God & Women’s Mental Health

June 3, 2007 at 11:47 pm 31 comments

God and manI’ve come to the conclusion once and for all that a male god, especially as presented and defined by fundamentalist Christianity (or any other religion) is not good for women’s mental health. Millions of men swear by the good ole boy in the sky, but I can’t. I think millions of women are just like me, too. I sincerely believe that we concoct our own gods out of our various upbringings. The de-Convert’s Creation Story pretty much sums up what I believe happened with religion over the centuries. The gods are of our own making. Therefore it makes sense that the myth makers in history, being mostly male, concocted the god of their choosing.

Coming out of fundamentalist religion, which is completely patriarchal, is very hard, emotionally. The threat of hell and punishment is everywhere in the corners of your psyche. The god of fundamentalism is portrayed in the bible and in church and in all the literature as a punishing daddy who wields a rod of chastisement like nobody’s business. Oh the preachers all say god is merciful and loving, but that’s just double-speak. It’s to prevent reasonable people like you and me from running from the church. This god found in the bible and in church is the idol of every fundie parent’s eye and the supreme model for punishing their own children. I find this abhorrent. For every child out there suffering under the rods of their fathers and mothers steeped in fundamentalism, perpetuating the god as father image is tantamount to spiritual and emotional abuse of the worst order. To hold out this god as the ideal husband and father is abusive in itself.

However, fundamentalist men have a vested interest in keeping women under their control. They desire women for breeding, sexual enjoyment, and housekeeping and women are used only for reflecting their little god-sanctioned kingdom: the marital household. There is something destructive in the bible literalist, who demands and demands others become what he wants them to become, unnaturally and without mercy.

I don’t see how the ideas promoted by fundamentalism can EVER be good for women and children. As the most marginalized subset of society, women and children are ripe for exploitation and religion does more harm than good in this respect. As far as my mental health goes, I’ve tried many, many times to “submit” to the god of fundamentalism. When believers try to tell me that there is a difference between the god of the literalists and the god of their imaginations, I say that’s all well and good to say so. Their imaginations must be ten times more powerful than mine because every church I’ve ever been in, every book I’ve ever read on the subject, and every conversation I’ve ever had with believers is predicated on the notion that god is this male. He is this god the father, god the divine “He” that chastises sometimes unto death if we do not behave. I’m not interested in debating the very small distinction between the supposed “true god” and the god preached by millions of bible literalists every day. There is no distinction. It’s a ruse to get you to believe by any means necessary and nothing more.

The god of fundamentalist Christianity cannot bring peace of mind to women without women first denying who they really are at the core. I cannot live in two minds that way. I can’t live worshiping my abuser. I can’t live imagining that I’ve committed sin that a male god finds so offensive he’ll “take me out” of this life to save my soul. I’m going to find my spiritual sustenance elsewhere.

– Mystery Of Iniquity

Entry filed under: MysteryOfIniquity. Tags: , , , , , , , , .

Who wrote the Bible? What’s the Point with Prayer?


  • 1. jackanapes  |  June 4, 2007 at 12:06 am

    A genuine study of the Bible will find that God is Trinitarian and also beyond gender. God is both Mother and Father as a loving Creator who shows his wonders in nature every day I find a great comfort in the Higher Power who sacrificed so that God can be with is children.

    We are all finite humans who put our own resentments and instincts into the mix of what we feel is religion. Do not lean to heavily on your own understanding and seek out ways like this post to find more will be revealed.

    To me the greatest promise of heaven is an eternity of finding ever more revelations into the nature of God.

  • 2. beepbeepitsme  |  June 4, 2007 at 12:35 am

    RE: “A genuine study of the Bible will find that God is Trinitarian and also beyond gender.”

    This is why god is the father, jesus is the son and the father AND male and the holy spirit impregnates women.

  • 3. meghean  |  June 4, 2007 at 1:51 am

    All the dominant religions are written in a masculine voice. Even though in Judaism, the Torah states that God is both genders, it is often referred to as he for “convenience”. Essentially there is no spiritual path for women. It has all been designed with men in mind. If God is both genders, we are missing half of the picture. If God is beyond genders, then we’ve got it all wrong. Either way, I think there’s way more to it then what we have now.

  • 4. brad  |  June 4, 2007 at 2:46 am

    “A genuine study of the Bible will find that God is Trinitarian and also beyond gender.”

    Genuine? Positively re-constructionist maybe, but hardly genuine or critical.

  • 5. HeIsSailing  |  June 4, 2007 at 7:18 am

    meghean sez:

    “Even though in Judaism, the Torah states that God is both genders, it is often referred to as he for “convenience”. ”

    Where in the Torah does it say that God is both genders? I disagree. El, or YHVH is most definitely portrayed as a Male Diety.

  • 6. mysteryofiniquity  |  June 4, 2007 at 8:45 am

    As usual, women are accused of not “genuinely” studying the scriptures and bringing our own personal biases to the table. Notice that men are usually not accused of this. It’s called scholarship when they do it. It’s a tired argument.

    What’s really a crime about this whole one sided feminist debate is how fundamentalist men will ignore the feminist argument and chalk it up to hormones, emotions, being Eve’s offspring, (insert pet qualifier here) rather than seriously address the issue that is brought up. They simply will not contend with the female half of the human race. With these blinders and this obvious bias, there is no reasoning with them.

  • 7. brad  |  June 4, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    A “genuine” investigation of the scriptures will, in every incidence, proclaim a patriarchal male deity – feminists are welcome to reclaim the feminine character of God, but using the Bible is not the place to do it. It is a patriarchal book – written by men for men’s “benefit”. Any attempt to see the Bible as otherwise is a delusional attempt to re-write literary history in the name of fanaticism; fanaticism is not exclusive to fundamentalist Christians.

  • 8. mysteryofiniquity  |  June 4, 2007 at 4:27 pm

    So you’re saying that feminist Christians should just hand the bible over to men and take a “hands off” approach when they take on biblical scholarship? Why should this be? If Christian women aren’t even allowed to find, within the scriptures of their faith community, a God that is approachable to women without sexism, and therefore glossed over by men, then why should men be allowed to do the same? Men have no more right to control them than women do! Have you even read any feminist scholarship such as Reuther’s “Feminism and God-Talk” or Elizabeth Johnson’s “She Who Is” which redeems the scriptures from patriarchal control? Have you read the Women’s Bible Commentary? It can be done and doesn’t have to have a patriarchal conclusion.

    Also are you deeming feminist Christians as “fanatics” for attempting to wrest the study of scriptures from an exclusively male grasp? Are you marginalizing feminist scholarship because you declare the outcome before it’s even gotten started? Now I’ve heard everything. Pot meet kettle.

  • 9. beepbeepitsme  |  June 4, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    I thought this would have been a clue.

    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are referred to as the three patriarchs of the bible which is where the word “patriarchy” is derived.

    Patriarchy is a family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced.

    The patriarchs trace their heritage back to the “ultimate male patriarch”, gawd, who also made a cursory visit supposedly as jesus christ.

  • 10. beepbeepitsme  |  June 4, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    You can’t be a feminist and a christian unless you want to rewrite history. Good luck on that one.

  • 11. agnosticatheist  |  June 4, 2007 at 10:24 pm

    I would say you can’t be a modern day Christian without rewriting the Bible …. and that is done everyday.
    Christianity today says God is a loving, caring, compassionate FATHER in heaven. The Bible does not support this view. Christianity today says that women can speak in church. The Bible does not support this view. Christianity today says that a man can marry a divorced woman. The Bible doesn’t support this view. Of course, the passages about homosexuality hasn’t been rewritten yet but hopefully they will be soon 🙂

  • 12. mysteryofiniquity  |  June 5, 2007 at 7:46 am


    And what’s wrong with rewriting history and starting anew? Remaking God in our own image if we so choose? Men did it. Why can’t women?

  • 13. Heather  |  June 5, 2007 at 11:22 am

    I think there’s a difference between re-writing history and re-writing the Bible. For instance, the Reformation radically re-wrote history, but no Protestant would ever say that they re-wrote the Bible.

    Same with feminisim. It’s re-writing history, in the manner of which the Bible was interpreted. But I tend to see it as exploring aspects of the Bible that have been overlooked for too long *by* history.

  • 14. mysteryofiniquity  |  June 5, 2007 at 12:10 pm

    True. You can never truly “re-write” history, but you can redeem history and it’s uglier aspects for future generations.

  • 15. noogatiger  |  June 5, 2007 at 3:04 pm

    Ok lets get one thing straight. God, (if he, or she, or whatever) is even out there somewhere, he or she or it had nothing to do with the Bible. This book is, as stated, a book by men, about men, the women and slaves they owned, and the God they made up to suit their needs. You don’t even need to consider the Bible except as a book of myth, poetry and women hating ways.

    After that you can develop your view of God in whatever gender or form that you wish. It it totally up to you. Your guess is as good as anyones. Nobody knows who or where or even if God is there at all.

    The Bible is not God’s Word in any shape, form, size, translation, or original copies. Time to move on.

  • 16. mysteryofiniquity  |  June 5, 2007 at 3:07 pm

    Good to see you over here!!

    Now, if we moved on. What ELSE would we have to talk about? 🙂

  • 17. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 25, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Wow have I enjoyed reading these posts! I would agree that the bible, though inspired by God was literally put to paper by man but I would add, that a God who knows all things, even what the misogynistic work of the man would be, out-smarted him. The garden word, the place in Scripture from whence many of female woes flow is unbelievably misinterpreted and even according to a literal study of the word.

  • 18. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 25, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    (Sorry, wasn’t finished with the post but accidently hit the wrong button – opps!) For instance, in Genesis 2:23 the real Adam exposes himself, calling himself now “Man” and not “Adam” (a name even given by God as early as Genesis 2:19 and again spoken to him by God in Genesis 3:9 post-fall) and rejects what should have immediately been the name of the female as “Eve” calling her “Woman” instead.

    Names speak to identity in the Hebrew, the name of “Adam” means to be made ruddy, as in ashamed, it means to be a hypocrite, even a mean man of low degree. The name of Eve however means to be a “life-giver,” and she alone earned title as “mother of all living.” This is not a title speaking to the physical, else an “Adam” would likewise be “father of all living” but to the spiritual. She even earned title as “mother of all living” as a child-less virgin in a freshly fallen world. A fallen female earned such honor even from the foreknowledge of a holy God because she alone made right garden confession, a fallen dusty man called an “Adam” by God would not. But where is our teaching about the true confession of Eve in the church? A just God could only continue life in the earth as we know it because of her just confession given the absence of Adam’s.

    And why did God not call out to the female also in Genesis 3:9? It had nothing to do with issues of a man having the greater authority but only because God refused to acknowledge a rebellious work by the man in calling her “Woman” in Genesis 2:23. God only and always desired the name of “Eve.” And it was the same name a still stubborn but now punished and compelled Adam had to speak post-fall in 3:20.

    The garden itself was a test for the humans to prove making a choice for righteousness, as you can imagine, a man which even the foreknowledge of God would call an “Adam” had many issues to come. As such, God even brought him into the garden prior to the arrival of the female, who yes would fall but know how to righteously get back up again by making right garden confession (yet he would not) to first teach but also to confirm.

    That is, God used the naming of the animals to prove the man’s ability to rightly do so according to what was the actual will of God for each name of the animal, but what happened when a man called an “Adam” by God, a man without like title respectively as “father of all living” is challenged to righteously name the female “Eve,” and even submit to acknowledging her as “mother of all living?” She had far more garden capital than did he and a now jealous Adam knew it.

    Church won’t teach it, but Adam did not even wake up after God put the man to sleep just prior to creating the female. Scripture is trying to symbolically tell us that this man is now (and even still) operating in the dark, something here is wrong.

    And the rib meant nothing in terms of the female’s actual creation in relation to a greater standing of the man. A future proud, arrogant and now bleeding Adam representing the world, simply got his “flesh cut” by God to symbolically give, even tithe, into a female who alone though fallen, got up having regard for the confession and therefore also the things of God. She is the one who foreshadowed the Church even the work of a Christ to come, never a man with a name meaning to be an “Adam.”

    The male tradition wonders why God punishes this man Adam because they can’t see what were the garden faults and rebellious acts of Adam, and yet we have all of this without even making mention of the actual eating of the fruit (Adam was a head case). They will say, but of course Adam was punished for eating the fruit, but in Genesis 3:12 Adam, although arrogantly, confesses to eating the fruit so why was he punished? Eve confessed in Genesis 3:13 and was honored by God in name and title. And must say, Genesis 3:16 is not punishment for the female, it is all a lie. We need to first know the true garden story and then apply what it means for the man to “cleave” in marriage to the female (Genesis 2:24) and rightly understand that God cannot command “desire” and nor would he.

    And on the issue of Adam “hearkening unto his wife,” follow the link and check out my blog entitled “Who Told You Not to Hearken Unto your Wife.” The male tradition of the church has stricken us yet again.

    Written as a female formerly submitting to subjugation myself, my book is entitled “The Real Skinny on Eve, a Short but Comprehensive Guide on the Real Identity of Sisters in the Church of Jesus Christ” (Amazon.com) and my hope is to undo the damage, at least in the lives of women today, with the truth of how a holy God really created and what and how he really exalted in the garden. The tradition of the male pulpit is debilitating the church, they can’t rightly defend it even in the garden word and I have yet to meet one who even understands it, they just subjugate. But ask them about Genesis 2:23 at least, see how many different answers you get, all of the heeing and hawing you will hear, they will become as men suddenly looking far more to you as do deer in headlights. But be prepared to be called the “Jezebel” that response is a standard.

    Most critical point here is this, it is not the fault of God according to his design or how he has given, he did so equally. But even those of the pew must take the male pulpit rightly to task, and even obediently this can be done inside of the church, asking the right questions, demonstrating knowledge of key Hebrew garden terms and boldly, even rightly speaking your knowledge whether in public or private, during bible class or in personal session. Intelligently and rightly shame the leadership even to their faces for not rightly teaching this word and don’t let them go until you get your answers or they make it clear to you that they don’t have them.

    We as females don’t have to forsake our intellects, callings, bibles, and our churches, God as supplier of our needs did not put us here for that, but to show our light and even to show that light within the confines of an otherwise unpenetratable dark pulpit. Come on now ladies, let us “man up,” girl power and all of that. We can rock this.

  • 19. mysteryofiniquity  |  September 25, 2009 at 10:17 pm

    Interesting piece on the Garden there. I think the problem, as I see it, is taking Genesis so literally as some in fundamentalism do. So, giving up that view of religion’s scriptures went a long way toward freeing me from it’s tyranny or from even trying to understand or make sense of what the God of said scriptures required. It was really that simple for me. However, if one were to stay in their religion, specifically Christianity, it would be tempting to offer this alternative interpretation to see the reaction. Although experience has shown me that their minds won’t change because of anything I could say, I applaud anyone who keeps striking out into those shark infested waters and comes out with their faith unscathed. Thank you for the thoughtful comment.

  • 20. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 25, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    Can’t say I am unscathed, I just can’t let go of Christ, I love him too much. Not sure what you mean by it being too literal, language as spoken, even written is purposed to mean something, my issue has always been the lack of applying the appropriate and accurate meaning. I thankfully have never been overly exposed to fundamentalism, it was certainly there in many ways, hence where I am now as a female, but having an actual relationship with Christ is what I have known to be stressed the most.

    I do understand where you are coming from but it is just not that simple for me. God is using me in this garden word, he is compelling this. I didn’t just come up with anything, all I had was the garden tradition but it took him to lead me through the word. I must also confess that I have been extremely hurt by the Church as a female and a wife and consequently experienced and even lost a great deal, including years. God could not have continued being God to me without giving me understanding. And while in the process of getting that understanding, I fould that I could not even attend Church (what I absolutely loved to do!) it just hurt too much to hear it. The enemy was just able to take too much away.

    Yet I am free now and I love turning this word around on the traditional male pulpit because others get set free and it is quite frankly the word.

    So I will keep swimming with those sharks and shouting it out about this word! If you think of me, send up a prayer or two sweetie, I can certainly use it. God bless. Peace and love.

  • 21. Roy  |  September 25, 2009 at 11:43 pm

    In my opinion, it makes no difference whether you take the story literally or not. It’s more important to understand the point it makes about the human problem. Here is one interpretation that makes sense to me:



  • 22. Dawn Davidson  |  September 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm


    Thanks for providing the link, I have spent time reviewing it. I do agree that ultimately what matters most, in terms of what we have before us to deal with, is the human condition due to sin regardless of how we got here. However, the details embedded in the Hebrew about how that actually happened is not knowledgte to be ignored and I think when it is ignored, or for other reasons just not known or even taught, we forfeit much by way of true understanding.

    Yes God created perfectly in the garden but he still gave both the man and the woman free-will to exercise choice in the garden and he did even more than that. Given all that He knew (according to his foreknowledge) about the end of both garden individuals, even in their beginning he took steps to uniquely supply for each need, and even for a future stubborn, jealous Adam and likewise for a fallen but confessed Eve.

    Given their free-will, Adam and Eve both had to submit to a process of learning in God. Eve did well although fallen by making right garden confession, a proud Adam did not.

    In Genesis 2:23 he sought to illegally change his own God-given name to that of “Man” and he rejected the God-purposed name of the female as “Eve.” Adam also, already in a most wretched state, stood silently watching, without intervening even with the truth as he rightly received it from the very mouth of God regarding the fruit. He only responded to the female after she ate of the fruit in order to now safely satisfy his own desire to eat of it as well.

    This is is why even God says, “Because thou hast hearkened unto your wife,” he was speaking sarcastically to this man, even veiling what is the “truth” for the mind of the righteous only to find. A silent Adam demonstrated, even unto the death of the female, who he really was (and who he was even really following) in failing to act as “help meet,” and even a husband to the female as she was standing there, being deceived but now also about to eat of the fruit.

    We might miss this, but God didn’t and it was why he was punished. Adam did not confess to all he did in the garden, he only arrogantly confessed to actually eating the fruit but that was far from all. In our civilized world, we actually prosecute people for acting as an accessory to a crime (as was a silent Adam in the work of the serpent upon an unknowing female) and for the stealing of identities. It was a crime against the framework of God first and foremost but also a crime ultimately detrimental to the person of the female.

    I totally disagree with the explanation regarding his punishment. God designed punishment for this man purposed to bring about his eventual repentance given all that this man actually committed against the will of God in the garden, the worst of which was withholding a right garden confession. God sought and desired to bring about an internal change for Adam, a change which is not actually evidenced in this man until well after a murderous Cain, causing the death of Abel, and not even until the birth of Seth.

    Regarding the issue of pain, God cut Adam in Genesis 2:21 but not before putting him into a deep sleep. If it was not going to hurt him, then why did he put him into a “deep” sleep to do it? The word “deep” here speaks to a state close to that of death. When presented with the woman by God the man said, This is now “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh,” how could he know this but for the sore pain he felt and the blood he perhaps saw (in and of itself traumatic!)? You can’t say that God told him, because what Adam (though to himself now “Man”) says here is actually in error. The female was only of his bone alone, never his flesh. Their flesh could not walk together. He would fall and refuse making right confession, she too was due to fall but would. We must remember, God creates (even names) in the beginning even as it will be in the end. An un-confessed Adam earned death which is why he was a man created from the dust. People speak of her likewise, but Eve was not a being created from the dust, she did not earn death only Adam did, she too had to suffer death, as do we all now as members of humanity.

    Bottom line for me is, God did not give us a word which in no way applies even to what is practical in our own lives. We can romantize about the garden but it doesn’t change the facts. Two fell, only one made right confession, as a result one was exalted in name and title (even according to the foreknowledge of God) and one was not, but only punished (and even that made known according to the foreknowledge of God). This is why we have a virgin, child-less female in a fallen garden called “mother of all living” and given name (finally) by a now puniished and compelled Adam as “Eve” meaning “life-giver,” and yet the man received a name according to the foreknowledge (but never the will) of God as as “Adam,” as in a hypocrite, being made humiliated and ashamed. All because he failed to make right confession. Choices matter.

    This also was not designed to brutally punish, and even mock the male gender in this day (even as females were never to be subjugated), but only to rightly identify and then to attack that which God hates most from the human, which is pride. Pride is what ultmately kept Adam from making right confession.

    We can make nice and we should, but how can we really get delivered forsaking knowledge of truth even as it was originally given in the Hebrew. I mean no offense, but idolatry is what comes to mind next for me in the absence of a preference for God’s true intent in word.

    Peace and love.

  • 23. Roy  |  September 26, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Hi Dawn,

    Peace and love to you.

    I need to spend some time reading your comment, your blog and maybe your book. Afterward, I will get back to you. Honestly, I’ve not spent much time thinking about issues of gender as they relate to spirituality. I’ve always just considered males and females to be equal, spiritually speaking. I’m open minded to your point of view, though.

    Thank you for looking at the link I provided. It’s not my material, but I found it quite interesting, as I found most of the information on that site to be.

  • 24. Dawn Davidson  |  September 26, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Hey Roy,

    Thanks for your reply message. Loved what you said:

    “Honestly, I’ve not spent much time thinking about issues of gender as they relate to spirituality. I’ve always just considered males and females to be equal, spiritually speaking.”

    Where have you been all my life? lol. (: Too bad that was never my experience within the traditional male mind-set of the Church! God bless you brother.

  • 25. Roy  |  September 26, 2009 at 7:59 pm


    I’ve now read your comment in detail. My view is that there is much to be learned from the Bible, and that each of us interprets it in a way that works for us. I had never heard or considered your interpretation, but I would certainly enjoy learning more about it. I believe in building bridges between races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, etc. In other words, people to me are individuals and we are all unique and cannot be fit into any mold. Understanding one another at a personal level is key.

    I guess my first question would be:

    What do you mean by “right confession”?

    If you explain this elsewhere in your blog or book, just point me in the right direction.

    I’ve been right here. 🙂 Not everybody in the Church fits the “Church steryotype”. God bless you too sister.

  • 26. Roy  |  September 26, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Please pardon my spelling problem — stereotype. Where oh where would I be without spell checkers. 🙂

  • 27. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 27, 2009 at 12:13 am


    You are funny, no worries with me about the spell check. (; If you read any of my blogs (and thank you for taking the time) you will find me alluding to it in the very least but most often also writing about it specifically. Certainly in my latest blog entry entitled: “Did God Tell You Not to “Hearken” Unto Your Wife?,” you will find the answer you are looking for in detail.

    And about everybody not fitting the church stereotype, I am thankfully learning that more and more – and thank you for playing your part in that. But God is still dealing with me in this garden word. I had my fill of it by way of experience a long time ago, but then He said to write, so I write.

    God bless.

  • 28. Roy  |  September 27, 2009 at 12:54 am

    We all have our place in the body. I wish you the best as you continue to fulfill your role.

    Peace and blessings to you as well.

  • 29. mysteryofiniquity  |  September 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm

    Roy and Dawn,

    It does matter if one takes the Genesis story literally or not. The point about taking the bible literally is this. Taking it literally means that we believe it has something relevant to say to 21st century people, that “God” “said” this or that, or that we should take lessons from the writings of an ancient civilization more worried about their own tribe’s welfare than the welfare of other tribes. The Genesis myth may explain what the Hebrews thought about the origins of mankind, but it is not the definitive explanation of where humans came from nor do some of us believe any longer that it should be consulted as a response to humankind’s problems. It’s merely a story; one tribe’s explanation. That’s all. Many cultures have similar stories and we don’t take those literally as true. Privileging one story above another is a personal choice perhaps, but it’s definitely a religious one. It’s a choice some of us make no longer. Thanks for the comments.

  • 30. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 28, 2009 at 6:01 pm

    I will be signing off with my comments then but will say, I do believe that the Genesis word is to be taken literally and that it very much has a message to the 21st century man, that is the entire point in exclaiming the truth of it and not the irrelevancy of the misinterpreted lie. To discuss the NT word but to ignore the canonized word upon which it is based is to me putting the head on backward.

    I do not receive it as a mere myth (yet with mythical aspects certainly) because I believe them to be the beginning of a line of people God worked through to reveal himself to surrounding poplutations. I find this word in its truth, to be far beyond the workings of a mere man, received by a man yes but originated no.

    Finally, there are a great number of people, and women particularly, living oppressed even subjugated lives due to the inaccurate interpretation and application of the Genesis word, who for whatever the reason, will continue to suffer blindly if those who can and will do better don’t address even what are their, but I still say my, issues within the Church.

    Peace and love.

  • 31. gettherealskinnyoneve  |  September 28, 2009 at 6:05 pm

    “To discuss the NT word but to ignore the canonized word upon which it is based is to me putting the head on backward.”

    When I say “upon which it is based” I am strickly speaking of the NT’s continued misinterpretation of the female.

Trackback this post

Today’s Featured Link

Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.



Blog Stats

  • 2,163,101 hits since March 2007