|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 5, 2004 21:33:59 GMT -5
Yes. This is true; I don't think Jesus himself was ever sexist. The Bible is so very different from Him, however.
The argument I'm making is that the Bible is sexist and so, from a Christian point of view, it cannot be flawless or perfect.
This blurs what Christianity really is - to most Christians, the Bible is the perfect word of God. If this is shown not to be possible, then Christianity today has no basis and "disappears".
To have a "pure" Christianity, one must remove the inaccuracy and sexist discourse of the Bible and, thus, be left with nothing but what one had in the first place as a compass to "test" this good from evil; one's own inner moral law.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 5, 2004 23:40:16 GMT -5
And without the Bible, how do we know anything about Jesus?
To have this "pure" christianity what do you plan on removing exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 6, 2004 2:43:28 GMT -5
And without the Bible, how do we know anything about Jesus? To have this "pure" christianity what do you plan on removing exactly? As I previously said, the innacuracy and sexist discourse of the Bible in general. Satori just made the point that the Bible is certainly not the only source of information about Jesus and, as has also previously been said, it is actually an extremely flawed one.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 6, 2004 2:44:41 GMT -5
And without the Bible, how do we know anything about Jesus? We need to use the Bible in conjunction with the other documentation we have about Jesus. Documents by the historians of the time, the gospels that didn't get put into the Bible at Nicaea, the gnostic gospels etc.
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 6, 2004 13:52:38 GMT -5
so how do you plan on deciding what of the information is true and what of it is false. Who are you to say that some of it is right and some of it is wrong. If you remove parts of the bible because you think it isnt true then what makes you think any of it is true? Your making up your own religion by doing this; your saying your going to remove the parts of the bible which you dont agree with. What makes you think you are right and God will agree with you?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 6, 2004 17:52:01 GMT -5
As I also previously said, the reason I don't believe the sexist parts of the Bible can truly reflect God's nature is that sexism is in conflict with my (and many others')inner human moral law.
If it can be shown that parts of the Bible advocate evil things (such as sexism, IMO), then those parts must be flawed.
I suppose you could call it picking and choosing, but this just brings us back to my previous point: once you have evaluated something as "good" or "evil" (the Bible, some behavior, etc), the only thing you really have left is your own inner moral law. Everyone has one, and when the Bible is in conflict with something as basic as sexual equality, I think one's own non-sexist morals are a far more reliable indicator of true good (if it exists, of course).
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 7, 2004 16:45:10 GMT -5
so how do you plan on deciding what of the information is true and what of it is false. Who are you to say that some of it is right and some of it is wrong. If you remove parts of the bible because you think it isnt true then what makes you think any of it is true? Your making up your own religion by doing this; your saying your going to remove the parts of the bible which you dont agree with. What makes you think you are right and God will agree with you? Well personally I don't believe in God, so whether or not he agrees with me is irrelevant. I see the Bible as one historical document amongst all the historical documents relating to the life of Jesus. I actually think it's quite a poor historical document, but it nevertheless has historical value. We each read what we choose to read and we make our own decisions about what is true and what is false, just as we do about politics, philosophy or anything else; any decision we make will only ever be based on our own interpretations of something. I have my own views on the 'Jesus story' which will probably be quite different to the views of a Christian and both of us will think we're right. That's the way of the world!
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 7, 2004 18:52:10 GMT -5
But if just one thing in the bible is false then how can you rely on any of it. Once one thing turns out to be untrue, then right away there are other things that are untrue, such as the bible being inerant.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 7, 2004 19:02:56 GMT -5
Um, it sounds like you're agreeing with us now - this was actually what I was arguing. If some of the Bible is inaccurate (which it is); ie., imperfect, then it cannot be the perfect word of God (that Christians must believe it is as part of their faith).
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Oct 7, 2004 23:58:57 GMT -5
yes i believe that but i also still believe that the bible is inerrant. my question is, if your removing part of the bible and calling the entire thing flawed, then why do you still want to use what is left over. Why not just write your own religion?
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 8, 2004 0:53:37 GMT -5
yes i believe that but i also still believe that the bible is inerrant. my question is, if your removing part of the bible and calling the entire thing flawed, then why do you still want to use what is left over. Why not just write your own religion? I never said anything about wanting to use what is left over - I'm just raising the problem that i) (IMO) The Bible contains a lot of sexism ii) Sexism is bad (again, IMO) iii) For the Bible to be perfect it must contain no flaws (simple logic) iv) Therefore (if sexism IS wrong), the Bible is flawed v) Therefore, the Bible is not perfect --Huge problem to Christianity. Secondly, personal spiritual beliefs are not trivial things. Most people with a genuine interest in and passion for their personal philosophy and spirtuality do a lot of soul-searching and thinking in an effort to arrive at meaningful, accurate conclusions. It is not simply "writing your own religion"; this trivialises a vital human process. If someone genuinely desires meaningful beliefs, they will investigate the ideas of others (eg. other religions, philosophies, etc) before forming an opinion. If someone simply "writes their own religion", this just reflects personal desires - a completely different focus. I think the Bible is flawed, so I don't trust it 100%. Just simple logic.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 8, 2004 2:51:02 GMT -5
so how do you plan on deciding what of the information is true and what of it is false... Your making up your own religion by doing this; your saying your going to remove the parts of the bible which you dont agree with. What makes you think you are right and God will agree with you? I think that when ones inner morals are in clear conflict with parts of the Bible (eg. sexism), then one has to judge which (the Bible or one's own inner moral law) is most personally useful, relevant and meaningful. It often turns out that the Bible's morals are less helpful to people than what they had originally (their own morals). Thus, if the Bible is not helpful to all people, parts of it cannot be true (one God for all people, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Oct 8, 2004 3:10:25 GMT -5
It's like all historical documents - they have to be taken in the context of the era in which they were written and the target audience they were written for.
Generally one would hope to support what's said in one document with cross-references from another document, then - providing they're not both derived from the same source document - one gets more support for the accuracy of what's being said.
It'll still always be the best interpretation from the information at hand, of course.
If you're a 'hard-line' Christian and believe in the Bible's infallibility, then there's little point in pursuing historical research as anything you find will, by virtue of your faith, be wrong if it disagrees with the Bible. It makes it all rather pointless to enter into historical discussion: one cannot argue with the Word of God if one believes the Bible to be that.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Oct 8, 2004 23:20:58 GMT -5
"Really? How incredibly odd, because he says this himself!!! Thisis simply denying that he has said what he has said. "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission", and "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man; she must be silent" are pretty clear to me. It is dangerous to simply pretend that these verses do not exist. I disagree with you. I think that Paul would (and does) support women not talking in church. "
Please stop strawman-ing me. I'm not pretending that these verses do not exist. If I did, I would not bother intrepreting them. All I am saying is a rule that everyone uses in literature - if you're dealing with the same author, then you should intrepret his comments in light of his other comments and vice versa. I.e., we know that Paul couldn't have supported in theory the idea that men are better than women because of Galatians. However, we know that he didn't believe in equality of roles because of 1 Timothy. Together one puts the pieces together and arrives at a complete picture of what Paul believed. To say otherwise is to say that he contradicted himself -- and this not a rational argument to use of Scripture, of a doctrine that has had more influence on mankind than any other.
Second, you apparently believe that relationship dynamics are power dynamics. Power is a zero-sum game; in other words, if power is at stake then power is either gain or lost.
So what do you propose? This is the fundamental reason for different "roles" in the Bible - it is so that no one has power over the other because each equally surrenders their power voluntarily.
But if it is a power game, then what should we do? Make women dominate over men? Because if all that relationships are are power dynamics, and love does not mean the willing surrender of oneself to another, then all we have are two sovereign people who are competing for authority.
This is sad and unbiblical. That is what I mean when I say that the Bible affirms the created common moral law. Any other system is unthinkable. Just look at the damage in our society done to the stability of the family. 50% divorce rate and the psychological problems that come with that.
We need Christ. Amen.
Come, Lord Jesus, come.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Oct 9, 2004 0:32:20 GMT -5
All I am saying is a rule that everyone uses in literature - if you're dealing with the same author, then you should intrepret his comments in light of his other comments and vice versa. The point has already been made repeatedly by myself and John that you are presupposing that Paul's non-sexist verses (even though there are less of them) should shape our interpretation of his sexist ones - in effect, rendering them invisible by saying that "oh, Paul can't be sexist because he wasn''t sexist here and here, so this verse, even though it appears so, can't really be sexist. I cannot see how "re-interpreting" these verses renders them no longer sexist. They are unambiguously so, IMO. I.e., we know that Paul couldn't have supported in theory the idea that men are better than women because of Galatians.. Funny, you've changed your original words on this, from saying Paul couldn't possibly disapprove of women talking in church (which he does!), to this. Paul does say that women should be subject to public silencing and male domination. I don't know if I'd say this means he's saying they are "better than women", but it's pretty bloody terrible if you ask me. The phrase "men are better than women" could mean a lot of different things. I suppose placing disproportionate responsibility on woman for the fall of mankind could possibly fit this simplistic phrase... However, we know that he didn't believe in equality of roles because of 1 Timothy. Together one puts the pieces together and arrives at a complete picture of what Paul believed. . Which is...? You've conveniently left this out. To say otherwise is to say that he contradicted himself -- and this not a rational argument to use of Scripture, of a doctrine that has had more influence on mankind than any other. . Er, just because Christianity has been historically popular, doesn't make the Bible infallible. I think it's perfectly rational to say he contradicted himself; he did. Second, you apparently believe that relationship dynamics are power dynamics. Power is a zero-sum game; in other words, if power is at stake then power is either gain or lost. Your point being? Every social relationship includes some kind of power dynamics; this is not necessarily a bad thing. My issue is that the power dynamics in Biblical relationships are exploitative of women and this is unfair and unnecessary. So what do you propose? This is the fundamental reason for different "roles" in the Bible - it is so that no one has power over the other because each equally surrenders their power voluntarily. Er, actually, in a previous post, I remember you replying to John that it is selfish for women to refuse to take a submissive role in marriage. On the contrary, women's submission is not voluntary in the Christian marriage; it is the compulsory way in which she is required to express love for her husband. The husband's submission to the wife is voluntary and, as I have already said, emphasised far less in the Bible than women's submission. Only the woman is instructed to "respect" her spouse and to submit to him "in everything". The submission of the spouses to one another is certainly not equally distributed. This is the whole problem. But if it is a power game, then what should we do? Make women dominate over men? Because if all that relationships are are power dynamics, and love does not mean the willing surrender of oneself to another, then all we have are two sovereign people who are competing for authority. Equal partnership is possible, you know. Relationships are not all power dynamics; that is just one important part of a relationship. Love can be expressed in many ways; sometimes in the willing surrender to another and sometimes not. Many husbands who bash their wives do so for reasons such as lack of anger control and feelings of insecurity. It is much more complicated than simply loving or not loving one's spouse. My point is that exclusive female submission to males creates a dangerous environment for women if things DO go wrong - it is much harder to escape, to protect oneself and to feel in control of one's own life. If submission was equal, there would be no problem. This is sad and unbiblical. That is what I mean when I say that the Bible affirms the created common moral law. Any other system is unthinkable. Just look at the damage in our society done to the stability of the family. 50% divorce rate and the psychological problems that come with that. I am more inclined to think of the "psychological problems" (as well as physical ones) that come with staying in a violent, exploitative, sexist marriage. Divorce is far better psychologically than staying in a shitty marriage. Clearly the Bible does NOT affirm the "created common moral law", because I and many others disagree with its sexist and exploitative discourse.
|
|