Why I quit Christianity

[Beck]

That's an interesting sort of "analogy" - but I Satan is supposed to be a fallen spirit, isn't he?

The Jews have an old tradition about each person having a "Yetzer HaTov" (the Good Impulse) vs. a "Yetzer HaRa" (Evil Impulse). Something similar is popularly represented as an angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.



Personally, I don't have any knowledge or sense of any "internal division" like this at all. I don't have an "inclination" that is bent either towards some abstract moral concept like "Good" or "Evil." That kind of thinking seems to miss the reality of what really goes on inside when we are conflicted between competing desires. I never feel like "Oooh ... I just wanna kiss that girl because it would be an evil thing to do." That's ridiculous. The real moral issues are the competition between our basic animal desires and our intelligence that chooses how to fulfill them. For example, I am hungry, so I could just slug you and steal your sandwich, or I could go and make my own. In neither case is there a competition between a "Good Impulse" vs. an "Evil Impulse."

I can't say I totally understand it, but I beleive that was the purpose of senting the Holy Spirit so that we fight off the desires of the flesh. That God may dwell with his people. Galatians 5:19-21 tells us the works of the flesh vesres the fruits of the Spirit. The man whom has the Spirit of God seek to obey the new commandment rather that follow his desires of the flesh. Thereby the Spirit of God leads us unto all knowledge and in how to fulfill them.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I can't say I totally understand it, but I beleive that was the purpose of senting the Holy Spirit so that we fight off the desires of the flesh. That God may dwell with his people. Galatians 5:19-21 tells us the works of the flesh vesres the fruits of the Spirit. The man whom has the Spirit of God seek to obey the new commandment rather that follow his desires of the flesh. Thereby the Spirit of God leads us unto all knowledge and in how to fulfill them.

Yes, the idea of "flesh vs. spirit" in Galatians 5:19-20 makes a lot of sense. But I think it is a mistake to think of them as "opposed one to the other." It makes more sense to me to understand it as saying that if the flesh dominates we will follow our selfish desires which will bring forth all those vices, whereas if the spirit dominates it can direct the flesh to accomplish good things. I think the analogy of a person (spirit) riding a horse (flesh) is pretty good. When the person dominates, the horse can accomplish great things. When the horse dominates, it runs wild and knocks it's rider off by running under a tree branch.

[Beck]

Yes, the idea of "flesh vs. spirit" in Galatians 5:19-20 makes a lot of sense. But I think it is a mistake to think of them as "opposed one to the other." It makes more sense to me to understand it as saying that if the flesh dominates we will follow our selfish desires which will bring forth all those vices, whereas if the spirit dominates it can direct the flesh to accomplish good things. I think the analogy of a person (spirit) riding a horse (flesh) is pretty good. When the person dominates, the horse can accomplish great things. When the horse dominates, it runs wild and knocks it's rider off by running under a tree branch.

Good analogy I think I've done that at lease once. And what you have stated about the flesh and spirit not opposed seems applicable. I'll have to remember that analogy.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, the idea of "flesh vs. spirit" in Galatians 5:19-20 makes a lot of sense. But I think it is a mistake to think of them as "opposed one to the other." It makes more sense to me to understand it as saying that if the flesh dominates we will follow our selfish desires which will bring forth all those vices, whereas if the spirit dominates it can direct the flesh to accomplish good things. I think the analogy of a person (spirit) riding a horse (flesh) is pretty good. When the person dominates, the horse can accomplish great things. When the horse dominates, it runs wild and knocks it's rider off by running under a tree branch.

Good analogy I think I've done that at lease once. And what you have stated about the flesh and spirit not opposed seems applicable. I'll have to remember that analogy.

Glad you like it ... but I'm surprised you didn't catch me up on my statement that "it is a mistake to think of them as 'opposed one to the other.'"

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

So I guess I disagree with Paul on this point. I have no reason to think that the "spirit" is "in opposition" with the flesh in any fundamental way. It seems much more likely that the "flesh" is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be human, and that the union of flesh with a spirit that is united with God, as in the incarnation in which the Word was made flesh, means that there is no fundamental opposition. Or what? Shall we say that Christ was divided within himself. His "spirit" being opposed to his "flesh?" I don't think so. So maybe the idea of "opposition" in Gal 5:17 needs to be clarified.

[TheForgiven]

Hey there my friend,

I'm glad you are recovering well. Excuse me while I jump in here to toss in my two cents ... there seems to be some pretty persistent confusions about the things Rose has been saying, so I feel a need to help clear things up.

This would be a good thing. Because if I failed to understand her point, perhaps a more direct explanation would be best; I'm not very intelligent according to some on this forum. Thought that may not be too far from the truth, per mans standards.

I agree that pronouns shouldn't matter, but unfortunately they do. And this is very easy to prove. All you need to do is try referring to God as "she" and see what thoughts and feelings that arouses in you.

That's my point. Why would there need to be a Pronoun with either "He" or "She"? Why not just say "GOD"? Every verse would sound the same. Example:

She gave him a hug...God gave him a hug
She gathered the children as a hen gathers its young....God gathered the children as a hen gathers its young.

I see no problem. The only one who sees a problem is the one who himself/herself are prejudice against the opposite sex, or perhaps are jealous. Consider the Church who is often referred to as the Bride or Wife of Christ. The Church is submissive to Christ, and Christ is submissive to God. But is this a bad thing? I see no logical reason to suggest otherwise. Submission doesn't mean enslavement. To me it means functioning as a perfect unified team.

So what's the problem?

Some accuse white people of being a racist because they are not black; some accuse black people of being a racist because they are not white. But to those who take no distinction between the two, they are merely people. I believe you'll find this to be true, that anyone who preaches sexism, or racism, are themselves probably a sexist or a racist.

God says She loves you very much and wants to wrap Her arms around you.

God says that Wisdom is Her Divine Daughter, and you must cleave to Her Daughter ans She will guide you in all your paths.

I don't see a problem with this verse. And me being a male has nothing to do with this. So what if God uses a "Divine Daughter" as a metaphor to describe wisdom. Is this a bad thing?

And so on ... as you can see, the pronouns carry a lot more power than your comments suggest. They are sexually charged and so control your imagination and conception of God. There is a world of difference between the image of God as a loving, gentle, and accepting Mother vs. an strict, commanding, warrior Father who demands bloody sacrifices and orders you to murder all the women and children of the land he has given you.

I don't see them as being sexually charged. I see this as nothing more than a metaphor. Women have always been known to be more compassionate than men. Is this not true? That being the case, would it make sense to compare wisdom to men? I personally think that men, especially the likes of me, to be more foolish; the fool searching for the wisdom of God. And I could care less if that meant searching this wisdom from a male or a female.

That is one of the few female metaphors used for God. It stands out because of it's rarity.

But you are missing Rose's point which is that the Bible was written with a male bias against women. She does not use this to prove that God is biased against woman, but rather to prove that the Bible was not written or inspired by God. Explanations about the natural differences between men and women are completely irrelevant. We all know about biological differences. Does that mean that women should not be allowed to vote? Of course not! Does it mean that women should not be given an education? No. That's the point - modern people have learned that men and woman should have equal rights. This doesn't mean that they are "identical" in all ways. But no man should rule over a woman merely because she is a woman, and no woman should be considered the "property" of a man. Those are the issues that Rose is talking about.

A man does not rule over a women, and I don't believe that the Bible teaches this. A man is the "head" of the household. The "head" represents the thinker, and the responsible one, who has to give an answer for the entire family. Your body is not composed of just a head; it has other body parts as well, yet they are one being. The foot cannot tell the head to function as the hand, and neither can the head tell the foot to function as the fingers. All work unison, and with each its particular function. Paul uses the "head" of a man to show that he is the mind, or thinker responsible for the well being of the rest of the body. The wife, although not represented by the head, serves as a vital function of the heads body; they are one body. I fail to see why this is difficult.

Now if sister Rose were aroused by jealousy, or eve you brother Richard, that she wishes to be the head, then that'd be the same as saying a bodies foot is jealous that it is not the head, or the hand, or the chest. Can a body function without even one single part missing? Sure it can, but with great difficulty.

Of course I know that in ancient times, women were not permitted to serve as Elders within the Church. But using the Who, What, Where, Why, and How principal, that was for the Jewish race; they had laws we are not held in bondage to. Now Paul did preach among the Gentiles, and it does seem harsh that he did not permit a woman to speak in the Church. But context is important. He was talking about a woman speaking in tongues. This does not apply to a woman who wants to teach the word of God, or serve as a Deacon, Elder, or even a preacher.

There are many prominent women who served as perfect examples of faith in the Kingdom of God, well after 70AD. Consider the awesome testimony of Perpetua. She was a rich woman with child, and chose to give all of that up because she refused to denounce Christ and worship the Emperor. Her child ended up going to her grand parents, while the child's mother "Perpetua" was executed in what was once called "The Circus"; the Roman Arena. Her example of steadfastness and faith in Christ was demonstrated in the Arena, and she became a beautiful testimony to her faith in Christ.

So I really do not see the problem that Rose is having. Perhaps if she would not look at God from a gender stand point, and instead view God for what God really is; that is, the God of love. But remember, love isn't always pleasant; sometimes "tough love" is required, and that's where many of us have a problem; we all dislike discipline because it hurts. Consider my testimony brother Richard. I've gone through far worse than what most divorced women claim they've suffered through. If you look at the statistics of today, more women commit adultery than men, and yet are rewarded for their evil. They get the child, your money, and even alimony payment FOR ADULTERY! It's not because the courts care more for the woman; it's where the money is; the man.

Again, your appeal to biology (motherhood) misses the point my friend. There is no justification for treating woman like the property of men, or like second class citizens who are not allowed to have equal authority with men in public matters, or to rule when they have superior abilities. And on and on ... it's the inequality that's the problem. The male bias against woman in the Bible has made them subject to men for 2000 years.

Show me where in scripture that women are to be treated like property. I've already told you that the Bible does not teach this. If a woman believes that bearing children is treating her like property, then that's a woman who seems to have a disconnect with the function of her biological nature. But it's not as though this were the only purpose of a woman.

I hate to say this my friend, but I think you're making an argument out of spilled milk.

You are still missing the point. Rose has no problems with the natural differences between men and woman. That's not an issue at all. The issue is that the Bible says men should rule over women, and women must be silent, and submissive to their husbands, and they can't teach men, and they are "saved in childbirth" and all sorts of things like that that are offensive to the dignity every woman should possess.

It does not. It says that men have charge over a women. This doesn't mean that he's the boss. It means that he's accountable for the actions of the entire household. From a Christian standpoint, the man is responsible for ensuring the the family is not only provided for with natural needs, but spiritual needs as well. Yet both worship Christ, who is head over all. I'm submissive to Christ. Should I be jealous that Christ is head over us? Of course not! So why should a woman (If married) be upset if she's being asked to submit to the considerations of the husband?

This kind of prejudice is a result of abuse by men. But I seem to recall her reactions to the Casey Anthony trial. I noted that she appeared to be pleased that Casey Anthony was set free, despite the fact that it was proven she was responsible for the death of her daughter. I believe she murdered her by accident, but just because she is a woman, doesn't mean that she should receive special treatment. What if Casey were a man? We all know what would have happened to him; he would have gotten the death penalty the same day. My point is that men these days suffer more than women do; they have the courts on their side, and men are subjected to a very corrupt court system that often leads divorced men into suicide. How many women are suffering the loss of their child through divorce, or are forced to pay 18+ years of ridiculous child support and alimony? And we all know that child support is not used for the needs of the child, but for the escapades of the mother. Yet as a Christian, I'm to tolerate it because the "head" let it happen, so who am I to object to it? Get my point?

I'm sorry to hear about that problem. It is very sad when one parent uses the child as a weapon against the other.

But I think you should avoid such stereotypes. I don't know if it's true that women have a bigger problem with anger or not, but if they do, maybe it's because they've suffered abuse by men for thousands of years??? Just maybe?

Oh, this is no stereotype my friend. Do the research. Go to unitywall.com to read the testimony of lost men who were beat'n down by the courts from vindictive women trying to stick it to their husbands. Women by nature are not naturally brutal; they have to have a reason. When a women decides to leave her husband for another man, even if he were the best husband on the face of the earth, she will thrust the marriage into chaos until the husband finally loses control over his emotions. THEN that gets used against him in the court of law, and the man has to pay thousands of dollars for court-mandated counseling sessions JUST TO SEE HIS CHILDREN!

Now I know that this has nothing to do with the accusations of Biblical bias towards men, but if we want to speak in reality, you will find that women today are quite spoiled. Many women feel that they are ENTITLED to a good life. Consider a military man married to a woman who merely wanted medical health care, free room and Borg, and did nothing at all to satisfy or meet the emotional needs of her husband. Then while he's gone, she's off in the arms of her boyfriend. Her husband finds out, and guess who ends up paying for it! The military man who loses 50% percent of his retirement, PLUS child support and alimony. How fair is that?

Again my point is that men and women suffer in this age. Yet it appears that you and Rose seem to have a bias against men from a Biblical standpoint. It was Eve that was misled into biting the apple first, but God did not excuse the mans actions for following in her footsteps. Both were cursed:

Women would suffer great child labor during birth. Men would work by the sweat from his brow to support (as the head) his family.

As I stated, I don't see the problem.


I'll respond more a little later my friends. I've got to make some promised phone calls. But let me put it to you like this. My ex-wife used to ask me this question, "Would you choose God over me"? My answer was, "By putting God first, I'm putting you (ex wife) first".

Do you understand what this means? If so, then this proves that the Bible does not place man above a women; it's a 100 x 100 relationship. Nobody is the boss, and the Bible does not teach that a man is boss over the woman.

Joe

[Beck]

Glad you like it ... but I'm surprised you didn't catch me up on my statement that "it is a mistake to think of them as 'opposed one to the other.'"

Galatians 5:17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

So I guess I disagree with Paul on this point. I have no reason to think that the "spirit" is "in opposition" with the flesh in any fundamental way. It seems much more likely that the "flesh" is a fundamental aspect of what it is to be human, and that the union of flesh with a spirit that is united with God, as in the incarnation in which the Word was made flesh, means that there is no fundamental opposition. Or what? Shall we say that Christ was divided within himself. His "spirit" being opposed to his "flesh?" I don't think so. So maybe the idea of "opposition" in Gal 5:17 needs to be clarified.

I'm guessing that would be one reason to fast so to dominate the flesh. While I think that the spirit and flesh are two different aspects of the man but they aren't necessarily in opposition. I mean in the sence of competing for the same position. The spirit minds the things of the spirit the flesh minds the things of the flesh.(Roman 8:5) Hints Jesus said you could have only one master.

Then there's the aspect that we are to kill off the flesh [desires]. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live (Romans 8:13)

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm guessing that would be one reason to fast so to dominate the flesh. While I think that the spirit and flesh are two different aspects of the man but they aren't necessarily in opposition. I mean in the sence of competing for the same position. The spirit minds the things of the spirit the flesh minds the things of the flesh.(Roman 8:5) Hints Jesus said you could have only one master.

Then there's the aspect that we are to kill off the flesh [desires]. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live (Romans 8:13)

Yes, disciplines like fasting can help a person develop habits that "put the flesh in it's place." But on the other hand, an unhealthy "dominance" of the spirit/mind over the flesh can really warp a person and make them into creepy "ascetics" that are completely out of touch with their feelings. If they are religious leaders, they can pass on this dysfunction to their whole congregation and the next thing you know you have created an army of robots without human hearts who will do the bidding of their heartless master. This might be considered a short history of the Crusades or Hitler's Germany.

[Rose]

A man does not rule over a women, and I don't believe that the Bible teaches this. A man is the "head" of the household. The "head" represents the thinker, and the responsible one, who has to give an answer for the entire family. Your body is not composed of just a head; it has other body parts as well, yet they are one being. The foot cannot tell the head to function as the hand, and neither can the head tell the foot to function as the fingers. All work unison, and with each its particular function. Paul uses the "head" of a man to show that he is the mind, or thinker responsible for the well being of the rest of the body. The wife, although not represented by the head, serves as a vital function of the heads body; they are one body. I fail to see why this is difficult.

I think you are very misinformed if you think the Bible doesn't teach male rulership over women. Starting in Genesis 3 women are cursed by "God" by having the male rule over them and bearing the man's children in pain...and what is the man cursed with? Oh yeah, having to toil the land by the sweat of his brow, which conveniently is put onto the woman because she is "owned" by the male and used as a work-animal.

Now if sister Rose were aroused by jealousy, or eve you brother Richard, that she wishes to be the head, then that'd be the same as saying a bodies foot is jealous that it is not the head, or the hand, or the chest. Can a body function without even one single part missing? Sure it can, but with great difficulty.


Of course I know that in ancient times, women were not permitted to serve as Elders within the Church. But using the Who, What, Where, Why, and How principal, that was for the Jewish race; they had laws we are not held in bondage to. Now Paul did preach among the Gentiles, and it does seem harsh that he did not permit a woman to speak in the Church. But context is important. He was talking about a woman speaking in tongues. This does not apply to a woman who wants to teach the word of God, or serve as a Deacon, Elder, or even a preacher.

Why shouldn't a woman be the head if she is better suited and more qualified? Just because the men who wrote the Bible declared that men are the head of the woman does not make it so. There were many ancient societies who worshiped the goddess where it was the woman who was the leader of the family. If one looks at the animal kingdom we find that in most species it is the female who totally raises the young and hunts her own food without any assistance from the male of the species. The only reason women need men to protect them is because of other men who are a danger to them. Generally speaking women don't need protection from other women...it's men they need protection from.

Are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to speak in tongues?

There are many prominent women who served as perfect examples of faith in the Kingdom of God, well after 70AD. Consider the awesome testimony of Perpetua. She was a rich woman with child, and chose to give all of that up because she refused to denounce Christ and worship the Emperor. Her child ended up going to her grand parents, while the child's mother "Perpetua" was executed in what was once called "The Circus"; the Roman Arena. Her example of steadfastness and faith in Christ was demonstrated in the Arena, and she became a beautiful testimony to her faith in Christ.

So I really do not see the problem that Rose is having. Perhaps if she would not look at God from a gender stand point, and instead view God for what God really is; that is, the God of love. But remember, love isn't always pleasant; sometimes "tough love" is required, and that's where many of us have a problem; we all dislike discipline because it hurts.

The only book Christians hold to that gives a picture of who and what "God" is, is the Bible, so that is what I use as my source guide. Scripture tells me God cursed woman to be ruled over by men and made to suffer in childbirth, it tells me that a woman is the property of a man and that she cannot be a priest or teach in church. The Bible also tells me that "God" commanded Moses to send out his men to slaughter all the women and children of the Midianites except the virgin girls, who the men can keep for themselves I am not the one making these things up, they are clearly stated in "God's book".

Consider my testimony brother Richard. I've gone through far worse than what most divorced women claim they've suffered through. If you look at the statistics of today, more women commit adultery than men, and yet are rewarded for their evil. They get the child, your money, and even alimony payment FOR ADULTERY! It's not because the courts care more for the woman; it's where the money is; the man.

I sorry for your bad experience, but many women (myself included) have equally suffered through a bad divorce where children were involved. In my case it was the man who was very abusive and angry, threatening my life and the welfare of our children on numerous occasions...fortunately for me I lived in the 20th century instead of some previous time period where men automatically got the children no matter what! Even so, I had to used my smarts and the legal system to protect my children from an abusive man.

Show me where in scripture that women are to be treated like property. I've already told you that the Bible does not teach this. If a woman believes that bearing children is treating her like property, then that's a woman who seems to have a disconnect with the function of her biological nature. But it's not as though this were the only purpose of a woman.

Here is one example of a woman who is raped by a man, and because she is not betrothed to another man, the rapist only has to pay the woman father 50 shekels and she is sentenced to a life of being married to her rapist!

Deut.22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold (taphas) on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

It does not. It says that men have charge over a women. This doesn't mean that he's the boss. It means that he's accountable for the actions of the entire household. From a Christian standpoint, the man is responsible for ensuring the the family is not only provided for with natural needs, but spiritual needs as well. Yet both worship Christ, who is head over all. I'm submissive to Christ. Should I be jealous that Christ is head over us? Of course not! So why should a woman (If married) be upset if she's being asked to submit to the considerations of the husband?

When a person has charge over another, of course it means they are the boss. A parent has charge over their children which means they are the boss. It easy for men to say male and female are equal in Christ, but it never plays out in real life, just talk.

This kind of prejudice is a result of abuse by men. But I seem to recall her reactions to the Casey Anthony trial. I noted that she appeared to be pleased that Casey Anthony was set free, despite the fact that it was proven she was responsible for the death of her daughter. I believe she murdered her by accident, but just because she is a woman, doesn't mean that she should receive special treatment. What if Casey were a man? We all know what would have happened to him; he would have gotten the death penalty the same day. My point is that men these days suffer more than women do; they have the courts on their side, and men are subjected to a very corrupt court system that often leads divorced men into suicide. How many women are suffering the loss of their child through divorce, or are forced to pay 18+ years of ridiculous child support and alimony? And we all know that child support is not used for the needs of the child, but for the escapades of the mother. Yet as a Christian, I'm to tolerate it because the "head" let it happen, so who am I to object to it? Get my point?

I think you misconstrued my position on the Casey Anthony case. My point was that Casey was tried by a jury of her piers and they did not have enough evidence to deliver a guilty verdict, so she was found not guilty.

Again my point is that men and women suffer in this age. Yet it appears that you and Rose seem to have a bias against men from a Biblical standpoint. It was Eve that was misled into biting the apple first, but God did not excuse the mans actions for following in her footsteps. Both were cursed:

Women would suffer great child labor during birth. Men would work by the sweat from his brow to support (as the head) his family.

As I stated, I don't see the problem.
Nobody is the boss, and the Bible does not teach that a man is boss over the woman.

Joe

From the biblical standpoint, Scripture is biased toward the male, and as you mentioned, women were cursed with male rulership and pain in childbirth, whereas men were cursed with toiling by the sweat of their brow...as if women don't toil and sweat to provide for their families. Looks biased to me.

All the Best,
Rose

[TheForgiven]

I think you are very misinformed if you think the Bible doesn't teach male rulership over women. Starting in Genesis 3 women are cursed by "God" by having the male rule over them and bearing the man's children in pain...and what is the man cursed with? Oh yeah, having to toil the land by the sweat of his brow, which conveniently is put onto the woman because she is "owned" by the male and used as a work-animal.

Not misinformed at all; that's just how you are interpreting the Bible, with a little anti-male bias I might add. You're not looking at the scriptures from a godly standpoint sister Rose. You're reading from an emotional bias against males. It's like your saying, "Gee! Men only have to work hard, but I can do that, if not better than him". That kind of attitude demonstrates an internal feeling that you are better than men (not you specifically but women you feel this way). I've seen this my entire life. But sometimes women need to stop acting in such fashion. Men are going to do things better than women just because of our natural design (natural being the key word). Men are physically stronger, and designed to work hard labor.

Can you carry 50 to 75 lbs of concrete mix up and down high-sky beams for 8 hours at a time? I know these are physical characteristics, but that's the intended point of man being designed to work the field. And remember, during the days of Adam and Eve, they didn't have machined tillers, or other machinery used for farming. Nearly everything within their way of life required lots of toil and hardship. Today, of course, we've made farming easy with tractors, shovels, spreaders, etc. But in those days (when the Bible was written), they didn't have that kind of stuff. So naturally a women would not be able to survive long hours throughout the day in the field, and THEN come home to raise their children. We see that misconception today. Children in our society are so spoiled and undisciplined, and I blame not only poor parenting, but moms as well.

Look at how many single parent families there are out there. And more than 90% percent of them are from women who left their husbands, either to be alone, or to be with another man. And the same old BS song we here is, "Well, he probably didn't treat her well enough". That's all BS. Women are committing adultery HIGHER than men are these days. That's because they have the court systems to acquit them from their lies and betrayal, and children are forced into remaining with mom, usually under poor conditions, with a father nearly on his death bed trying to provide for his previous marriage, along with any new family he attempts to build. Oh but that's when divorced women say, "well he should worry about his previous family before starting a new one". Gee! That must be nice to be a women who's able to screw the man out of nearly everything he has, even though she's the one who committed adultery, take him for everything that he has, and then constantly barrage him throughout the years asking for more child support.

I'm not trying to be harsh with you sister, but women today in our country are flat out spoiled. Many of them walk around as spend much of their time trying to convince themselves that they can do what a man does, and then more. Yea? Well how do you explain the record breaking discipline problems we're seeing in schools and on the streets?

Lastly, women lack the disciplinary skills when it comes to correction. Most women (not all of them) are too soft on children. Men are accused of being too mean. But sometimes being mean or tough is the only way to get a child to behave. I've had my bottom spanked by mom and dad on several occasions. And yet not once did I ever go out and commit horrible crimes, beat someone to death, steal, or any such thing. If you look at the African American homes in huge cities, most of them are loaded with single parent moms trying to raise 3 to 5 children, with no parental supervision, no guidance, no discipline, and more than half of them end up in prison. I live in the city of Sumter SC, and we've got the highest crime rate per-capital, in the United States. Research this and you will find that Sumter, SC has the highest crime rate, and not just from black children, but white red-necks as well. And in nearly all of these cases, these children come from single parent families. Yet who gets blamed for this? Men! We've heard the same old broken record for decades. It's all the mans fault. We're dead beats! We are irresponsible and worthless.

Well, when you have a court system designed to extort large amounts of money from a father trying to make ends-meet, until he gets backed up into a corner, how much do you suppose he could take? Name me one single women who goes through this, and you'll find that it's men who suffer the most.

What's my point in all of this? No, it's not to bash women, as you may be thinking. That's not me sister Rose; I don't bash women. I merely point out the facts. The point is that women, when angry and bitter, will resort to the highest possible torment of men without the slightest qualm or guilt. The facts speak for themselves. More than 88% percent of all divorce cases in American, within the past 20 years, give or take, are caused by women. And when they do leave, they stiff the ex-husband for nearly everything he has.

In the Air Force, I've lost two associates to suicide from ex-spouses stripping their former husbands lives away. One was forced to live in his old Volkswagen because he didn't have enough money to feed himself, or find a place to stay. His ex took everything they had, charged him $1,400 dollars a month on child support for two kids, while she went off with another man working as a manager at some major business in Columbia SC. They lived in a huge home, had more than one car and SUV, while this poor old guy saw his very life stripped away of nearly everything. He took his life because he felt he no one else to turn to, nor to live for. Yes he was wrong for doing that. But when you've got a vindictive wife on a financial rampage against the ex-husband, and a court system making life literally impossible to sustain, what else is a man to do except take his own life, or skip the country with a changed name.

I've read hundreds of accounts from men who were forced with Judicial extortion where they either fled the country, or killed themselves. Sadly, my step-father did just that in the 1970's. He was such a good man to my mother. My mother left for Thailand for more than a year; she was gone for a very long time. When she came back, she was pregnant. And my step-father knew that the child was not his. When my sister was born, the very next day, daddy left and we never saw him again. It wasn't until I was 11 years old did I finally find out what happened to him. He fakes a suicide note and moved to Texas, which we didn't find out until the 1991. His body was found in the early 90's with me and my brother picture in his wallet, and he had been bashed on the head by Mexican thieves who robbed him. My next door neighbor's phone number was still on the photo, and so the investigator's contacted us to inform that they found him. To this day, my brother and I are still upset with mom for cheating on dad like that. Now I know he was my step father, but I still loved him as a father, despite the amount of spankings I got. My real father was killed in combat training 5 months after I was born.

So my point to all of this is that women, although not physically brutal, can be the most vicious creatures on the face of this earth. Many are very vindictive and controlling, and when it comes to facing their wrath, watch out! With the court system on their side (for money of course), most men don't stand a chance. But thank God that's finally changing. Some states are beginning to turn the tides against these cheating abusive women who mistreat their husbands, verbally abuse their children, while they run off shopping everyday.

So if God felt that women need someone in charge of them (if that's how you like to view it), then He obviously had a good reason to do so. Yet I promise you Rose. If God had to choose between you or Richard, Do you think he would choose Richard merely because he's a man? I know you don't believe that; your beef with God appears to be His mandated family design.

As for women preaching, well let's just say that I've seen quite a few women preaching in today's churches. Nothing against them, but often times very boring and not much meat in their sermons. But women within the Catholic Church becomes nuns (some) and devote themselves to the one true husband; God Himself. And I find that to be very beautiful. Men of course do the same thing, but are called Monks.

So I suppose on a side note, if a women has a problem with man being the head of the household, then here's a solution. Don't get married! Be your own boss. What else can you do? You can't fight God, but you can reject Him. And if you believe the Bible was written in error by biased men, then go rewrite your own, and I promise you, it will contain biases towards women. Monkey see, monkey do.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

I think you misconstrued my position on the Casey Anthony case. My point was that Casey was tried by a jury of her piers and they did not have enough evidence to deliver a guilty verdict, so she was found not guilty.

If we take the naive, but legal position that she was merely acquitted, then I agree; she was declared not guilty by an untrained jury. Does this mean that she is "truly" innocent? No, it doesn't; that coming from even some of the Juror's. It merely means that the Jury mistakenly declared her not guilty because they made errors, despite how legal per mans rule it may be. But when you look at the entire case based on its facts, and its circumstantial evidence (Proven circumstantial evidence on video tape and phone conversations), she was definitely guilty. Her Journal Entry within her diary should have been used in court, but was denied for some reason. Funny how pages went missing from it as well. Within her diary, she states that she believed she made the right decision, but that she was worried about the outcome. In the end, she hoped that her decision justified the means.

While I don't believe she murdered her daughter in cold blood, I do believe that an accident happened, but not a drowning accident as this was not proven. That was merely an excuse used by the defense team to confuse the jury; that plus the ridiculous unproven accusations of molestation by her brother and her father; what are the chances of that happening; especially coming from someone who was a convicted liar, which was more than proven.

It is my opinion she accidentally killed her child by giving her too much IDH; a type of chloroform widely available at the nightclub called "Fusion" she enjoyed. She even admitted her knowledge of chloroform to Tracey McGlaughin, her body guard during the days of her initial arrest. While she was declared innocent from a confused and uneducated jury lacking traditional common sense, she will not go unpunished when she faces the Highest Court over mankind; the just of God All Mighty.

May little Caylee rest in the arms of the Lord God who died from an irresponsible mother who cared more about the "Good Life" than her own daughter.

As for enough proof? That too is false. More than 90% percent of all murder convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, and not CSI based evidence. Our society watches too much television. NCIS and CSI are fictional investigations that are not real.

Joe