JCC Arena The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome™

I assumed that it's that way. I read that some stories in the Bible are just local myths like the story about the walls of Jericho. That was a myth that intended to motivate the common people to do something their ruler wanted (relocate or whatever). And I read that Mohammed spread his re-interpretation of myths with his sword.

The answer is: Both is right: With religion such as Christianity and Islam, the religions themselves are the problem because they claim stuff like
-women only have half the worth/trustworthiness as men
-Man shall rule the Earth and animals
-homosexuality is a sin and shall be punished

... and so on. The basis, the "holy books", are full of sexist, homophobic, intolerant, violent propaganda. It's pretty obvious. Why is violent inhuman stuff like that only obvious when people discuss Hitler or Kim Jong Il/Un, but not when people talk USA (you know what the white men did to the natives, the blacks and in some of their questionable wars, do you?) or religions? Violence and intolerance are still way too common in this crazy world run by people who hunger for power. We need more enforcement of human rights, more education in the eastern countries and less hypocrisy in the western countries.

 

It's interesting how the guy currently riling against the falsehood of "religions" first misappropriates something, then denies it, and then shuts out opposing voices.

 

I dunno about anyone else, but I found the Bible to be pretty fair when it came to gender stuff. The Old Testament is notorious for having some pretty outright crazy things, but there were a lot of admirable female heroes in the text. That's why I don't ever understand the whole "Men are the highest order" **** that a lot of Christians spew out. But then again I wouldn't doubt that a lot of so called Christians in our day and age don't even read the Bible.

 

The women characters in the Bible aren't all heroic, but a lot of them are just as complicated as the male characters. Like Rebekah in Genesis. You could say that she's portrayed very negatively as a deceptive manipulator, but so are all the males in her story (Isaac, Jacob, Laban, etc.) and at the end of the day, the thing that's striking is that she is portrayed as a fully rounded, fully developed character. Even when the Bible portrays women negatively, they're not just cardboard cutouts and that's worth something in ancient literature. And there are certainly some that are portrayed as very heroic (Esther, Ruth, Rahab, Deborah, etc.) I particularly like the story about Tamar which seems dedicated to picking apart the double standards of the day; she impersonates a prostitute, for fairly complex reasons involving her dead husband and her unethical father-in-law, and she is about to be burned to death when she points out that no one's planning to punish the man who slept with her and when the truth of her situation comes out, the Bible actually indicates that she was "more righteous" than the men involved in her story. Really fascinating story that basically addresses the double standard of sexuality as well as the ways the patriarchy screwed women over in the first place by also being about the extreme lengths Tamar had to go to in order to just get what she was rightfully entitled to. Of course, that's a "hidden" Bible story, as a lot of the really morally complex ones are; you probably won't find that one being preached in many churches this Sunday. Genesis 38, if my brief summary has interested you and, like a lot of people, you've never even heard of this incident.

Not to say that there aren't plenty of troubling passages in the Bible that indicate that women are of less value than men, but, well, the ancient culture just isn't going to be perfectly enlightened by a stretch and when people try to use those passages, I'm glad I can answer them with the passages that have a more enlightened attitude towards women. I mean, they want to cherry pick the most retrograde passages of the Bible? Well then, I can darn well cherry pick the most enlightened passages.

 

the bible is actually fairly progressive concerning women's rights and the role of women in society. at least the new testament is

 

My favorite Christ passage comes from John, where he intervenes to save a prostitute who's being stoned. No condemnation of the woman, and a verbal arse-whuppin' for the hypocrite assailants. Considering the (yes) neglect/downright antagonism afforded the fairer sex in the Hebrew Bible, Jesus comes across as nothing less than a hero out of Mad Max: Fury Road.

I always had a soft spot for Jesus. When he wasn't preaching first-century socialism to the Jews and Goys, or drawing the ire of religious conservatives and irredeemably brutal Romans, he was healing and blessing the womenfolk. Only Sir Christopher Lee would surpass him in the "coolness" department (largely for different reasons, like killing Nazis, playing vampires, wizards and Sith Lords, and jamming to Metal).

 

You do realize that the story of Jesus and the prostitute was a forgery, a later addition that wasn't present in the first copies of the gospels?

 

Utterly irrelevant, timmoishere. Whatever its origins, it's snug-as-a-bug in the King James Bible, precisely because it sounds like something Jesus would do.

 

You can argue that for its time it was I guess, but it also affirmed a bunch of crap, i.e. only men can be church leaders and teach and so on. And that's not even getting into the problematic views that women should "submit to their husbands" and all that. Ugh.

 

From grd4's remark I get the impression that some consume their religion like wrestling: You know that the story is made up but you just enjoy the entertainment. Mhm, maybe wrestling is more real than the Bible/Koran/Thora/Dianetics etc. because at least the wrestlers are real and do get hurt over time...

 

nah, there are female church leaders IN the bible, and the verses commonly used to support the doctrine of women not being allowed are misunderstood and being interpreted improperly.

same for Paul's admonition that wives should submit to their husbands. Yes, if you take that one line out of the context of the entire argument and the context of the culture and time in which it was written, you're left with something that is inherently misogynistic and wrong. but if you work to figure out what paul was actually saying, you're left with a fairly progressive argument for mutual respect and care in the marriage, that was unique for its time.

 

MetalLord: Depending on the day I was asked, I'd tell you I'm either an atheist or an agnostic with severe doubts. I lost my faith years ago, having seen far too much evil and meaningless suffering (yeah, it's a cliché...but clichés exist for a reason, right?). At this point, it's impossible for me to believe that Someone or Something is sitting in the driver's seat.

Having said that, I don't turn to the Bible for mere "entertainment"--the Greek myths satisfy that itch with much more aplomb--but rather for moral guidance (the prophetic books, the incomparable Gospels) and for literary appreciation (Ecclesiastes, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, etc.) Scripture has been elemental to my growth as a human being, heightening my empathy and humility (and yeah, I still have a long ways to go) and even accommodating my progressive politics (my leftism is rooted in the Christian faith of my youth).

Some of my fellow nonbelievers harbor an unfortunate, dogmatic appraisal of the Bible, emphasizing only its reprehensible and/or tawdry passages while shunning its numinous and incisive ones. Honestly, I wish more of them approached Scripture as they would any other cultural narrative--with tremendous prudence and open-mindedness. I wouldn't want to be alive if I couldn't be moved by the lamentations of the Psalmist or lost in the epoch-shattering Beatitudes.

 

Wasn't there still a passage in Thessalonians I think somewhere that only men could be deacons in the church though? I know there were helpful women like Phoebe and such involved in missionary work in Paul's time, but at the end of the day there still are troublesome rules like this.

 

I personally believe the only trouble that comes out of this is modern Christians not giving these verses their due cultural context.

There are many things in the Bible that are clearly supposed to be instructional only to the people of the day. It's the job of a person with intelligence to know what instructions are timeless and what stuff we need to leave at the beginning of the new era.

It's tiring to hear modern churches misinterpret biblical verses like the issue with women pastors or issues with homosexuality when modern churches don't have the same functionality/aren't run the same as churches in Apostolic times. It's asinine to ignore certain aspects of Church to protect time honored traditions of misogyny and homophobia.

 

I mean, first of all they weren't rules. the church wasn't an organization when these letters were written. secondly, yeah there ARE sexist verses. you're probably thinking of this one:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

again though, this was a letter written from one of the early zealots to another particular group, which was having trouble (unrelated to gender roles) with in-fighting and drama, caused by a particular group of women within that larger group (the church in Corinth). this is not a defense of Paul's sexist views, but rather an understanding of why he said what he said, which is not that he thought women were less capable than men or worse than men (indeed, there's much more evidence textually that he DIDNT believe these things). taken in context, those verses are not nearly as sexist as they seem to be, and were not meant to be as universally binding as they have become.

 

Fair enough. You make solid points PRENNTACULAR, I wish more adherents thought like you.

 

I'm by no means an adherent! I just have a bachelors degree in bible lol

 

Ah. Still, I wish more actual adherents thought like that.

 

I think it's Philip in the New Testament who has seven daughters and they're all "prophets." I don't know that this means official leadership, but still.

And it's worth noting that most of the Scriptures about women not teaching, speaking in church, submitting to their husbands, etc, come from Paul. And then Paul also said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul had some cultural biases, and who doesn't, even among the most enlightened of us, though not as many as some people try to indicate, but at the end of the day, he understood and wrote about the inherent equality of all people, including women, in the eyes of God.

It's also worth noting that Paul is the only writer (to my memory) to explicitly say that some of his words are not necessarily of divine inspiration, but his own best opinion. That right there should help us excuse Paul from some his admitted cultural prejudices. In one place, he says something that I personally find quite beautiful and that I wish more ministers/writers/whatevers would understand: "I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who, by the mercy of the Lord, is trustworthy." I'm not speaking for God, in other words, but I'll give my opinion as one who is, God helping me, worthy of your trust and respect. I find that so beautiful.