afraid’ to engage with.

          I’m not afraid of engaging with you. You’re just not worth it.

          Like

          • He’s doing the same thing on another site, Samantha, but that shouldn’t surprise you.

            Like

        • So I responded to this yesterday but I’m assuming because there was links in the comment it went into moderation.

          Like

        • Greg, she supplied links, but I’d ask you not to continue this argument with Samantha here. You may invite her to your site to read your response to her comment here, but please, don’t continue an old disagreement here at my site. Thanks, Greg.

          Becky

          Like

          • Of course Rebecca 🙂 I honestly would not have continued that here anymore. Quite frankly, I didn’t think she’d be back. I do also so very much appreciate you allowing her links. Yes. That’s the kinda thing I was banned for.

            Samantha, you know where I am. You will always be welcome to say anything you want, bring anybody else who is also welcome to say anything they want, OR even better, allow me back at your place so we continue at your leisure. I really did mean those nice things I was saying for a while. You disappointed me. 😦

            Like

  8. Arkenaten, please go HERE and ask her to continue that dialog with me. You would enjoy it. She won’t though.

    I stand by everything I’ve said here.

    The bottom line in THIS discussion on this present page is that both sexes have a responsibility to the other to, present themselves appropriately as is both explicitly set forth and by good and necessary consequence deduced from the mind of the eternal God as recorded in His scriptures.

    Like

    • Is this the same god that annihilated humanity with a global flood?
      The same god that ordered ”Moses” and ”Joshua” to enact various episodes of heinous barbarism , including the genocidal campaign in Canaan?
      Ho hum.
      That you, or any one else for that matter, would take any moral cues concerning decency from this despotic, egocentric monster is already cause for concern, especially as serious biblical scholarship has already established that the Pentateuch is a work of fiction.

      Like

      • Once again. If I might be so bold in Rebecca’s house. What are you doing here? Not that I find you repulsive or especially bad in any particular way. Not at all. I am in no position to look down my nose at anybody. I’m just wondering.

        I very much appreciate your substantive and “erudite” remark at Samantha’s place btw. (I knew you wouldn’t be able to resist) Here I’ve spent 30 years of my life walking with the creator and king of the universe, in the pursuit of His word and will and in one fell swoop of towering locker room profundity you have laid it waste before my eyes.

        Here, you’ll REALLY love THIS

        I will be happy to talk with you further somewhere, but I must be up front. Until you command light and matter to exist from nothing(whatever that is), and arrange and sustain them as the mind numbingly vast cosmos we live in, and of which we divine image bearing human critters are the highest part, I’m just not going to be able to take your word over His. Trust me. I do fully understand every single argument that you think this makes me vulnerable to.

        Make no mistake friend. To me someone like you is not an adversary to be vanquished. Those are actually in the church. You are a potential brother or sister in Christ to be hopefully and prayerfully won. Were it not for the eternal electing gracious love of the sovereign God I would long ago have been dead and lost in my sin.(that’s actually literally true)

        Once again. The bottom line in THIS discussion on this present page is that both sexes, though Rebecca was focusing on women, have a responsibility to the other to, present themselves appropriately as is both explicitly set forth and by good and necessary consequence deduced from the mind of the one and only true and living eternal God as recorded in His scriptures. He gets to determine that and we don’t.

        He also gets to do whatever He pleases with His own creation, including flooding it to death and ordering the extermination of the Canaanites and Amalakites.(and much MUCH more, but no this is not even vaguely similar to Islam) With or without an explanation to us. THAT is what you REALLY hate. It is also the defining symptom of father Adam’s fall into autonomous self sufficient rebellion against his creator. You’re a chip off the ol block Arkenaten. Just like me. Only Jesus Christ can enable you to even see that, to say nothing of fixing it. Maybe we’ll get to talk about that someday.

        Like

        • Not only do I find your presuppositional apologetic diatribe offensive but also quite ridiculous. However, if you wish to retain any sense of credibility then please, before we proceed further, either here or elsewhere, present the verifiable evidence you have for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is this universe creator.
          Let me see that you are at least a man of integrity and not merely an indoctrinated sycophant.

          Like

        • Until you command light and matter to exist from nothing (whatever that is), and arrange and sustain them as the mind numbingly vast cosmos we live in, and of which we divine image bearing human critters are the highest part, I’m just not going to be able to take your word over His.

          I’m a bit curious, Tiribulus, as to which god you believe did this, as I could name a couple of thousand, had I the time and inclination, who claim that they did.

          Like

      • Arkenaten, unfortunately your comment says a lot more about you than it does God. Would you call the judge who passes down a guilty sentence to a mass murderer a “despotic, egocentric monster” because the penalty for his verdict is death? Perhaps you would. But what do you suggest we do with the mass murderer? Let him go free?

        You assume the people who died in the flood or those who died in Canaan were good people and therefore God would have to be mean and cruel to order their deaths. But what if they were mass murderers?

        You don’t know what they were like apart from recorded Biblical history, and apparently you are rejecting that because there’s no doubt from the written record that 1) they were living harmful, immoral lifestyles; 2) God gave all these people time to stop their immoral behavior; and 3) He has the authority to judge them, and us, for how they lived.

        serious biblical scholarship has already established that the Pentateuch is a work of fiction.

        Sure, just like serious, intelligent people say there is no God. Because someone thinks it and shapes his study to achieve those results does not make it so.

        Becky

        Like

        • Sure, just like serious, intelligent people say there is no God. Because someone thinks it and shapes his study to achieve those results does not make it so.” – isn’t the converse of that what theists do?

          Like

        • No, Becky, serious, intelligent people say that there has never been a scrap of evidence produced to suggest there are gods.
          However, feel free to offer some, if you have any, and you have my word that I will treat it the respect that is assuredly deserves.

          Like

        • Arkenaten, you said, “No, Becky, serious, intelligent people say that there has never been a scrap of evidence produced to suggest there are gods.”

          From that I deduce that you think only people who agree with you are intelligent. I don’t know how to say this kindly. Only pride could lead a person to such a position.

          It astounds me that you even think a spiritual being needs to pass your evidence-of-existence test. It’s like saying, I don’t believe in air because you can’t weigh it in this balance . . . and you must use the balance. Any other system is invalid.

          In other words, you’re trying to treat a gas like you would a solid, and yet you find fault with those who say, a gas has properties unique to it and unmeasurable by the usual means used in relation to a solid.

          It’s also astounding that you believe you know what does not exist in all the vastness of the cosmos—that God isn’t there somewhere.

          As far as evidence is concerned, take a look at the complexity of life. It takes more faith to believe that the intricacies of DNA, for example, developed randomly than it does to believe that a supreme being intentionally constructed them.

          Becky

          Like

          • See reply in new thread below

            Like

          • I don’t believe in air because you can’t weigh it” – Actually Becky, air has weight.

            It takes more faith to believe that the intricacies of DNA, for example, developed randomly than it does to believe that a supreme being intentionally constructed them.” – only if you can demonstrate what intentionally constructed the supreme being.

            And yes, it would not be wrong to say I have more faith in science than in a supernatural magic man.

            Like

          • Perhaps your truncated quote was an accident and not intended to be a trumped up “look at the stupid Christian” comment, archaeopteryx1. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, but here’s the entire quote, because I actually do know oxygen has weight. I don’t think it can be weighed in a balance, however, but I could be wrong: It’s like saying, I don’t believe in air because you can’t weigh it in this balance . . . and you must use the balance. Any other system is invalid.

            A first cause doesn’t have anything else constructing it, because it’s first. God is the first cause of all we see and know, and much that remains invisible to us at this time.

            Glad you recognize your belief is no different than anyone else’s—just placed in a different object.

            Becky

            Like

          • God is the first cause of all we see and know, and much that remains invisible to us at this time.” – in your opinion. Even your book doesn’t say that nothing created your god.

            Like

    • “You would enjoy it. She won’t though.” I’m not sure what this means. Is it a testosterone moment where a man would enjoy the ‘challenge’ of your writing more than a woman? You’re right about one thing, I didn’t find anything of interest on your blog, but I do like some of your comments here and hope you won’t mind if I share them with a wider audience. I’ll be sure to give you full credit. 😀

      Like

      • violetwisp quotes me as saying: “You would enjoy it. She won’t though.”
        And then responds with:
        I’m not sure what this means. Is it a testosterone moment where a man would enjoy the ‘challenge’ of your writing more than a woman?
        No Maam. Poor phraseology on my part. Sorry, was in a a hurry. I meant that he would enjoy it, but she will never allow it. Please reread my remark in that light.

        violetwisp: “I do like some of your comments here and hope you won’t mind if I share them with a wider audience. I’ll be sure to give you full credit. 😀
        Ohhhh, I insist and would be greatly honored Madam. I am fully persuaded that my comments are the truth as it is in Christ Jesus or I wouldn’t make them. I would consider it the favor of my Lord if He would allow me the joy of watching even the scorn of sinners work His righteous ends. I ask only that you leave my thought intact and not hack n slash my words so as to convey what I did not intend. (yes, this has been done. And most egregiously by somebody I’m pretty sure you know.)

        Can I expect to be informed from now on when you do? tiribulus@gmail.com
        After all, is it not fair and upright that I be allowed to answer if so led and inclined? I would do that for you. If not then I would be left with the unavoidable conclusion that like Samantha, yourself and your crew are afraid of real challenge.

        Like

        • Thank you! Duly posted in my most recent offering “Christians face the genocidal tendencies of their loving god God”

          Like

  9. Hello Arkenaten,

    I am not here to argue with you at all.

    I would simply like to say that I have personally experienced the love of that God that you say does not exist. He has shown Himself as being very real to me many times over. He has changed my life and answered prayers in miraculous ways. Ways that there are simply no other explanation for except a direct miracle from God.

    It would be my hope that one day you would come to know His love, His power, and His life within you too.

    Like

    • This is the same god that commanded Moses and Joshua to enact Genocide?
      Smile … another sad example of cultural indoctrination. Please keep it away from children, okay?

      Like

      • Arkenaten, have you read the Bible to know what God said about the people receiving His judgment? You rightly recognize that God used other people groups to enact His judgment, but you, I believe, are the one indoctrinated because it appears from these comments that you can’t believe a group of people could be so heinous as to deserve the death penalty. Not their child sacrifice or their religious, ritualistic prostitution or their systematic attempts to starve other people groups or enslave them or behead them (yes, ISIS doesn’t have a corner on this way of treating enemies), and mostly their utter rejection of God.

        Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.

        Becky

        Like

        • I have read the bible . Cover to cover as it happens and still refer to it for reference purposes on a fairly regular basis. Although the internet is quicker and easier these days.
          It often astounds Christians to learn that the average atheist is much better versed than the average christian.
          You see, Becky, the atheist will not simply accept fanciful drivel unless it can be backed by data. The bible cannot back its claims.

          Your comment, like all those of fundamentalist religious people, sadly, demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking.
          Do you ever research outside the straits of your faith? For this is all it is Becky. Faith.
          Have you researched the history of the Old Testament?
          Have you researched the Exodus?
          Have you looked at the archaeological evidence, or do you still prefer to accept erroneous nonsense?
          Maybe you think the likes of Ron Wyatt and Ken Ham are worthy of scholarly consideration?
          Have you studied Pauline doctrine?
          Have you read Raymond Brown and what he has to say about some of the foundational Tenets of your religion?
          Have you read anything from the findings of the Acts Seminar?

          I have ….

          Like

          • Interestingly, Ark, Ron Wyatt, before his death, claimed to have pulled an Indy Jones and found the lost Ark of the Covenant, hidden in a cave beneath Golgotha (spoiler alert – no one melted!), and according to Wyatt and/or his people, the blood of Yeshua seems to have somehow dripped through the ground and landed on the Ark. Sadly, much like Wyatt’s god, no one has seen this miraculous discovery.

            Like

          • There are also Chariot Wheels on the bottom of the Red ( Reed) Sea, according to Wyatt – who also photographed them. Glory be!
            This was revealed as a huge internet hoax, but not before some Fundamentalist Christian called Christopher- who also happened to be an ordained minister swore blind that ”his” archaeologist had proved the Exodus occurred and he would show me evidence.
            When I tentatively asked if this was Wyatt by any chance, he did not reply and immediately closed the comments.
            Sigh. ..such is the burden of education we bear, I am afraid.
            Why are they just so silly?

            Like

          • Too bad, too, about Wyatt’s find disappearing like that – a mere flake of that blood would have gone far toward establishing the DNA makeup of Yeshua.

            John 4:24, written by some anonymous author around 70 years after the death of Yeshua (if he ever existed), who could only have based his gospel on hearsay information, tells us that god is a spirit. Spirits – at least the ones that have so far been captured in the wild and domesticated – have not been found to possess DNA, which means that Yeshua could not have carried a Y chromosome, and therefore HAD to have been an exact clone of little, barely post-pubescent Mary – Yeshua MUST have been female – unless of course, a mortal male was somehow involved in the conception, but the Bible doesn’t mention that.

            I can’t help wondering if little Mary seduced him by bathing in the nude – after all, everyone knows that god sees everything. But if in fact it WAS god, doesn’t that mean, since Mary was betrothed to Joseph, that the Bible’s god committed adultery? What kind of example is THAT for a god to set?

            Like

        • Arkenaten, I asked you about your familiarity with the Bible because I wanted to make a point about it that you wouldn’t be aware of if you had not read it.

          I don’t want to get into a spitting contest with you—I’ve read these scholars and went to this debate and studied the Bible this much. Undoubtedly you’ve read many I haven’t, and I’ve read many you haven’t.

          Along that line, you’re wrong that the Bible can’t back its claims. There have been books and books written to demonstrate that fact. I can give you some titles if you’re interested, but I suspect you aren’t. You sound as if your mind is made up on the issue and you’d rather not be confused by facts. 😉

          In reality, as I’ve said elsewhere, it takes, in my opinion, far more faith to accept the “fanciful drivel” that complex life just happened by chance. The mathematical odds are astronomically against such a notion. It flies in the face of reason (do you think an explosion in a garage would result in a fully functional computer, even given billions of years to sort themselves out?) And it contradicts the law of physics that essentially says order does not come from disorder. In other words, your belief has nothing going for it but your faith.

          And yet you think I lack critical thinking. I find that ironic.

          Becky

          Like

          • As the Pentateuch is now considered largely fiction by recognised archaeologists and other relevant scientists what is there that you could possibly point me to to scientifically back its claims?
            No, Becky, you do not exercise critical thought in this regard because you enter the fray with a presuppositional bias – your god exists – and are unable to provide a shred of evidence for such a claim yet will dismiss in an instant every other similar god claim from every other religion, even the other two Abrahamic faiths.

            If you have the evidence you claim, then present it.

            Like

          • Arkenaten, your statements are becoming more outlandish. What you suggest here is that you do not have a bias based on your presuppositions–as if you can and do know all there is in the entire cosmos, including any other dimensions that may exist. This is not possible. Don’t you understand that? You are not capable of that kind of knowledge—unless you, yourself are omniscient, and that would make you god. That’s very much how you come across–as if you think you have god-like knowledge or at least as if you want to have such.

            I’m sorry for you. You don’t fit the bill. But your thinking blinds you from such simple things like the fact that intelligent people might disagree with you.

            Feel free to respond if you wish, but I honestly have other people open to real discussion I need to address, so I’ll end this thread with you.

            Becky

            Like

          • it contradicts the law of physics that essentially says order does not come from disorder” – let’s chat about that for a moment.

            I wear a gold ring on my finger – a gift. It took three Supernovae to create the gold that went into that ring. Any star that goes Supernova must be, by Chandrasekhar’s Limit, at least 1.5 times larger than Sol, our friendly neighborhood star.

            The life of a star is characterized by thermonuclear fusion; hydrogen fuses to helium, helium to carbon, and so on, creating heavier and heavier elements. However, thermonuclear fusion cannot create elements heavier than iron. Only a supernova explosion can create copper, silver, gold, and the “trace elements” that are important for the processes of life.

            Lighter elements like carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen are also essential to life, but without supernova explosions, they would remain forever locked up in stars. Being heavier than the hydrogen and helium that comprise most of the initial mass of the stars, they sink to form the central core of the star – just as most of the iron on Earth is locked up in its core. Life as we know it requires rocky planets to form, and there simply is no way to get enough rocky material out into the universe unless stars can deliver that material in wholesale quantities. And supernovae do just that.

            In one sense, and one sense only, you are correct – entropy will ultimately win, and the universe will go out, not with a bang, but a whimper, just as T. S. Elliot predicted.

            But between the Bang and the Whimper, there will be many more recyclings, just as 4.5 billion years from now, the earth and everything out to the orbit of Mars, will be enveloped by the growing Red Giant star that our own sun will become, then whatever remains of what was you and I, will evaporate, and our constituent atoms will possibly be recycled once again into a new star, with its own set of planets, and some other being may well one day fashion a gold amulet for one of its tentacles, which it may well wave while expounding on how it came to be that it and its kind were created in the image of their god.

            Like

  10. Arkenaten asks me to: “present the verifiable evidence you have for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth whom you claim is this universe creator. Let me see that you are at least a man of integrity and not merely an indoctrinated sycophant.”
    Sorry. No can do. I AM an indoctrinated sycophant. Quite willingly. So are you. What makes me a man of integrity is my willingness to recognize that, which I assure you is the occasion for the glory of God alone, as left to myself I would be on your side.

    Every last particle of thought ever to flutter across the mind of man (chicks too), is taken utterly by faith. Which according to the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews is “the certainty of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen”. Which to us finite and sinful children of Adam means ultimately everything. For sinners and saints alike. Saints because it is their joy and and sinners because they have no choice.

    I live by it. You live by it, it’s only a matter of what in. Yours is in you which explains nothing, mine is in an omniscient God which explains everything.

    As I told Samantha:

    “… until we determine HOW and WHY we can and do know anything at all, any questions of WHAT we know are entirely meaningless. Unless we know where and what truth even CAN be, then how will we know when and if we are seeing it?”

    You can crow until the pyramid of Cheops has returned to the dusts of Giza, but you will not, indeed CANnot, ever overcome this reality. Try as you might, and boy do you ever. The apostle talks about this in detail in the first chapter of his epistle to the church at Rome, beginning in verse 18.

    That same apostle who in the first chapter of his first epistle to the saints at Corinth also makes it clear that if I were NOT offending you, I would NOT be preaching the truth. I do not do so gratuitously, but it is unavoidable if I am to remain faithful to my God.

    You cannot even tell my why 1+1=2 without complete servile dependence upon a faith just as completely blind as you ascribe to us idiotic Christians. I dare you to prove otherwise. By your own canons of logic. In your world and for an individual with your clear and objective powers of analysis this should prove far less daunting than “verifiable evidence… for the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth whom [ I ] claim is this universe creator.”

    “I’m a bit curious, Tiribulus, as to which god you believe did this, as I could name a couple of thousand, had I the time and inclination, who claim that they did.”
    No you can’t, I know better than that, most religions posit some form of an eternally existent universe, but even if you could, it wouldn’t mean a thing until you can tel me how and why 1+1=2.

    However, no greater human exposition of the one true and living God of the Bible can be found than Chapter II of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
    I post THIS screenshot to save space on Rebecca’s already thoroughly invaded blog. (I don’t blame you for that)

    Like

    • However, no greater human exposition of the one true and living God of the Bible can be found than Chapter II of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646

      According to whom, and based on what?

      Like

      • Myself and the bible. Am I not the one you are having this discussion with and was it not therefore my view that you were asking for? 120 eminently qualified men (sorry, no chicks) spent 4 years hammering out that confession. It is a breathtaking masterpiece of biblical truth.

        Must do work. TTYL. No offense, but I don’t know if you’re a man or woman. Can I ask?

        Like

        • I’m not sure why, for the purpose of this or any other discussion, why it matters, but I’m a man.

          It is a breathtaking masterpiece of biblical truth.

          Ah, “biblical truth” – that great oxymoron —

          Like

          • You’re a man , Arch? You mean you’ve been lying to me all this time?
            You beastly person you! And Ill bet you never got measured for an ironing board either, did you? ‘

            Like

      • No, actually, with ever comment you sadly enforce the belief that you are nothing but a dickhead.
        What caused your need to run to religion I have no idea, though I would hazard a guess it was one of the big three, sex, drugs or rocknroll, like so many reborns who then get on an ”Evangelize the World” kick.

        You most certainly do not present yourself as a decent ordinary family man but rather a left field extremist with serious emotional issues.

        Like

        • If Arkenaten intended a substantive response in here somewhere, I must’ve missed it. I may be everything you allege, but your pointing it out does not constitute an argument.

          We should probably take this somewhere else where you can feel free to call me all the juvenile names you want. Your place?

          I just know you’re not going to run away from a “left field d**kh**d extremist with serious emotional issues” like Samantha did. Are you? Nah, you wouldn’t do that. This is a golden opportunity for you to humiliate a pathetic fundamentalized Christian religionist like myself. In front of all your friends to boot. I’ll buy the popcorn 😉

          I’ve learned never to underestimate an opponent (which isn’t the same as an adversary), I do not need you to be stupid to be wrong, which I see you are not, but if your performance thus far is any indication, this shouldn’t take long in Jesus name. Not because I’m smarter than you. But because I faithfully represent almighty God who IS truth itself. MY GOODNESS, how nutty that must sound huh? 😀 Waddaya say?
          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
          I apologize to archaeopteryx1. In my hurry, I mistook you for Arkenaten. That was the person whose gender I was curious about. Thank you for your answer though.

          Like

          • This is a golden opportunity for you to humiliate a pathetic fundamentalized Christian religionist like myself.

            In all honesty I truly beleive you are doing a splendid job without any help from me … ”my friend”.
            As I suggested before, if you wish to bump this up to an intellectual level then have the integrity to produce some verifiable evidence for your man- god, the biblical character , Jesus of Nazareth.
            Unless or until you are able to do this small thing then I am afraid you are merely piddling in the wind and I have no need or desire to engage in yet another circular discussion with an apologist practiced in the art of the theological two step and rampant obfuscation merely to stoke your ego.
            Wanna talk? Evidence first ….then you can talk your head off.

            Like

          • I apologize to archaeopteryx1. In my hurry, I mistook you for Arkenaten.

            That was the most unkindest cut of all, for when great Caesar saw him stab, ingratitude more strong than traitor’s arms, quite burst his mighty heart and vanquished him.

            Like

  11. Arkenaten: “Evidence first”
    No sir. Logic comes first or we have nothing to evaluate evidence with.

    Arkenaten: “this small thing”
    I asked you how and why 1+1=2. A thing much smaller, but in fact required before your thing (or any other) can be known at all. If you cannot explain to me how and why you believe 1+1=2, why should anybody care what you think about anything else?

    Like

    • Nope. One does not need logic to provide verifiable evidence of the character, Jesus Christ any more than one needs logic to provide evidence for Abe Lincoln.
      If you have any then let’s see it. What on earth is holding you back?
      I mean, you believe because you have evidence right?
      You’re not some indoctrinated hick from the sticks who ‘Found the Lawd” are you?
      Heaven forbid! That would mean I am having a discussion woith someone unable to exercise critical thought.
      Say it isn’t so!

      If you cannot explain to me how and why you believe 1+1=2, why should anybody care what you think about anything else?</blockquote?

      Absolutely 100% correct. You don't have to care what I think or if 1+ 1 = 2 and the next time you are due two hundred dollars bills and you are given only one it wont matter at all will it?

      Like

      • Santa Claus is real, or he isn’t, and knowing why 1+1=2 or why boomerangs come back, will not change the outcome.

        Like

        • (I’ve read every comment)
          You guys are beautiful man 🙂 Look, I have a doctors appointment and a job and won’t be able to be back until much later. Let’s take this to your place. Unless Rebecca wants it to continue here. She has her own dialog going with you.

          You are doing my job for me. God’s word IS truth indeed. Bless His holy name. Are you sure you didn’t study biblical epistemology and make it a specific mission in life to showcase it’s truth as living breathing object lessons? Because that’s exactly what you’re doing.

          Of course God Himself has rigged the game so it couldn’t be otherwise. He defines everything. He has that ultimate advantage ya know. Being creator n all. You are robbing His intellectual bank in order to finance your campaign against Him. This will not go over big at the judgement. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves though.

          Like

  12. Archaeopteryx, starting a new thread here. You asked a question and made a statement I’d like to respond to. First, “Ah, “biblical truth” – that great oxymoron –” I wonder on what basis you don’t think the Bible is true. Historical records about 1st century Rome or ancient Greek history don’t have anything close to the written historical evidence the Bible has, and few scholars debate whether those events/people are true.

    I can postulate you doubt the Bible because it records “unnatural” events and credits a supernatural being for them. But does that of necessity mean it isn’t true?

    You are essentially ruling out this historical record because of your presupposition—that God does not exist.

    Along this same line, you said

    “Sure, just like serious, intelligent people say there is no God. Because someone thinks it and shapes his study to achieve those results does not make it so.” – isn’t the converse of that what theists do?

    In one way, yes, which is why Christians say we all exercise faith—it’s a matter of what you place your faith in. Ultimately I place my faith in God who I know through Jesus Christ. But how do I know about Jesus Christ? From the Bible. Of course, I do have to believe the Bible is true, which brings us back to your earlier statement.

    There is a remarkable amount of evidence to support the Bible—historical evidence, archaeological evidence, the unity of the metanarrative, and more. In the end, the Bible claims authority, so I hold to it. And believe it or not, there are parts I wish were different, parts I don’t understand, and yet I continue to believe they are true. It’s like Cherylu said above. The Bible led me to Jesus who showed me God. Now I know Him, so it would be most foolish for me to dismiss Him.

    Think of it like the people you know online. We’ve not met, but I have no doubt that you’re a real person or that Violet is or Tribulus. I haven’t done more than read what any of you have written, but I know you to a certain degree. How much more do I know God from reading what He’s written and believing what He’s told me? I know it sounds incredible to someone who thinks the Bible is just another religious book. But I know how God has and is changing me from the inside out. And it matches what He says. And what He says answers questions about life so that the confusing parts start fitting together.

    Becky

    Like

    • How much more do I know God from reading what He’s written and believing what He’s told me?

      I’ve never heard or read of any god who ever wrote anything. Your Bible – at least the Torah, or the first five books, written by Bronze Age priests who knew little about the actual, scientific workings of the world, tells us that he did write the Ten Commandments in stone, but Moses – for whom there is no evidence that he ever existed – allegedly broke those, so again, we have nothing to indicate that any god ever wrote anything.

      As for things supernatural – the supernatural is merely the natural, unexplained.

      Like

      • “I’ve never heard or read of any god who ever wrote anything.”

        Archaeopteryx1, I don’t expect you to understand this because you don’t believe God even exists, but He is actually active and works in the world in ways different from our finite ways.

        One of God’s works was His revelation to some forty-four writers. By His Holy Spirit, He inspired them to write what He wanted us to know, without violating their personhood, so that their own writer voice is detectable in their work.

        So Christians will some times refer to Paul writing something but may at another time refer to God saying that same something. It’s because we believe in an omnipotent God who can do things beyond our way of going about them.

        Becky

        Like

        • “,em>One of God’s works was His revelation to some forty-four writers.” – or so THEY said.

          Like

  13. Women have been seducing men since the fall” – I have no recognized stats to back me up (but then, neither does anyone else), but far more men seduce women, than women seduce men, and well into the Winter, Spring and Summer too – those activities aren’t seasonal.

    Like

    • Ouch! That was awful! Awful good.

      Like

  14. I just want to comment here that if you are arguing that how women dress encourages men to engage in forcible rape, there are a couple of assumptions you’re making.

    The first is that men aren’t capable of controlling their own lust. It devalues men to think that we can’t help but try to force ourselves on a woman in suggestive attire.

    Second, the thought necessarily requires a reduction of guilt on a man’s part in a forcible rape. This might even be to the point of even letting them go free of any legal crime. As recently as 30 years ago, people used to be able to argue a “victim wanted it” defense and get found not guilty as a result.

    There’s a reason why we shifted away from this. It’s because even if a woman walks naked down the street smiling at everyone she meets, there’s no excuse for a man to force himself on her.

    Like

    • siriusbizinus, I specifically said in the post I am not saying women are to blame for rape. In addition, no matter how some want to read into the Bible passage what it does not say, the story about David and Bathsheba is not about rape.

      This post is an attempt to get women to think about how we’ve bought into our cultural framework that makes women advertising their availability for sex OK.

      I agree with you that nothing a woman does alleviates a man’s guilt if he rapes her or has an affair with her or stalks her or even fantasizes about her. He’s responsible for his own thoughts and actions. But when did we decide he only was responsible. She’s responsible for her actions and intentions, too.

      That forty-two-year-old porn queen who hooked up with the eighteen-year-old freshman was not innocent. If he were seventeen, she’d be hauled into jail for statutory rape! We know it’s wrong for adults—including women—to prey on young people, so a few months suddenly changes that?

      Sure, sure, consenting adults, and all that, but if she hadn’t been selling herself in front of him . . . I know, he may have looked elsewhere, because he is responsible for his own actions. But it takes two and “she took a bath in full view of the palace,” so she bears responsibility too.

      Becky

      Like

      • Becky,

        I understand that you disclaimed women being responsible for rape in your post. However, my point is that your argument nonetheless still has ramifications for how rape is seen. If, as you say, women bear some burden in how they dress which causes men to have lustful thoughts, then that burden (whatever it may be) can be said to have overpowered his reason.

        Putting it a different way, if women are to be held accountable for how they dress, it calls into question other things than just whether or not they have sex as a result of their attire. Do clothing manufacturers bear responsibility for enticing women to purchase suggestive clothing? What about other media outlets that shape women’s opinions? How far down the line are we willing to go to justly apportion blame?

        Taking your example of the 18 year old freshman, I think your position raises some interesting ramifications. Should we hold him responsible as a consenting adult? How arbitrary is our age restriction on statutory rape? Is how she dresses or behaves even responsible for his conduct? These are some pretty big questions that are only hinted at in your post.

        The bottom line is that I’m not saying that your position is inherently wrong, although I do disagree with it. All I am saying here at this juncture is that your point about women bearing some part of blame for enticing men to have sex hits on many different issues whether any of us like it or not.

        Kindest regards,
        SB

        Like

        • You’ve raised an interesting question, Sirius – “How arbitrary is our age restriction on statutory rape?

          I don’t know where you’re from, but here in the US, that age can vary widely, from 18 in many states, to as low as 14 in Arkansas. In Mexico, it’s 14 nationwide.

          Let’s imagine that a young couple – both are 17 – have been dating for some time, and they’ve been having sex together. But he’s a few months older than she, and one day, he has a birthday and turns 18 – is he suddenly guilty of statutory rape for doing the same thing today that the young couple did the day before? Did a day really make any significant difference? Common sense says he isn’t, but the law says he is.

          Like

          • I am from the U.S, and there are plenty of additional wrinkles one can add just on statutory rape alone – sex offender registration is one of them. We’ve tied so much of the law into people being responsible for sexual conduct that shifting blame back onto passive players in it really changes all kinds of other things.

            Like

          • I can understand the value of sex offender registration for a serial sex offender, the kind of guy who hangs out at playgrounds, looking to snatch little boys or girls, whisk them off, and have sex with them – that kind of behavior destroys lives, innocent lives, but the boy in my hypothetical situation (and yes, that kind of thing does happen) should certainly not have to register as a sex offender, or even be prosecuted, IMO. Justice must be tempered with reason.

            Like

        • SB, I’d say you’re absolutely right—there are ramifications for all of the things you mentioned: the fashion industry, the media, rape laws. It’s interesting to postulate how changing one thing might change many other things. How might society be different if men stopped acting on their sexual urges so that they didn’t hit on women any more? Well, we know that’s not something anyone wants to legislate. So too with women advertising their willingness to have sex.

          But individuals can operate on a higher plane than society, so why shouldn’t we advocate for that?

          Becky

          Like

  15. Hi Becky

    I’d like to make a couple of comments in response to the issues raised in your post.

    I’m not terribly interested in Bathsheba, because it was a long time ago, so I’d like to look at the here and now points that you raised.

    If tight or short or low cut get men to turn their heads, is dressing that way really innocent, innocuous conduct? How can we continue to think women bear no blame for setting men up to fail when it comes to their lustful thoughts?

    But the question here is, why DO women dress that way? And I think you touch on that later in the post. Because women are brought up to believe that they need to capture a man to look after them. Simple really. And the sexier they look, the more chance they have of getting a better catch.

    This situation hasn’t been created by women however, but by men. Men, and particularly through the three big patriarchal religions, (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), who have subjugated women, treated them as inferiors and little more than domestic slaves and breeders.

    Throughout history, women have been treated as inferior. How long before they could own property? Vote? Go to school? University?

    Today’s women who still resort to trying to look sexually attractive are merely buying into what has been taught over thousands of years.

    What they are not responsible for is societal norms and male thoughts. Both of those can be laid squarely at the feet of men.

    Of course David bore his guilt for his affair with Bathsheba, and so must every man who has lust in their hearts, whether they act on it or not. But because David sinned doesn’t mean Bathsheba was without sin. I suspect many of us women bear guilt of like kind to Bathsheba’s. If only we could value purity above the world’s requirement that women “be attractive”–i.e., head-turningly sexy.

    Of what value is purity? Virginity? Or sex before marriage? Surely honesty is of more value.

    And the reason why the world requires women to be attractive? Because, to put it simply, men regard women as sexual objects. Women are always described in terms of their appearance, not their intellect or achievements.

    Instead Christian young women swallow what society says: men want sex so women should show their sexiness. And we wonder why divorce rates are high in the church and young people are sleeping around. We might be preaching purity and abstinence, but we aren’t teaching young people, or married couples, for that matter, what steps to take to avoid sexual immorality.

    All women swallow (so to speak) that line. Christian or otherwise and I would hope you are interested in the welfare of all young women.

    Young people have sex before marriage (if they even get married) because they want to learn about relationships. Women also want sex, whether for a one-night stand or in a longer relationship. But sex shouldn’t necessarily mean marriage, nor should marriage mean two virgins not knowing what to do.

    Where is the value in purity and abstinence? What does it achieve? Surely better to be loving and giving? And with some experience in adult relationships, finding a life partner, if that is what us wanted.

    One thing that will help for sure is if young women pay attention to where they are bathing.

    Why. Just why?

    This totally puts the blame on the woman.

    Finally, I should say that I found some of the comments on violet’s blog about you extremely offensive. Although perhaps it epitomises your post. We live in a sexist world where men judge women by their appearance and sexual attraction. There is a difference between criticising a post and personal insults. I am sorry people were rude, it was uncalled for. They are all intelligent enough to make a literate argument.

    I would ask you to rethink however, that it is up to women to not dress or act in a provocative manner for fear of unleashing uncontrollable lewd and lustful thoughts from poor victimised men, but rather it is up to men to change the way they think. Preferably with their head and not elsewhere.

    Like

    • This situation hasn’t been created by women however, but by men.

      The situation has been created because men and women are both sinners. Women aren’t innocent victims of man’s system as you portray them. Nor are they at fault for all the ills of the world. Together men and women have made a hash of the good God created.

      Of what value is purity? Virginity? Or sex before marriage? Surely honesty is of more value.

      Why does one virtue have to be higher or better than another? Purity matters for a number of reasons, not the least being that our relationships, with one another and with God, are affected by promiscuity.

      This totally puts the blame on the woman.

      No, “helps” does not mean it alone will clear up the problem. But when women advertize their availability for sex, it hinders purity. When we refrain from advertizing our availability for sex, it helps purity.

      Becky

      Like

      • Thank you for your reply. Each of us is welcome to our own opinion of course, and clearly we are at different ends of the spectrum.

        I don’t consider myself a sinner at all and I am certainly not going to spend my short life on earth worrying about redemption on the off chance if may get eternity in some mythical paradise behind pearly gates.

        I think honesty in my relationships with other people, and with myself, is of far more value to most people I mix with and meet than the details of my sex life or how many or how clothes I am wearing. It is quite insulting to suggest that I choose my clothes based upon whether or not I am advertising my availability for sex. Just as everyone who visits a naturist beach isn’t going there to pick up a sexual partner.

        And I totally fail to see the relevance of how any of my sexual relationships affects anyone apart from the relevant partner. It doesn’t affect my work, my friends, my neighbours, or even people I see in the street. It is my business and mine alone.

        Women are not responsible for men’s thoughts. It is as simple as that. As others have said, the next progression is to insist that women are totally covered up, imprisoned within their houses, and only allowed with a male escort for fear of corrupting those poor men with their lewd wanton bodies shrieking their availability for sex.

        Your perspective does women no favours at all, and is exactly the sort of thinking that continues to perpetuate inequality and oppression, and as I originally said, done in the name of your religion, which, surprisingly not everyone shares.

        Like

        • “,em>As others have said, the next progression is to insist that women are totally covered up” – I was saying the same thing, with my photo of women in burqhas, but Becky decided that wasn’t relevant to the post.

          Like

          • Arch, I did say ‘as others have said’ so I was acknowledging your speedy response. I was not claiming to be original in the slightest, merely to reinforce what had sensibly been said by others. Sirius made similar related comments about how this point of view could play out.

            It is not difficult. People should be in control of themselves and respect each other. People should choose to dress or undress how they want.

            I don’t see a problem. Apparently there is one.

            Like

          • Arch, I did say ‘as others have said’” – I know, but I just presented a picture, without comment (felt the photo said it all), so I didn’t know if that counted as actually “saying” something.

            Like

          • Nope. I think a little text here may possibly help. Or maybe not actually. Quien sabe?

            Like

          • No se.

            Like

          • Arch, shall we take the nudist beach conversation elsewhere? I’m not sure it’s appreciated here. Although, the fact that hundreds of people can lie around naked without having sex may surprise some of this blog’s readers. In my case, sun, warmth, comfort = er, sleep 😀

            Like

          • It’s not a conversation, as far as I’m concerned, I’m just illustrating my point, that modesty and rape aren’t necessarily interconnected, and there’s no better example of immodest attire, than that worn by a sunbathing nudist.

            Like

          • For the last time, though you don’t apparently want to hear the truth, archaeopteryxl, you are misrepresenting what I said. In fact I said just the opposite: I want to be clear on one thing: I am not saying women who are raped are at fault. That kind of blanket statement is foolish. And this: Yes, David had plenty of guilt in the matter. He did all the wrong things a man could do, it would seem. He stayed at home instead of going with his troops to battle, as he had been doing. It was the equivalent of staying home from work to watch porn. This one also: Of course David bore his guilt for his affair with Bathsheba, and so must every man who has lust in their hearts, whether they act on it or not.

            You are wrong to mis-characterize someone else’s views, archaeopteryxl, and then attack that non-existent position. I’m sorry I don’t have more time to give to this discussion, but since it isn’t actually going anywhere, I think the best plan is to close these comments.

            Becky

            Like

        • I can’t believe you three don’t know the difference between a woman who is dressing in the style of the day and the woman who is dressing to advertize that she wants sex.

          What relevance do nude beaches have to this topic? I’m sure if they wished to, people at nude beaches know how to act in a suggestive way to entice others into a sexual relationship. It doesn’t require a certain style of dress, as I discussed with Violet early on. In the long ago, ankles were thought to be alluring.

          At non-nude beaches, I’m pretty sure a woman can entice with her body simply by undressing. She would be an idiot if she was shocked when men looked at her for doing so.

          Becky

          Like

      • Well, whether you do or not, I find it offensive that women are objectified and that’s precisely what happens when a woman advertizes herself as available for sex. That’s what people see—not her brains or personality or kindness or creativity. So apart from any moral reasons, it seems to me all women should be on the same page on this.

        I don’t understand why you and others leap from my statement that women are responsible for how they dress to, She wants women covered in burkhas.

        I can only surmise that you are reading into my post what you expect to find, not what I’ve actually written. It would seem that’s your intent since you bring up your right to have a sexual relation with whoever you wish and I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything about that in my post or comments.

        I wish I had more time to explore these issues. I really do think there’s a fundamental problem of communication—that I can’t write something and have it taken at face value. For instance, I was careful to lay much blame at David’s feet for his affair with Bathsheba. Yet in the comments, you’d think I’d said women are to blame for any and all violence or sexual abuse done to them.

        Of Course women are not responsible for men’s thoughts. But why is it so hard to see that sex is between two people and not just the will of one? So a woman advertizes that she wants sex by what she wears and a man hits on her because he knows he’s got someone willing to give him what he wants. It’s not HER fault and it’s not HIS fault. It’s both of them acting in concert.

        Sure, you can say, consenting adults. But the fact is adultery hurts other people and it doesn’t have to happen if either he looks away or she doesn’t advertize herself. Better if they both held to right standards.

        In actuality, my view does none of the things you suggest. It pleas for women to stop playing the victim and own up to their responsibility.

        Becky

        Like

  16. Arkenaten, you said, “No, Becky, serious, intelligent people say that there has never been a scrap of evidence produced to suggest there are gods.”

    From that I deduce that you think only people who agree with you are intelligent. I don’t know how to say this kindly. Only pride could lead a person to such a position.

    Not pride. Simple common sense. And you would feel exactly the same way towards a Muslim Doctor (for instance) who is intelligent and believed that Mohammed rode on a winged horse to heaven and back or that 72 virgins await him in heaven.
    And I say once again. Present the evidence for your claims.

    It astounds me that you even think a spiritual being needs to pass your evidence-of-existence test. It’s like saying, I don’t believe in air because you can’t weigh it in this balance . . . and you must use the balance. Any other system is invalid.

    Ah, so fairies are real are they? And the Tokoloshe? What about Voodoo? How about the Indian gods?
    You are demonstrating the hypocrisy (and ignorance) of all religious people.

    In other words, you’re trying to treat a gas like you would a solid, and yet you find fault with those who say, a gas has properties unique to it and unmeasurable by the usual means used in relation to a solid.

    And you top it off with an asinine comment such as this. Ho hum …

    It’s also astounding that you believe you know what does not exist in all the vastness of the cosmos—that God isn’t there somewhere.

    Which god are you referring to?

    As far as evidence is concerned, take a look at the complexity of life. It takes more faith to believe that the intricacies of DNA, for example, developed randomly than it does to believe that a supreme being intentionally constructed them.

    It takes faith for you, because you are indoctrinated with religion. I just look at and say wow! How cool is that. Go nature!

    Like

    • Arkenaten, there is no common sense to dismissing people who disagree with you as unintelligent. The only person who could do so would of necessity have to know all and be right 100% of the time.

      I see that you have very little substantive information to offer in this comment–you change the subject and/or write off lines by denigrating them without answering them.

      And your final line is rich: Go nature? As if nature were a person. I see where your faith lies.

      Becky

      Like

      • I specifically mentioned a Muslim doctor and stated he would be regarded as intelligent. You appear to have dismissed this out of hand. But you would have no truck with his beliefs regarding winged horses and the message he claimed his prophet received from the angel Gabriel via Allah.

        Therefore, why should I consider him misguided and yet accept your god claims?
        Evidence clearly suggests that you are both wrong.
        You did not answer which you are referring to and just exactly what substantive evidence would you like for a ”spiritual being”?

        Where on earth would you deduce that I was suggesting that nature was a person?

        And once more, I will ask, if you have verifiable evidence to back your claim that the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is this god and universe creator you claim then for heavens’ sake, please provide it.
        You seem to be avoiding this request like the plague.
        I presume you do have evidence and you are not simply relying in blind faith?

        Like

        • You love to change your statements and deflect to different topics when you can’t answer, Arkenaten. I’m sorry you’re not serious about having a discussion on these issues.(Read again what you wrote about Muslim doctors—not the same thing as saying they’re intelligent). And here I wrote a whole post just for you – https://rebeccaluellamiller.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/jesus-and-santa-but-mostly-jesus/

          Becky

          Like

          • This is exactly what I wrote

            And you would feel exactly the same way towards a Muslim Doctor (for instance) who is intelligent and believed that Mohammed rode on a winged horse to heaven and back or that 72 virgins await him in heaven.
            Now, please present the evidence you have for your god claims.

            Like

          • You want to prove you’re right about each detail, Arkenaten? Why do you need that? Here’s the context of your statement:

            And you would feel exactly the same way [only people who agree with you are intelligent] towards a Muslim Doctor (for instance) who is intelligent. . .

            I’ve answered your question and you sneer at what I say without offering an intelligent response, so why should I continue to dialogue with you on these subjects?

            Becky

            Like

          • If you wish me to engage in an straight intellectual dialogue with you then have the integrity to produce the evidence for your claim that the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth is the man-god and universe creator you genuflect to.
            It is that simple.

            Like

          • I see you finally found the post in which I did just that, Arkenaten. Good.

            Becky

            Like

  17. Rebecca says to Arkenaten “I’ve answered your question and you sneer at what I say without offering an intelligent response, so why should I continue to dialogue with you on these subjects? “
    You’re doin better than me. I’ve been over at Violetwisp’s place for going on 24 hours trying to get him to tell me how and why he’s sure that 1+1=2 😀 Nobody else will either, so I can’t be too tough on the guy.

    Like


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: