OK, well what about all of the "witches" who were burned at the stake or hung in the name of Christianity? To this day I do not wear the pentagram I have for fear that someone in this ignorant town I live in will beat the living crap out of me because they think I'm a Satan worshiper.

How can a religion/book be held in such high esteem when it has brought on numerous accounts of murder, pain and suffering? I understand that it was not anybody alive today that had a hand in these murders, but the fact is, people worship the same god and hold true the same book that was responsable for all of these things. Yes I know that the book didn't make anyone do these things, but it was the words written in this book that instigated such hateful actions.

OK jerk face, smarty pants . I'll kick you if I have to. I didn't know if it was a new discovery later on when the NT was written so again .

Moonbaby,

In instances when any Christian ever uses the teachings from the bible to justify persecuting anyone in the name of Jesus, said person(s) is absolutely wrong and is using the bible for his/her own self-righteous ends. This goes for anyone who would beat up on you or any other Wiccans/pagans in Jesus's name. If you want to see how Jesus felt about this, then look up some of the stuff he said about hypocrisy and false teachings. It ain't pretty. I feel some of what you're saying, too. When I read how people used the bible to enslave and dehumanize my people (African Americans), it really sticks in my craw.

No truth is safe from perversion. But that does mean that truth is not sacred. Every truth with which we humans have ever been entrusted has been perverted by us in some way or another. However, when truth is assaulted and its integrity maligned, it is not the time to throw in the towel on truth. In fact, that's the time when we've got to dig in our heals and cling to truth more than ever. There are two temptations when love and truth are perverted by evil people. The first is to go along with the evil. The second is to give up on the good; the end result is the same as going along with the evil. The third way is best: to go against the grain and fight for the truth. It is the most difficult path, because it leads into resistance against evil, which can get you dinged up a bit. But if truth, love, and goodness are worth giving your life for, then the cuts and bruises are worth it because the pay-off is amazing.

Ozmeister,

While I do appreciate the compliment, please let me clarify my position on the contents of the scriptures. I am a literalist concerning those parts of the bible that are expressed as literal history. For instance, I believe in God's miraculous workings in the national life of Israel, and I believe in the miracles of Jesus and the apostles. It is such a literal interpretation of scripture that allows me to believe that no one should be beaten up or persecuted by Christians for their non-Christian beliefs. Because I believe that Jesus literally lived a life of love and purity, and that he literally had the divine authority to command that others live that way as expressions of true humanness, I (and many others now and throughout history) try to live our lives in a way that is tolerant of those with other beliefs.

Actually, the culprit of the obscene things the church has done in history is not literalism, but an unwillingness to take some biblical things literally. A so-called Christian can only kill or harm people in the name of Jesus if he ignores the literal nature of Jesus's teachings and lifestyle. Here, anti-literalism aids a persecutor, instead of keeping him from inflicting harm. The deeper issue is not literalism vs. anti-literalism. When and if one takes the bible literally and how one chooses to act in accordance with what is actually in the text has more to do with the intentions of the heart. People with corrupt hearts and intentions don't care about literalism or anti-literalism; they do whatever suits them whenever they'd like. Such people are not truly concerned with God the Father, Jesus, Israel, or the church.

But, on a lighter note, what of all the great things that the church (Catholic and Protestant) has been responsible for throughout history in the name of Jesus? It is very popular in our day to recall evil popes, depraved inquisitors, witch-hunters, and self-righteous preachers and to claim that this cross-section of morally bankrupt people represents ALL of church history. But this is hardly true. There are many instances in history when Christians did amazing things because they took the bible literally. The abolition of the slave trade in Britain and the U.S., the abolition of child slave labor in Britain, and the humanizing of the untouchables in India are but a few things that could not have come about without the input and direction action of Christians. The Christians involved took such action in response to a literal interpretation of the bible.

Let's be balanced in our view of history here. If ever you come across someone who claims church history to be a bed of roses, beware. On the other hand, when you come across those who claim that church history can be shrunk down to phrases like "guns and bibles", also be very cautious. In either case, someone is ill-informed (as we all are at times). Or someone is lying.

Now... we should strive to be more like God right? God is an example of what ideals we should cherish right?

I beg your pardon? Women were made for what reason? I think I may have misunderstood that last bit there.

As the line in the Bible says..."Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"......I think that pretty much sums up what the attitudes of Christianity towards witches was (and still is in many cases). It doesn't say "Oh we're against witches, but we believe they have the right to live"

Whether it's stoning, throttling, burning or whatever.....it makes no difference. If you subscribe to the literal truth of the Bible, you then must also subscribe to the above. If you're to be true to your own faith.

Saucy you are sounding Preachy. Your little sermon only shows how the Church tries to manipulate and control people and the way one lives. What a normal, law abiding, morally obligating individual does with their life has absoloutely nothing to do with anyone else.

Well, in my case it lead to marriage..eventually. If I had told a girl I was saving myself for marriage I would have been laughed right out of the dating scene.
The point is, any religion that is going to be sucessful in this day and age is going to have to adapt to the needs of it's people. Christianity however seems to be moving backwards through time..
Traditions change with time and so do people. Any organization that remains static will eventually be left behind..

Ummm, Saucy, this could not be further from the truth. When you read the text of Genesis 1-2 you in no way see that Eve was created merely to gratify Adam's sexual appetites! Interestingly, it is God's idea to create Eve! Adam didn't ask God for her.

But let's back up a little. In Genesis ch 1, vv 26-28, we see that it is God's idea to create the man and the woman in His image--both of them in His image. The "in His image" part is very interesting when you look at competing Near Eastern creation motifs. Ever see a totem pole? In many cultures a totem pole represents the god(s) who runs the show in a particular region or area (hence the engravings on them). But in Genesis we see that God's totem pole--ambassador--for Himself is humanity--male and female equally. And we have every indication that Adam and Eve were both given power to care for God's creation.

In Genesis ch 2, the circumstances by which Eve's creation came about tell us something of God's purposes. In Genesis ch 2, v 18, it is God who ponders that is not good that Adam is alone. Think of how profound this is! In Genesis ch 1, God's creation of something is punctuated with the divine blessing, "And it was good!" What we see in Genesis 2.18 is that the first thing that isn't good about the world is that Eve is not in it!

So next we would expect for God to hook Adam up with a woman, right? Wrong. There's this strange episode where God brings to Adam the animals to see what he might name them. Why? Well, I speculate on what this must have looked like: God brings the animals to Adam two by two. Adam begins to ponder, "Y'know, there's two of everything here except for me!" This is corroborated by what the writer tells us of Adam's musings as he named the animals: "But for Adam no suitable helpmate could be found." This word for "helpmate/helper" in Hebrew is something like "isha" or "ishi". In the Old Testament, this word is sometimes used of God Himself. Alone, the word carries no connotation of inferiority or subjugation. More importantly, God does not create Adam until Adam realizes (while naming the animals) that he had need of her.

So far, what we see is that 1) Eve's creation is initiated by God, not Adam; 2) God's creation of Eve is accomplished so that the fullness of God's image can be expressed in the earth; without Eve, God's imaging of Himself is incomplete; 3) From Genesis ch 1 we see that Eve is to join Adam in the human vocation: To exercise some control over and to care for God's world and to be fruitful and multiply, thus filling the earth; 4) God was unwilling to create Eve until Adam realized his need for her during the animal-naming enterprise.

In order to create Eve, God takes from Adam's rib. This is significant for two reasons. First, Eve is a part of Adam, every bit as human as he is. To love her is as natural as loving himself. To despise or harm her is the equivalent of harming himself. Second, Eve is taken from Adam's side, symbolically communicating that she is not above him, nor below him, but that she walks alongside him and he alongside her. Adam's appreciation of Eve is evident in v 23, which is written in Hebrew poetry (the rest of the passage is in prose); he has someone who is "bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh".

Bearing all this in mind, Eve is not created merely to gratify Adam's sexual appetite. Eve is a full partner with Adam in bearing the image of God to the created world; taking care of said world; and participating in God's creative work through sex and reproduction.

Ozmeister,

I'm interested in a few things concerning Lilith.

First, do you know where the Lilith story comes from? Many or my Wiccan/pagan friends talk about it, but none of them can draw a bead on where it comes from. Do you know?

Second, let's assume that Lilith was Adam's first wife and that Eve was the replacement (as the story goes). It would stand to reason, then, that we should be able to spot in the Genesis story ways in which God "domesticated" (for lack of a better word) the woman so as to prevent another female, independent-thinking rebellion. How does Genesis 1-2 reflect such a modification to the female personhood? Can we compare Lilith to Eve to understand how Eve was God's update on women to ensure that there would be no more like Lilith?

A note: I referred only to Genesis 1-2 because in Genesis 3 things go crazy concerning male-female relationships due to Adam and Eve's rebellion against God. Any disfunctionality between Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 is not a part of God's original intent.

Why would creating Eve from Adam's rib make make the Eve subordinate? Why would creating Lilith from the same ground as Adam make Lilith equal? A difference in creation ought not automatically imply inferiority any more than a similarity in creation implies equality.

To be fair, the stuff I said in a few posts ago about Eve's equality being in view due the fact that she's created from Adam's rib doesn't automatically imply equality. However, in the Genesis text Adam and Eve are given the same rights, privileges and responsibilities by God. Regardless of what substance--the earth or flesh--Adam and Eve were created from, surely their equal share in representing God in the earth and living out their human vocation to take care of and fill the earth does point to equality.

I understand what you are describing, but I don't understand the interpretation. Why does same substance = equal stature? Why does different substance = unequal stature? Nowhere in the Genesis account are we given the impression that coming from the earth somehow affords one a better lot than does coming from another person. In fact, Adam's very statement about Eve being "bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh" suggests that he veiwed her as an equal partner, which God gently prodded him to look for.

The implied notion here is that only 'man' was created in the exact image of god, Eve then appears to have been chosen/created second. Why did God not create them both at the exact same time? Why was Adams rib necessary first in order to make Eve?

Ozmeister,

Thanks for more site info. The quote above is a partial quote from the Lilith story. I think the story makes my point for me. If we compare Lilith to Eve, something interesting emerges. Lilith draws her equal status from the fact that she was created from the dust as Adamah was. In the biblical account, Eve's equality stems from the fact that she is made in the image of the same God with the same purpose and vocation as Adam. In fact, Eve has no need to assert her equality because it is God-given, implied in her very creation. The fact that she's made from Adam's rib in no way jeopardizes the fact that she is made in God's own image just as Adam was. Adam never disputes this. Adam simply rejoices in Eve's commonality with him as a fellow human being, origins not withstanding. The origin that seems to matter most in the Genesis account is that they both have God as their Creator.

Ironically, it seems that the Lilith story was created by some Jewish men to encourage Jewish women to be submissive (or else God and some angels would do something weird to them!). Whoever the story's creators are, the Lilith story gives us no positive portrayal of how male-female relationships are supposed to work. The sense of the ideal is not present. Sure, in Genesis ch 3 things go awry; but Genesis 1-2 serve as guides as to the way human beings--male and female--were meant to interact with one another. Though the world is fallen, we can still do this (it's just harder, that's all, like rowing against a powerful current).

In regards to this, Jewish feminist Ruth Greenberg said it best: "Freedom is not the ability of the ex-slave to be just as tyrannical as the former master. Freedom is the ablility of men and women to operate equally in the confines of a common morality." I see this embodied in the Genesis text, whereas it is sorely lacking in the Lilith story.

I missed that one thank you Aslan ..


So Saucy, I'm asuming you mean women were made for parasite removel ,
in a social grooming sence . Or was it something else ?

The Hebrew word for "man" you are referring to could mean "humankind" and "man" (in term of maleness) depending upon the context. Genesis ch 1, v 27 goes like this: So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Both "man" and "him" here refer to humankind in general, not a male/males specifically. Jewish commentators routinely point this out.

The only reason I could muster for God creating Eve second was that he wanted to show Adam his need for her (and not just for sex) before creating her (with the animal-naming event). But why should being created second point to inferiority? For example, kids who are born second in the bible sometimes fare better than those born first (Manassah and Ephraim, Esau and Jacob, for example).

As it pertains to the creation of Eve from Adam's rib, why does this point to inferiority? I don't understand all the in's and out's of why God did things this way, but I don't see any inferior status demonstrated.