|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Oct 3, 2009 13:27:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 3, 2009 14:20:15 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing that. It is refreshing to see a Christian group willing to criticize aspects of the Bible. And perhaps not take themselves so seriously.
I have known a few Pagan groups who can laugh at themselves (one was even based on humor) though some take things way to seriously as well. But many religious groups do seem to have the All or nothing approach. But even then, they usually pick and choose. Most people are not advocating genocide or slavery and most people wear mixed fabric clothing. Many eat shellfish. I am allergic but I have nothing against people who do. But many of these same people do emphasize the verses that subjugate women.
Makes me think they have an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 3, 2009 17:02:42 GMT -5
Wow; I am impressed. A lot of people would think it takes a certain level of hubris to criticize the Bible like that, and in a way it does, but it also confronts issues that are serious problems.
|
|
|
Post by barbaraw on Oct 3, 2009 19:11:39 GMT -5
Most people are not advocating genocide or slavery and most people wear mixed fabric clothing. Many eat shellfish. I am allergic but I have nothing against people who do. But many of these same people do emphasize the verses that subjugate women. Makes me think they have an agenda. LOL! At least I hope that was meant in a humorous/ironic manner.
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Oct 3, 2009 22:32:31 GMT -5
This is great. I'm religious and all, but all this church stuff never seemed all that important to me, nor did regarding everything in the Bible as absolutely truthful and sacred. I mean, the Bible wasn't directly written by God; it was written by men. It's their interpretation of what God said or Jesus taught. And same to all the rules of churches. I don't get blindly following. You're not sinning against God to take a closer look at something and say "I don't really agree with this" because it came from some man somewhere long ago and there is every chance he could have been wrong or could have edited. But I've never met anybody else who thinks like that. Seems like everybody either completely rejects religion or blindly just does whatever it says to do. Well, there are some people are vaguely religious but not really into it.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Oct 4, 2009 6:47:26 GMT -5
What a great attitude the Ship of Fools has! Fundamentalists really miss an opportunity to square themselves honestly with their holy book, by insisting that the book itself is holy - every malicious, sexist word - rather than a book with mixed messages but some pearls of wisdom to glean. The sort of people who wrote this list - and who had the guts to say that some of the Bible is unacceptable - make me almost wish I could still accept some version of Christianity. I share what I think are the core Christian values (and which ought to be the core values of any religion: kindness, sincerity, generosity, etc.), but I can't bring myself to believe in any of the miraculous stories anymore.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Oct 4, 2009 9:44:28 GMT -5
Great post, Vyckie, and excellent point Xara!
aimai
|
|
|
Post by anatheist on Oct 4, 2009 15:21:28 GMT -5
If you don't believe in all or nothing Biblical truth, then how do you decide which parts to cut out? Do you just cut out the parts that are offensive to you? Do you only leave the parts that agree with what you already believe to be true?
Should you eliminate everything reportedly written by certain authors because of their ongoing sexism? Or just dismiss individual verses? I Timothy says in the same chapter "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" and I've heard many Christians who reject sexism treat verse 4 as absolute truth.
I have no problem with choosing to take out the "good" parts of the Bible for personal religious use, although IMO there isn't much good. I have particular sympathy for the viewpoint that the Bible is a collection of many accounts of man's interpretation of an experience with god and so are other religious texts, although I obviously don't believe so myself. However, I don't care for the mindset that says that the part of the Bible that I like is god-given truth and a person would be foolish not to believe in god based upon that truth, if the person saying that is willing to throw away parts they don't like. What if the sexism, the genocide, the jealousy and the judgments are what god is really all about- that's the part that men got right- and the love and peace is just stuff to make it go down easier?
Xara, note that the verses against mixed fabric clothing and shellfish are found in the Old Testament, which law is considered to be superseded by Jesus' sacrifice (although the law is supposed to be PERFECT and fulfilled, not destroyed by Jesus). However, many of the verses about women are found in the New Testament, which is considered to be written AFTER believers in Jesus had the Holy Spirit come upon them and reflects aspects of the new covenant.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Oct 4, 2009 18:35:21 GMT -5
This is something I wrote a month or so ago about the issue of picking and choosing things from the Bible:
Regarding the Bible as a holy book doesn't entail believing that everything in it (which was written for very different circumstances) is universally applicable now. Liberal Christians treat the Bible as a holy work of literature that describes God's interaction with particular people at particular times in ways that remain instructive for us now. "Instructive" does not mean that all its teaching should be applied now the same way it was 2000 years ago--it means that we can learn from it.
The Scripture passage that is most often used to justify Biblical literalism, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, actually reads: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work." (NRSV translation.) When we refer to something as having been "inspired by" a person, we do not normally mean that the person would invariably count every word of it as always precisely correct in every situation. We mean that the person was a source of inspiration for it. Similarly, a "useful" document is not necessarily a perfect one.
Those of us who are Christians should exercise great caution in throwing out words that are part of our holy book. However, I think that in situations where lesser commands in the Bible are not compatible with greater commands (e.g. the incompatibility of anti-gay or anti-female teachings with "love your neighbour as yourself"), it is reasonable for us to stick with the greater commands. And when science and lived experience show that statements in the Bible are not literally or universally accurate, it is reasonable for us to combine our knowledge with the great Biblical commands to love God and others to figure out what we should believe.
|
|
jlp
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by jlp on Oct 4, 2009 22:12:22 GMT -5
I applaud Ship of Fool's willingness to talk about some verses that have been used to silence and disempower women.
|
|
|
Post by philosimphy on Oct 5, 2009 2:55:13 GMT -5
re this bit: " It may be a surprise that biblical sexism caps biblical genocide, but maybe it’s because it’s more of a live issue. "
I think sexism tops the list (over biblical genocide), because people are realizing that IF women were 'allowed' "to have authority over a man" and teach men in general, and if women - or "the feminine" was to take precedence over man or "the masculine" in society, then there would then be LESS genocide from the get go.
How do you fight genocide? Women.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 5, 2009 8:58:16 GMT -5
Most people are not advocating genocide or slavery and most people wear mixed fabric clothing. Many eat shellfish. I am allergic but I have nothing against people who do. But many of these same people do emphasize the verses that subjugate women. Makes me think they have an agenda. LOL! At least I hope that was meant in a humorous/ironic manner. Actually, I am serious. Most people do inconsistently follow the rules in the Bible. My main point has to do with hypocrisy. It really bothers me. I am not Christian. I do recognize that there is some wisdom to be gained from the Bible, but I think there is a lot of garbage in there too. I see it as a collection of stories about a particular culture, in a particular time, that has been heavily edited over time to accommodate various agendas. The King James Version for instance was deliberately limited to an 800 word vocabulary because most of the people of the time it was published had about that size vocabulary. Yet this is the version that many fundamentalists consider the ultimate authoritative version. Not all do, but there are a lot who do. In order to limit it to 800 words, many of the meanings had to be changed. Also, the one thing that fundamentalist groups of almost all of the world's religions have in common is the subjugation of women. So, yes, I do think there is an agenda at play here. Not necessarily conscious on the part of all of the participants, but I think it is there.
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 5, 2009 9:11:08 GMT -5
If you don't believe in all or nothing Biblical truth, then how do you decide which parts to cut out? Do you just cut out the parts that are offensive to you? Do you only leave the parts that agree with what you already believe to be true? Should you eliminate everything reportedly written by certain authors because of their ongoing sexism? Or just dismiss individual verses? I Timothy says in the same chapter "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" and I've heard many Christians who reject sexism treat verse 4 as absolute truth. I have no problem with choosing to take out the "good" parts of the Bible for personal religious use, although IMO there isn't much good. I have particular sympathy for the viewpoint that the Bible is a collection of many accounts of man's interpretation of an experience with god and so are other religious texts, although I obviously don't believe so myself. However, I don't care for the mindset that says that the part of the Bible that I like is god-given truth and a person would be foolish not to believe in god based upon that truth, if the person saying that is willing to throw away parts they don't like. What if the sexism, the genocide, the jealousy and the judgments are what god is really all about- that's the part that men got right- and the love and peace is just stuff to make it go down easier? Xara, note that the verses against mixed fabric clothing and shellfish are found in the Old Testament, which law is considered to be superseded by Jesus' sacrifice (although the law is supposed to be PERFECT and fulfilled, not destroyed by Jesus). However, many of the verses about women are found in the New Testament, which is considered to be written AFTER believers in Jesus had the Holy Spirit come upon them and reflects aspects of the new covenant. I am well aware that those verses are in the OT. But there are also various groups trying to force us back to those times. Some of the Dominionists for example. There are sexist verses throughout the Bible. Also, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah which is used by fundamentalists against homosexuality is in the OT. That same story allows for letting your daughters be gang raped. I find that unacceptable. But there is a lot that I find objectionable in the NT as well. Communion for example is ritualized cannibalism. Yuk.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Oct 5, 2009 21:02:29 GMT -5
They do have an agenda. In fact, Conservapaedia has even noticed some... *gasp* liberal bias in the bible. They are cutting out the "father forgive them" verse as well as the verses in which Jesus saves the woman caught in adultery. They are also working to make a version which is "not emasculated" i.e, no gender inclusion. They are also getting all their pants in a wad over the fact the KJV uses the communist word "comrade" three times more often than the "conservative 'volunteer.'" They also claim "peace" should be updated as it's meaning has changed... conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_ProjectYup, satire died today.
|
|
|
Post by justme on Oct 5, 2009 21:39:35 GMT -5
The King James Version for instance was deliberately limited to an 800 word vocabulary because most of the people of the time it was published had about that size vocabulary. Yet this is the version that many fundamentalists consider the ultimate authoritative version. Not all do, but there are a lot who do. In order to limit it to 800 words, many of the meanings had to be changed. Xara, I was wondering where you got this number. I know from personal experience that 800 words is not enough to communicate in any language. agards-bible-timeline.com/q10_bible-facts.html claims there are "12,143 different English words in the King James Version" (that's just a page I found by Google search). One page that offered a dictionary of "837 words from the King James Bible" was only counting the difficult or archaic words that people might need definitions for, but it did not make this clear; maybe this is how the 800 figure got started?
|
|
|
Post by xara on Oct 6, 2009 9:17:18 GMT -5
The King James Version for instance was deliberately limited to an 800 word vocabulary because most of the people of the time it was published had about that size vocabulary. Yet this is the version that many fundamentalists consider the ultimate authoritative version. Not all do, but there are a lot who do. In order to limit it to 800 words, many of the meanings had to be changed. Xara, I was wondering where you got this number. I know from personal experience that 800 words is not enough to communicate in any language. agards-bible-timeline.com/q10_bible-facts.html claims there are "12,143 different English words in the King James Version" (that's just a page I found by Google search). One page that offered a dictionary of "837 words from the King James Bible" was only counting the difficult or archaic words that people might need definitions for, but it did not make this clear; maybe this is how the 800 figure got started? I don't remember where exactly I was taught that number. And I know it wasn't exactly 800 words but was about that. I WAS taught that in school though. I think I learned that in Lutheran High School as one of the reasons that the KJV was not used, and again in college as a reason for why the Bible has value as a piece of literature, but shouldn't be taken literally. This was at a Christian college too.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Oct 6, 2009 17:55:13 GMT -5
With regards to the vocabulary of the KJV, I see no reason to doubt this website: labs.timesonline.co.uk/bookscraper/publications/compare?a=38&b=142which says that its vocabulary is over 12,000 words. The 800-word thing sounds like one of those urban myths that can get passed around, even by well-meaning educational institutions. I thought Ship of Fools makes an interesting point, and the point of view of their website was interesting-- very, very British! ;D I agree with Kisekeliea about having a more nuanced view of the Bible that, rather than just saying "certain parts of the Bible are unacceptable," says, "certain parts of the Bible are unacceptable today, but should be understood within their own cultural constructs." It is almost certain that some things we ourselves believe quite acceptable today, will one day be looked at with shock and horror by later generations-- and yet we consider our own attitudes enlightened compared to those of earlier ages. The Bible, I believe, if it is viewed as inspired (which I do) should be looked at as reflecting God's interaction with people as God found them, not as we think God ought to have made them, right then and there, in order to be acceptable to us.
|
|
wink
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by wink on Oct 8, 2009 0:49:22 GMT -5
Um...wasn't the woman Jesus saved (the whole cast the first stone thing?) from being stoned to death Mary Magdaline? How can they think to take that out of the Bible?
From what I recall, wasn't she one of the first people to see Christ after he had risen from the dead at the tomb.
Wonky, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Oct 8, 2009 12:49:16 GMT -5
Um...wasn't the woman Jesus saved (the whole cast the first stone thing?) from being stoned to death Mary Magdaline? How can they think to take that out of the Bible? From what I recall, wasn't she one of the first people to see Christ after he had risen from the dead at the tomb. Wonky, if you ask me. No, the woman Jesus saved from being stoned was not Mary Magdalene, nor was the woman in Luke 7 who poured ointment on Jesus. Because Mary Magdalene is first introduced in Luke 8, she is often confused with the woman in Luke 7. Mary Magdalene had been cured of demons by Jesus, which is another reason people may confuse the two.
|
|
syfr
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by syfr on Oct 13, 2009 13:39:44 GMT -5
From what I've gathered, Mary Magadelene was a big deal in the early Church - the Apostle to the Apostles. She was a rich widow who had the money to do what she wanted, and no guy telling her what to do.
Conflating her with a prostitute was a nice way to bring her down a peg.
|
|
juju
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by juju on Oct 14, 2009 13:55:35 GMT -5
From a cursory read of Ship of Fools, it looks like it's got an Anglican bent. The Anglican Church is pretty much just one royal divorce (Henry VII's from Catharine of Aragon) removed from being Catholic and they share a very important bit of Catholic belief: that the Bible alone is not sufficient to glean the intent of Christian instruction.
One of the reasons that Calvinist religions think Catholics are going to hell is that the Catholic Church has a long history of consulting other documents along with the Bible to get a context for Biblical teaching. They view the Bible as a starting point, rather than the only resource.
Calvinist religions believe in a precept that I think is called Sola Scriptura, meaning "Scripture Alone" -- that scripture is the only acceptable source for the words/ideas/whatever of God. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that contemporary writings and analyses must also be consulted to put scripture in context.
As the priest at my church put it, "Scripture should always be taken seriously, but it should not always be taken literally."
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Nov 25, 2009 5:40:36 GMT -5
A good place to explore this more deeply is Phyllis Trible's book, Texts of Terror: Literary Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Here's the Amazon link, and below it is the short review from the Amazon site: www.amazon.com/Texts-Terror-Overtures-Biblical-Theology/dp/0800615379/ref=sr_oe_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259145222&sr=1-1------- Product Description Professor Trible focuses on four variations upon the theme of terror in the Bible. By combining the discipline of literary criticism with the hermeneutics of feminism, she reinterprets the tragic stories of four women in ancient Israel: Hagar, Tamar, an unnamed concubine, and the daughter of Jephthah. In highlighting the silence, absence, and oppostition of God, as well as human cruelty, Trible shows how these neglected stories-interpreted in memoriam-challenge both the misogyny of Scripture and its use in church, synagogue, and academy.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Nov 25, 2009 12:11:53 GMT -5
JWR - You're a big one for those Amazon reviews, aren't you Personally, I can't wait to read your review of Vyckie's book when it becomes available on Amazon. I'm sure you'll have something wonderful to say about it.
|
|
|
Post by singingbird on Dec 10, 2009 3:58:57 GMT -5
Ok so I'm late to the party on this discussion, but I've been going through the archives and had some thoughts on Paul.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but Paul was a Roman man who found Christ sometime in the first century. So most of what I remember of him is that he's prosy and nigh unreadable. I had to read some of the letters for a class and let's just say that he did not enamor the New Testament to me much. The Romans had very different ideas of how women should behave and such than the Jews did or do. If I remember the History of Marriage, the Romans believed women to be an inferior man that is dirty and messy. They also believed that the men contributed everything to the child and all the woman did was nourish and grow the child to term, like unto plowing a field and planting a seed in fertile earth. A wife and her husband moved in different circles and different worlds and I cannot remember at this hour how much her movements were restricted outside the house. (I remember that a well bread Greek maiden would have left her home twice in her lifetime- to get married and after death. Which makes me wonder how all their marketing got done)
In Jewish culture women were allowed to speak their minds and husbands and wives had more equal footing. Women and men had distinct roles, but they worked together. There were three classes in Israelite society Cohains, Levis, and Israelites. Cohains were high priests and had (still do) a set of ritual things that only they can do and cannot do most of which pertain to the temple and maintaining spiritual cleanliness. Levis also have a set of priestly things they do that I cannot remember at all and Israelites are just normal folks. (The only time this ever comes up are during the High Holy Days and the Torah Service every saturday) In all three classes the women's job was to keep the house running so the men could be the high priest, cobbler, or teacher. This was seen as being as important as studying the books and women have their own prayers holiness and rituals as well. Under Jewish law they were well protected through our marriage contract (ketubah) that ensured that they would be able to get a divorce and what kind of compensation she would receive, etc. I'm not saying everything was sunshine and lollipops and that we are an exemplary people, but for ~2000 years ago that was about as close as you get to lollipops. What does this create? Uppity women.
Paul joins the Christians that are a splinter group from the Jews, what does he encounter? Uppity women who think that what they think matters and should be heard. What can a Roman man not stand? Yep you guessed it. That's why I think “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12) got written.
I'm sorry for what is probably a very long and squirrelly post explaining one sentence. Then again have you seen the Talmud? My cousin went to Harvard Law with this orthodox couple and the same time that they were studying up the American legal system, this couple was studying the Talmud. They gave all their time to Talmudic study and barely any time (by law school standards) to the law school and maintained perfect gpas and then high scores for their bar. They said that the law was a piece of cake compared to the Talmud!
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Dec 10, 2009 12:35:17 GMT -5
Actually, Paul was Jewish, and raised and educated as a Jew, though he was also a Roman citizen. Paul refers to various women throughout his letters by such words as "my fellow-laborers," or "my co-workers in Christ." A woman named Phoebe was a deacon in the church and was a financial patron of Paul's, and he refers to her with great respect. And then there is "Andronicus and Junia, who are of note among the apostles." "Junia" was certainly a woman, and the evidence points to her actually being an apostle. She and Andronicus were relatives of Paul's.
It is very unlikely, given all of this, that Paul was against women having a voice in the church.
Careful study of the cultural situation in Ephesus, and careful reading of the context of the first chapter of 1 Timothy, indicates that it is most likely that Paul was advising Timothy on how to deal with a group that had arisen in the church at Ephesus who were incorporating ideas from the local Artemis-worship into the doctrines of the church. In any event, I think the beginning of his sentence, "Let a woman learn," is very, very important to understanding his meaning here. It is true that Greek women were kept uneducated and at home, though Roman women (especially the wealthy) were more educated and vocal. Paul was advocating that women should be allowed to come to church and learn, which was a radical idea for its time. "I do not permit a woman to teach" was very likely only a temporary policy until these women had learned the orthodox doctrines.
|
|