August 2008 Archives

Have you ever asked why we have a God? Children do all the time.

The first three weeks of Sunday School All Week we have explored what Life is, and whether there is a God, and if so, what God is. Today we are going to look at a deeper question: WHY is God?

Why does God exist?

We became clear over this past month that God does indeed exist, and that God is not what many people think God is, but rather, something else altogether. God is not a Bigger, More Powerful Us, sitting somewhere on a throne in a place called Heaven.

God is an energy. God is the pure energy of Life Itself. The Essence. The All That Is. And this energy can be used and focused and manipulated and directed, to produce predictable and consistent results.

But why does God exist?

God exists because God cannot NOT exist. There is only one thing God cannot do, and that is to not exist. God can do anything else but that.

Something that IS cannot "not be." It simply IS, and that is that. There is no answer to the Why of it. It's like asking, Why is the sky up? Or, Why is the Sun the sun? Things are what they are, the way they are. God is what God is, the way God is. Asking "Why?" is an exercise in pointlessness.

That Which Is has no reason for being. Nor does it have anything that created it. It always was, is now, and always will be. Why? Because.

Just because.

Now...the fact that there is no why to God does not mean that God does not have a purpose or a function. And we will be exploring both of those (they are not the same thing) on the next two Sundays. Yet the question of why will always and continually go unanswered.

I have become very clear that "Why?" is the most pointless and powerless question in daily life. It might have some value in a laboratory, or in certain technological applications, or in medicine, etc. - but in day-to-day living, there is almost never a reason to ask it that will benefit us as much as asking a far more powerful question: What?

Often people ask, "Why" is a thing the way it is? Yet the really powerful question is, "What" do you want it to be? What do you choose? What do you wish to now create? These are life's most powerful questions. So let's see if this applies to the matter of God.

Instead of asking "Why does God exist?", we might more profitably ask, "What do we want God to exist AS?" As a dictator? As a ruler and "boss of all things?" As a judge and jury, condemner and punisher? As a loving and caring and ever-present helper and source of strength?

In your own life, instead of asking, "Why did such-and-such happen?", it might be far more beneficial to ask, "What do I choose to happen next?" The very act of announcing it begins to create it (call it forth).

More on all this during the coming days, as Sunday School All Week continues.

What does God want? That is the question before the house. What in the world does God really want? What does He want from human beings? What does He want us to think, to believe, to do?

That is the specific question we have been exploring here the last two Saturdays as our Sunday School All Week continues...

And if this topic interests you, I would strongly advise you to skim back to those last two Saturday entries here if you missed them, because in those entries we took a close look at humanity has been told that God wants with regard to...

God
God's Word and God's Messenger
Heaven and Hell
Life
Male and Female
Marriage
Sex
Homosexuality
Love
and
Money

How are you doing here? I know this is taking a while getting through this overview of What God Wants, but that's because the influence of the teachings we have all received about God runs deep. It embraces philosophical areas as well as the practical aspects of life.

Even though the following final topics touch upon concepts that we may think we'll encounter only in the abstract, the fact is that how we think about these abstractions affects--and creates--our concrete moment-to-moment experience.

So let's conclude out survey by looking at what we have been told God wants with regard to...

FREE WILL

Many humans have been told that What God Wants is for human beings to have Free Will. Thus, they may determine and decide for themselves which of the Ultimate Outcomes--heaven or hell--they wish to experience after their death. They may do as they choose at any moment, at every juncture. They are not restricted in any way.

Humans have been told that God has granted humanity this Free Will so that humans may freely choose God, freely choose God's Way, and freely choose to be reunited with God in heaven. In other words, they may freely choose to be good, as opposed to being forced to do so. God wants humans to return to God by choice. No one should be required to do so.

Human beings have also been told that under the doctrine of Free Will, while people may do as they choose, if they do not choose What God Wants they'll pay for it with continuous torture through all eternity. No element of duress is seen in this. It's simply the Way Things Are. It's Justice, at the highest level. It's God's Justice, which follows God's Judgment. It's important, therefore, to freely choose What God Wants.

One result of this teaching: Humanity's concept of freedom has been deeply affected and profoundly shaped by its understanding of what God means by "freedom." Humans have decided that freedom doesn't have to mean freedom, but can mean simply the ability to select outcomes.

This is better than having no choice at all, and so humans in positions of power have learned to use the word "freedom" to privately describe the process by which they get others to do as they as are told. People don't have to do as they are told, of course. But if they do not, there will be a price to pay. That could mean anything from having taxes audited to being thrown in jail for two years without charges being filed and without any explanation other than being labeled a threat to the security of the country. Using this measure, nations call themselves "free."

Most people, except, perhaps, the most stubborn apologists, see the contradiction in all of this. They understand perfectly well that no people are truly free who face the most horrendous outcomes imaginable if they don't do what they're told. Only a hypocrite or a fool would call such a choice "free."

Humans have learned, then, that hypocrisy--especially hypocrisy for the "right" purpose, in the "right" cause--is acceptable on earth as it is in heaven. Much of humanity's political activity has been informed by this ethic. And elsewhere within the spectrum of human activity as well, in the way many humans communicate with each other, in the way many deal with each other, it has come to be understood that the end justifies the means.

In fact, many humans have now convinced themselves that none of this is hypocrisy at all. It's simply a matter of interpretation.

And so, in this day and age, freedoms are taken away in the name of Freedom itself. Millions of people gratefully embrace the political rhetoric that says lack of freedom is what guarantees their freedom, and the religious doctrine that says their choices in life are free only if they do as they are told, because this is What God Wants.

SUFFERING

Many humans have been told that What God Wants is for suffering to be used by human beings to better themselves, and to purify their soul. Suffering is good. It earns credits, or points, in God's mind, especially if it's endured silently, and maybe even "offered up" to God. Suffering is a necessary part of human growth and learning and is, more importantly, a means by which people may be redeemed in the eyes of God.

Indeed, one whole religion is built on this belief, asserting that all beings have been saved by the suffering of one being, who died for the sins of the rest. This one being paid the "debt" said to be owed to God for humanity's weakness and wickedness. According to this doctrine, God has been hurt by the weakness and wickedness of humanity and, in order to set things straight, someone has to suffer. Otherwise, God and humanity could not be reconciled. Thus, suffering was established as a redemptive experience.

With regard to the suffering of human beings due to "natural" causes, it's not to be shortened by death under any circumstances that are not also "natural." The suffering of animals may be mercifully ended before "natural" death, but not the suffering of people. It's God and God alone who determines when human suffering shall end

One result of this teaching: Human begins have endured unimaginable suffering over extended periods in order to do God's will and not incur God's wrath in the Afterlife. Millions of people feel that even if a person is very, very old and is suffering very, very much--lingering on the verge of death but not dying, experiencing interminable pain instead--that person must endure whatever life is bringing them.

Humanity has actually created civil law declaring that people have no right to end their own suffering, nor may they assist another in ending theirs. However anguishing it may be, however otherwise hopeless a life may have become, the suffering must go on.

This is What God Wants.

MORALITY

Many humans have been told that What God Wants is a moral society.

One result of this teaching: Humanity has spent its entire history attempting to define what is moral and what is not. The challenge has been to come up with a standard for society that does not change, all the while the society itself is changing. To find this "gold standard," many societies have turned to God, or Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or whatever other name they have used to designate Deity, and have relied on their understanding of What God Wants.

Many centuries ago God's preferences in this matter were given a powerful label. They were called "natural." This is because the concept of a Deity first entered the minds of primitive humans as a result of their earliest observations of and contacts with Nature. Here was something bigger than they were, something they could not control, something they could only stand by and watch, hoping for the best.

"Hoping for the best" soon transmuted into what would now be called praying. Whoever and whatever this Deity was, early humans reasoned, it was deeply connected with Nature, and Nature was an expression of It. And so humans created gods representing the sun, moon, and stars, the weather, crops, rivers, the land, and nearly everything else, in hopes of getting some control over things--or at least getting some communication going with whoever did have control.

From this connection of God and Nature it was only a short mental hop to consider that all things having to do with deities and gods were "natural," and all things not having anything to do with deities were "unnatural." When human language came into form the words "God" and "Nature" became inextricably linked. Certain conditions, circumstances, and behaviors were then described as "natural" or "unnatural," depending upon whether they adhered to or violated the current perception of the Will of God.

That which is "unnatural" has, in turn, come to be described as "immoral"--since it's not of God, and cannot, therefore, be What God Wants. The circle thus completes itself. Anything that is not considered "natural" is considered "immoral." That includes all "unnatural" abilities, powers, behaviors--and even thoughts.

The idea that What God Wants is what is natural, and that what is natural is what is moral, has not been a perfect measure, but it has been the best that humanity has been able to do in the search for an unchanging standard. It's for this reason that humanity has been loath to change its ideas about What God Wants. Changing those ideas changes the gold standard of human behavior.

Behavior is the currency of human interaction. Beliefs about What God Wants gives value to the behavioral choices of humans, just as gold gives value to the pieces of paper called money.

Thus, in most human societies it's not an individual's actual experience, but the society's definition of it, that determines its morality. This is the case with homosexuality. It's also the case with a great many other behaviors, such as prostitution, premarital sex, depictions of explicit sexual activity, the use of peyote, marijuana, and other plants and stimulants, or even the experience of ecstasy not induced by any outside stimulant.

For instance, if one says one has had an ecstatic experience of God, but if the experience does not fall within what humanity currently defines as "natural," it's considered immoral and to be warned against and, if it's continued, to be condemned, and, if it's still continued, to be punished.

In previous times it was often punishable by torture or death. More than one saint claiming and describing such ecstasies has been martyred in humanity's long history, using such guidelines.
Those saints were killed because the people killing them were convinced that they were doing What God Wants.

DEATH

Many humans have been told that What God Wants is for their wonderful life to eventually end, at which time their opportunity to learn and to grow is over and the time to be rewarded or punished for how they have lived begins.

One result of this teaching: Many humans consider that death is a terrible thing, and something to be feared. It's the End of the Line, the Final Curtain Call, the Closing Bell. Nearly all of the imageries surrounding death are negative, fearful, or sad, not positive, uplifting, or joyful. These imageries pervade our society. A street that goes nowhere is a Dead End. A person who is badly mistaken is Dead Wrong. The spirit who comes to retrieve your soul is The Grim Reaper.

Most people do not want to even talk about death, much less experience it. No one wants to experience it before he or she has to. People cling to life, sometimes desperately. The survival instinct is the strongest human instinct of all. Our common culture supports survival as the ultimate goal. Even people who want to die are not allowed to.

On the other side of death, many people feel certain, is the Final Judgment. If you have not been good, it's at this point that you'll go to hell. Your payment for all of your sins in this way is What God Wants.

Humanity's list of What God Wants is very long and covers many other areas of human experience not discussed in the past three installments here. That list forms the basis of innumerable civil laws, cultural traditions, social mores, and familial customs that touch all human beings.

So what do you think about what you're read here? With allowances for a few exceptions in wording here and there, or a slight difference in interpretation, is this basically what you remember being taught about What God Wants?

If it is, you have a lot of company. Millions of people have had the same experience.

Nay, billions.

And we'll explore more of this next Saturday as we continue to excerpt the CwG text, What God Wants (Atria Books).

Now, a little respite from all this theological exploration, with a touch of poetry from m.Claire. This week's offering...

Is it You
who speaks first?

When the veils lay or lift
is it Me
who initiates it?

When a longing returns
Beloved,
was it You
who first felt it?

Beloved,
I cannot even laugh
without wondering
if you laugh, too.
I cannot cry,
without then reaching out
to touch your cheek.
And when I leave
the Heart
and enter Forgetting
I try not to look
for You there.

But you are the beginning
and I am the ending
of
every footstep.

Every footstep.

(Is It You? - m. claire - copyright 2007 - all rights reserved)

For more of the work of this new American poet, go to www.mclairepoet.com.

Ironic, isn't it, that in the very week when all we've been talking about here is the place of women in our society, Republican presidential candidate John McCain picks Sarah Palin to be his running mate?

It was a bold stroke, you have to give him credit for that. And it sure did take Barack Obama's acceptance speech off the front pages, didn't it? People are not talking today about Obama, they are talking about a woman from Alaska...

GOP Presidential candidate John McCain demonstrated once again that he likes to think outside the box with the announcement today of his pick of Ms. Palin, governor of our northernmost state, as his vice-presidential candidate.

That having been said, the wonderment at the end of this week is whether he just assured himself of the Presidency -- or whether he shot himself in the foot.

If McCain thinks that he has just picked up all or most of the disaffected Hillary voters with this move, I believe he's going to find out that he's sadly mistaken.

First, nearly all of Hillary's staunchest supporters are now in Barack Obama's camp. They could not be anywhere else, given the powerful endorsements of Obama and his agenda given by Hillary and Bill Clinton this week. The two were unambiguous and almost challening in their direct call to Hillary supporters to get on the train.

Hillary made the case Tuesday night that she sure hoped that people did not vote for her simply because she was a woman, and that it was her agenda for the country that she wanted them to support -- an agenda they can continue to support by throwing their energies behind Barack Obama, who shares the same priorities.

"No way, no how, no McCain!" she shouted to her troops...and they could not have missed the mandate.

President Clinton the next night put to rest the "not ready for prime time" argument that McCain has been using on Obama throughout this campaign. All his experience tells him, the former president said, that Senator Obama is absolutely ready to take the reins at the White House.

Now, with the choice of Gov. Palin as his running mate, John McCain seems to be saying that the "experience" question doesn't matter anymore. As brilliant as Sarah Palin may be (and by all accounts, she is exactly that), on the "experience" question she brings even less to the table than Barack Obama. Americans will now be asking two questions:

1. Is Sarah Palin ready to stand one heartbeat away from the presidency -- and to step into the Oval Office should anything happen (perish the thought) to John McCain?

2. If she IS...then how is Barack Obama NOT ready to be in that same office?

These are fair questions, and that's what makes this such a bold move by McCain. He has just effectively neutralized the "experience question." But the real question is, has he also just picked up Hillary's most bitter supporters?

The betting here is not. I am guessing that most women who voted for Hillary are going to see right through this maneuver by the GOP's standard bearer, and will push back from this raw and naked attempt at manipulation, judging that the senator from Arizona is guilty of pandering in the worst way, hoping to get their vote for HIM simply because his running mate is female -- -- no matter that she is pro-life and anti-abortion rights. No matter that she is as conservative a poltiician as they come, favoring drilling for oil in Alaska's wildlife preserves and opposing same sex marriage, and most, if not all, of the important social positions taken by Hillary Clinton.

Not quite good enough, I don't think, to get those women votes. I don't think Mr. McCain can "buy" them in this way. But, it will be interesting to watch.

NOW who does the country have more confidence in...Obama/Biden, or McCain/Palin...?

I just felt the Confidence-O-Meter go down ten notches on the McCain ticket. Whew. What a risk we'd be taking, putting this perfectly (I'm sure) nice former mayor of a town of 9,000 in Nowhere, Alaska one heartbeat away from the Situation Room. Uh....does anybody else have a queasy stomach over this?

Even Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, called it a "risky" choice, if brilliant. Said Mr. Rollins, a CNN commentator, in his blog today:

John McCain's brilliant but risky "Hail Mary pass" choice for vice president, Alaska Gov. Sarah "Barracuda" Palin, has the political world saying first: Who? And then: Why?

It's a Hail Mary pass for sure. And I think it signals where the McCain camp sees that it is in this game. It's fourth and 25 on their own 10 yard line.

A Hail Mary pass indeed...

Mr. Rollins goes on in his blog to praise Ms. Palin, and to give his reasons why the pick might be considered brilliant.

...she is a governor and outside the Beltway. Conservatives love her and she shares John McCain's value system. She is also known for taking on the establishment and ethics is her forte. She defeated the longtime senator and Republican governor in a primary and then went on and defeated the former Democratic governor.

I don't believe people vote for vice president but only for president. That said, I think she is every bit as good a choice as Biden...I think the potential for her to attract women voters is immense.

Well, I don't agree, for the reasons I stated above. Women aren't going to vote for McCain simply because his running mate in a woman. The Democrats already proved that when they ran Geraldine Ferraro for VP.

I agree more with CNN commentator Paul Begala , once an aide to President Clinton, who writes in his blog today that McCain, in choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate, "is not thinking 'outside the box,' as some have said. More like out of his mind."

Begala goes on...

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment...For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.

I could not have put that any better.

The final word on women and their place in society is the Word of God, which makes the role of women very clear. God knows exactly What God Wants with regard to all of this, and it is humanity's job to adhere to the Will of God...

I have had a very difficult time getting onto this blog over the past two days owing to a problem in my computer. I apologize to those of you who have been waiting for Sunday School All Week to continue!

But class is reconvened today, and so let's move right into it, with one final session on the Role of Women in the World, because I want to have a chance to review some of the Comments placed here...

In our last session we asked if women were second class citizens. We asked the class this question based on the reading of passages from Scripture, as well as cultural religious traditions, that suggest that females are to be quiet and not speak and never have authority of males and are to receive 1/2 of the inheritance that a male survivor in a family would receive and are to have their testimony in court equal to one-half that of male (in the Islamic tradition, two females must testify to the same thing for the testimony to be accepted; only one male is required for sworn testimony to be entered into the record.)

I asked the class...is this What God Wants?

Class member "Deb" offered this...

When people say, "Everything in the bible is of God," I wonder if they've read the whole thing? Slavery, multiple wives per male, animal and human sacrifice, several purposeful floodings, plagues, death, torture, and judgment, judgment, judgment.

I don't see the difference in saying, "Nothing in the bible is of God."

I can guarantee you this: No book is 100% correct. Again, it was written thousands of years ago. By men.

Where did male supremacy come from? From MEN. And frightened women. And another spirit who lurks around causing trouble whenever they find a niche.

If someone wants to find God in a book they consider to be holy, is that wrong?

I certainly agree with you about this, Deb. No book is 100% correct. And I hope that I never said that "nothing in the Bible is of God," because I surely don't believe that. Quite to the contrary. I think a great deal of what is in the Bible is "of God". To your last question...of course not. The question answers itself. Did I give the impression that no person should or can "find God" in the Bible?

And then, class member "RM" offered this...

Please do not confuse the intention to "protect" the Woman - who is the shaper and nurturer of our future - from the elements in the society which seek to corrupt her, with the intention to "subjugate" her or devalue her.

I don't put my valuables on public display...lest a stranger come and snatch them away.

How about you?

Well, RM, I would respond in this way to what you have said...for a very long time certain segments of human society have characterized their treatment of women as a means of "protecting" females. But what kind of "protection" requires that a woman never venture into public without being in the company of a blood male relative? What kind of "protection" requires that a woman wear a covering from head to toe so that only an eye-slit allows the sunlight to touch her body? What kind of "protection" disallows little girls from going to the same school that little boys go to? What kind of "protection" provides an inheritance to females of one-half of the share that goes to males in the same family? What kind of "protection" says that a woman's word at court is worth half that of a man's?

You see, RM, the age old reasoning of "protecting our women" is the justification used by MEN to subjugate women -- whether they WANT to be "protected" or not. You have said, RM...

I don't put my valuables on public display...lest a stranger come and snatch them away.

I don't consider my wife to be part of "my valuables"...like jewelery or a gold watch or a pile of coins or a new car. And I do not to depend on the tactic of hiding my wife in order to "protect" her (?) (her, or ME???)...from being "snatched away" by a "stranger." My "protection," and my wife's "protection," is my wife's morality, my wife's loyalty, my wife's promise. I don't need to make her cover herself from head to toe, or never venture three feet from home without a blood male relative. Come one, RM...surely you see that such draconian measures are antiquated, outdated, and merely offer an excuse for women to be treated abysmally.

And by the way, RM...what about women who don't choose to be so "protected?" Are they required to be protected against their will? Or are women allowed to even have a will of their own in these matters, RM?

RM...I hope you read the words of "Susan", who wrote...

Or like Mr. Muhammad says, they have their pretty little valuables that belong to them that they don't want anybody else to look at? Isn't that something that we outgrow in grade school? MINE!! MINE!!! A woman is not your property and just by saying what you said, you are devaluing her! Maybe your focus should be more upon' making SOCIETY safer for women by dealing with men who don't know how to control themselves. You don't protect a woman by taking away her freedom to walk unrestricted in the world.

Well said, Susan. Apparently there are those in our world who feel that you DO "protect a woman by taking away her freedom to walk unrestricted in the world." Hmmmm....

And wow....then along comes Anne, with THIS...

Is she not an adult capable of making adult decisions for her own behalf? Is she not capable of making proper choices in life for her own well being or even for her family? Is she so weak in your eyes that she can be so easily currupted with ANY form of influence that she may encounter? I think if she was raised with good intentions as a child , she will grow up to know what is right or wrong in life as a whole. And if she makes a mistake.... she will learn from it. Men do it all the time.

Well, RM, what do you say to that? Men DO do it all the time, don't they? Men DO learn from their mistakes. Are you saying that women should not be allowed to? Or that they are genetically incapable of doing so....? Which is it?

Or are you saying that women are such delicate creatures, with such an important job to do in the world (ahem...raising the children and caring for the family) that they should not "have" to be exposed to the wicked, evil world outside their door....

Boy, of boy....

I want to commend and honor class member "Jensuf," who went WAY outside his comfort zone to write...

Neale,

This is very difficult for me. But, I think you're right. Islam , at least in the traditional sense, does take a dim view towards women. There are Hadiths that state something to the effect that the majority of the inhabitants of Hell are women because they lack gratefulness to their husbands and are deficient in intelligence. There's lots of other stuff too, but it's becoming too painful to look at.

On the plus side there is an instance, in the Qu'ran where a single woman's testimony is worth that of four men and that's for paternity.

I admit that I'm losing faith and, unbelievably, it feels pretty good to know my friends and loved ones aren't going to be going to Hell for not appeasing a jealous God.

With Love, Jensuf

I put the boldface type over those words, class, because I want all the Muslims in the room to read them very carefully. RM...what do you say to this? Are those Hadiths wrong? Are you ready and able to denounce them now, once and for all?

Class member "Shekah" reminds us -- as if we needed reminding -- that it is not just the Islamic tradition that devalues women...

Your observations on world religions, Mr. Walsch, are the same ones which drove me away from mainstream religion. I was raised Christian and left because I was force fed an apple while I watched men carve their initials on the Tree of Knowledge. I fantasized dying and grabbing God by the throat and demanding an explanation for why I carried the guilt of the world just for being female.

Yes, it is Christians, too, who -- to this very day -- reduce women to sub-status. Read this from class member Elaine...

It still surprises me when I visit a church and the pastor/deacon/band leader/whoever gets up to the podium and openly says, "Nothing wrong with women. They just shouldn't lead men, like the Bible says." There ARE protestant, Christian religious than still teach this. My own parents changed from a 'liberal' section of their denomination to a 'conservative' track section. A result? I refuse to go to church with my parents when I visit them because I cannot attend a church that believes women are less, women can't lead, women are to be treated as sub-anything.

And, as "Indep" reminds us...

Many women in many cultures are prevented from developing their full potential from girlhood. This disadvantages the woman herself but also her husband, from having a 'whole' person by his side, and her potential children, from having a developed, reasoning, confident mother.

And so we see that the subjugation of women is systemic. It is a condition created by the entire human species, many members of which have used God as their moral authority.

And then, "Susan" came up with this astonishing list of references from the Bible, and statements from people of influence, about the sad condition and lower role of women in our world. If you already saw this, pass right over it here. If you did not...get a load of THIS....

Genesis 3:16 Woman cursed, 19:1-8 virgin daughters offered to rape instead of male angels Exodus 20:17 wife man's property Exodus 21:7-11 unfair rules for women, sex slave Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live Exodus 38:8 women not allowed in tabernacle Leviticus 12:1-14 woman unclean 7 days after birth of son, 14 days after birth of daughter Leviticus 15:19-23 menstruating woman "unclean" Leviticus 19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she is to be scourged Numbers 1:2 Poll only includes men Numbers 5:13-31 barbaric aldutress test Numbers 27:8-11 wife not included in will, inheritance goes to sons over daughters Numbers 31:16-35 virgins are war booty Deuteronomy 21:11-14 rape manual Deut. 22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test Deut 22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & rapist both stoned to death Deut 22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist Deut 24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa Deut 25:5-9 widow must marry husband's brother, unless he refuses Deut 25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand to be cut off Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed Judges 19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines Job 14:1-4 calls woman unclean thing Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image I Cor 14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ." Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit" I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness I Tim 2:11-15 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless, women saved in childbearing I Peter 3:17 submit to husband, call him "lord", woman weaker vessel

Various writers had to say on the subject:

"...God, by creating Adam first (Gen. 2:18; 1 Cor. 11:8) and also by creating woman for man (Gen. 2:18,20,22; 1 Cor. 11:9), has set the gender-based role and responsibility of males in the most basic unit of society (the family) to be that of leader, provider and self-sacrificial protector (also cf. Eph. 5:25; 1 Peter 3:7), and likewise has set the gender-based role and responsibility of females to be that of help and nurture (Gen. 2:18) and life-giving (Gen. 3:20) under male leadership and protection (cf. 1 Peter 3:7)..." -- The Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood

"The real issue in this debate(whether women should be allowed in the pastorate)--and the only issue worth debating --is the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Given the revelation of God in Holy Scripture, Southern Baptists cannot follow the road toward a feminized pulpit. The price would be the rejection of clear biblical teaching." ---Dr.R.Albert Mohler, Jr., President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, one of the largest seminaries in the world.

"each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."----church writer Tertullian

"If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it." ---Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant church

The Feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.---Pat Robertson head of 700 Club, influential Christian evangelist

"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman......I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." ---St. Augustine of Hippo

"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence." ----St. Thomas Aquinas

"Most of these feminists are radical, frustrated lesbians, many of them, and man-haters, and failures in their relationships with men, and who have declared war on the male gender. The Biblical condemnation of feminism has to do with its radical philosophy and goals. That's the bottom line. ---- Rev.Jerry Falwell

"The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation." ---Elizabeth Cady Stanton leader of the early women's movement

Don L above seems to continue to try to find ways to excuse the writings rather than to acknowledge inequality in them.

So what are the pertinent answers?

I agree, Susan, that class member "Don. L." would like to excuse these plain and very direct Scriptural references...and I am sure he wishes that they were simply not there, because they are pretty hard to explain away without simply admitting that the attitudes of ancient times, when these scriptures were written, reflect ancient attitudes of subjugation of women. (To say nothing of present day attitudes!)

And thank you, too, Victor, for your contributions along the same line.

And I think we can bring this topic to a close with this input from "Rev Glen," who happens to be, if I remember correctly, a Christian minister...

Neale: As I've mentioned previously, I am of the opinion that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are a curious mixture of divine revelation and human pre-occupation. One cannot (indeed, should not) approach these texts without recognizing this curious truth. In my confirmation classes I give each student a pair of 3D glasses - you know, the cardboard glasses with one red lens and one green lens - and invite them to look at their Bible, first with only the right eye, then only the left, then finally, with both eyes. I explain that the glasses represent the two dimensions of scripture's mystery: the divine and the human, and in order to get the best view we must be willing to read them with both eyes open.

The texts you refer to are a perfect example of this. They do not reflect so much What God Wants as much as they reflect What People With Power Want God To Want Because It Is Really What They Want.

Using God to validate our selfish desires is nothing new. Religious and political manipulators have done it for thousands of years, using doctrine, dogma and fear to refine and drive their agenda home to the gullible masses. Whether it be a man named Paul in the first century, a Roman emperor named Ceaser, or an entire American political party, people who seek to maintain social or economic power seem to have an uncanny knack for knowing exactly What God Wants, and it just happens to serve their purposes and validate their world-view!

These texts blatantly expose the human warping of the divine revelation. They reflect a male dominated culture using religious influence (God and scripture) to justify and further perpetuate the divinely approved food chain of who gets to be in control. In this case, it's a male-dominated culture using God to say, "See, this is exactly the way God Wants It to be," which happens to work out marvelously well for, you guessed it, the men.

Ahem....

Well, our class now moves on to other topics....see you here very soon!

Is a woman allowed to speak? Is a woman allowed to lead? Is a woman allowed to have authority over men? Is a woman allowed to hold a position of responsibility in God's church? By the way, which church IS "God's church"? Is it fair to ask that question? Would anyone care to answer it?

So here we go, into another week of Sunday School All Week. Two days ago, in our usual Saturday activity, we took a look at more of the words in the extraordinary book, What God Wants. In that exploration, we encountered the following, which generated a considerable amount of response from members of the class...

The Bible makes it very clear. A woman is to keep silent. She is to have no authority of any kind over any man. She is to be submissive. So says the Bible.

Males are considered superior to females in nearly all of the world's cultures. In some of those cultures this manifests as cultural norms that do not allow females to go to school, to hold jobs of authority or responsibility, to leave the home without being in the company of a blood male relative, or to permit any part of their body to be seen in public, requiring them to be covered from head to toe.

A woman's testimony at Court is worth half of that of a man's--meaning that it requires two female witnesses to meet the test of adequate proof. A woman's testimony regarding a husband's beatings, cruelty, or infidelity will go ignored unless she can produce a corroborating witness, whereas a man can send his wife to death by stoning by simply stating that she committed adultery. His singular assertion is sufficient.

A woman's share of any inheritance is also accepted as being half of that of her brother. The logic behind this is that a man is financially responsible for his family, while a woman is not. This is the identical logic that, in other cultures, blocks women from earning the same pay as men for doing the same work. The fact that a man may remain unmarried all his life and wind up not having a family, or that many women become widows, or that women would not and should not have to concede this role to a man if she were treated equally, is, of course, ignored by this logic.

In some male-dominant cultures female's genitals are mutilated, cut and sewn, in order to deprive them of sexual pleasure and thus reduce the temptation they may feel to engage in sexual encounters other than those demanded by their husbands. In some cases this is seen as a rite of passage rendering female children desirable, suitable, and worthy marriage material.

Other cultural norms reflecting extreme bias against females include the custom of blocking women from becoming clergy in many religions or rising to power and authority in any civil, legal, or business enterprise, or holding any major leadership position in politics or government.

A handful of women in some cultures have overcome these customs (in many cultures they are still not allowed to even try), but always it's a struggle, always it's the notable exception, always it's a steep uphill climb to be accepted in most high profile occupations or powerful or influential roles within the global society.

Katrina Brooks, of Rome, Georgia, U.S.A., knows all about that. According to an account written by Louise Chu for The Associated Press on September 25, 2004, Katrina is a member of the Southern Baptist Church who felt a calling and wanted to become a minister. She enrolled in the Baptist Theological Seminary at Richmond, Virginia, then found a church that would accept both her and her husband, Dr. Tony Brooks, who was already ordained, as co-pastors. North Rome Baptist Church in Rome, Georgia invited the couple to lead its congregation in November of 2003.

Not everyone was pleased.

A revision of the Baptist Faith and Message in 2000 takes a hard line on female pastors, the AP's Louise Chu reports. The denomination's chief doctrinal statement says that "the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture," citing the Bible at 1 Timothy 2:11-14. That passage reads, "Let a woman learn in silence in all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

Two weeks after Katrina and her husband arrived at their new church several of her fellow clergy (all men) called meetings of the Floyd County Baptist Association to discuss the matter. They wanted the association to adopt a position that would, in effect, force the Rome church to leave the association.

This difference in the treatment of the genders is, many of the world's people believe, What God Wants. After all, the Bible says so. And so do the Scriptures of other religions.

I have reprinted that entire section here because I want to invite your specific comments on that. Especially, the comments of you Christians and Muslims out here. I need you both to help me out. I need you to assist me in understanding What God Wants with regard to how we should hold womanhood in our society; how we should treat females. And, specifically, what I would like you to tell me is whether you agree or disagree with the understandings about What God Wants as they are outlined above.

Christians, do you agree with the Bible at 1 Timothy 2:11-14? Again, that passage reads...

"Let a woman learn in silence in all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

What do you think about the members of the Floyd County Baptist Association in Floyd County, Georgia who railed against a female minister in Rome, Georgia? Were they right to do so? Are they correctly understanding and interpreting the Will of God? Is this, truly, What God Wants? Inquiring minds want to know...

And you Muslims out there...help me out. Should women receive half the inheritance of male members of the family, simply because they have vaginas? Should the testimony of females at court be worth half that of a man simply for lack of a penis? Please tell me, members of the Nation of Islam, What God Wants with regard to all of this. I am asking in all sincerity. I really want to know. I really yearn to understand. Not only what Allah, bless His holy name, wants, but why. What is the reasoning behind all of this?

Or could it be that it is Conversations with God which is closer to the truth about all of this -- and that God wants nothing of the sort?

And you women out there...what do you think? Is this what God wants? And you men out there? Is this what God wants?

Now let's see what you've already written. Here, from the Comments Section, are some entries from the class, as our Sunday School All Week continues...

DG posted...

The Vatican can give us wonderful guidance on how to treat women. Before I continue though, let me explain something I've learned from a lifetime of catholicism ...

if the Vatican says it is right and good, then it probably isnt.

Now, regarding these issues, take what the Vatican pontificates, do the reverse, and it will be correct.

I'm not sure that the Vatican is inaccurate about every single solitary thing that it has to say...but I agree with you that its ideas about sexuality, the role of females in the church, and such things as birth control, divorce, and abortion are outdated, outmoded, and outlandish.

And boy, did I love this, from "Albert the Abstainer"...

Rabia al-Basri, a Sufi saint of the 8th century had this to say, and it is as resonant today as then:

"O Allah! If I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,
and if I worship You in hope of Paradise, exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty."

Thank you for that contribution. I shall quote it the rest of my life to audiences everywhere!

I also loved THIS from Albert...

The antidote to fear is nakedness, openness, lightness and direct engagement.

Albert, that could be applied universally, around the world, not only in connection with humanity's search for God -- as I'm sure you know. Thank you for that contribution, too!

Oh, and Don...er....you are wrong. (heh-heh)