I’m not really assuming, am I? I don’t think so anyway. In any case, what is wrong with Paul’s opinion? He certainly, as far as I can tell, did not put a ‘thus saith the Lord’ to it. I have no problem personally recognizing that Paul spoke to individual congregations and the sometimes he spoke a word from God for all the world.
“Do you really think that if God doesn’t exist torturing children is okay?”
No, without God as the Objective, Absolute, Unchanging Standard, there is no basis for saying that 'torturing children is okay" that that is wrong. (Sorry if that’s worded funny). IOW, without God there is no Objective Basis to say that anything is wrong. There is only a Subjective Basis for Morality and there are many problems with Subjective Morality. Subjective Morality cannot prove that “torturing children” is wrong. It would only be wrong based on ones opinion and that does not make/prove that it is wrong.
“There’s plenty of basis for saying torture is wrong, whether God exists or not”
Yeah there certainly is, but that would merely be your opinion. There needs to be an Objective basis for right and wrong.
" Your position – that the goodness of virtues (such as mercy, honesty, and kindness) are grounded in God’s nature – makes the premise that God is good meaningless. If God’s goodness is logically prior to the goodness of things we consider good (like mercy, etc), but God’s goodness isn’t explained by anything (that is, God isn’t good because he’s merciful, honest, kind, etc), then God’s goodness consists of literally nothing."
I literally do not know what you are saying.
“I’ll break down the Slick article at another time, hopefully tomorrow.”
Would you please tell me what article it is that you are referring to? I’m pretty sure I asked you this once already.
The answer to this thread, is definitely answered - in an English tabloid. 
This is inevitable when there are still so many Christians who read the Bible like a car manual or a science textbook, rather than the collection of historical writing, poetry (and, dare I say it, fiction) that it is.
So my challenge to those who are tempted to dismiss the Bible because it contains unpalatable statements about women is to read it in almost the same way you would any other text.
Part of this learning is being prepared to acknowledge that parts of the Bible are hugely misogynistic, not because the men who wrote the words were particularly bad guys, but because they were writing in contexts such as first-century Judea in which women were not simply discriminated against, but downright brutalized.
But, then again.
Now this is interesting, IMHO (AKA Got Questions):
The Bible contains many references to women that, to our modern mindset, sound discriminatory towards women. But we have to remember that when the Bible describes an action, it does not necessarily mean that the Bible endorses that action.
During Old Testament times, virtually every culture in the entire world was patriarchal in structure. That status of history is very clear—not only in Scripture but also in the rules that governed most societies. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint, that is called “sexist.”
The Bible is not sexist in its accurate portrayal of the results of sin in both men and women
The charge of sexism in the Bible is based upon a lack of knowledge of Scripture.
Now I’m TOTALLY confused. Should I side with Got Questions or the English Tabloid Telegraph?
Let’s explore Psychology Today a bit!
And I’m the same, crazy Christian…who to understand the Red Road ( 1, 2) and Light ( 1, 2, 3, 4), that Crazy Horse talked about…and bring it back to the Holy Fool tradition…where I became an extended family member for several years (until the leader’s death), with the Two Feathers Medicine Clan. And hung out, with Eastern Sages (1, 2).
”Upon suffering beyond suffering; the Red Nation shall rise again and it shall be a blessing for a sick world.
A world filled with broken promises, selfishness and separations. A world longing for light again.
I see a time of seven generations when all the colors of mankind will gather under the sacred Tree of Life and the whole Earth will become one circle again.
In that day there will be those among the Lakota who will carry knowledge and understanding of unity among all living things, and the young white ones will come to those of my people and ask for this wisdom.
I salute the light within your eyes where the whole universe dwells. For when you are at that center within you and I am in that place within me, we shall be as one.”
These are the words of the great Lakota Warrior and Chief Crazy Horse
And this is interesting:
and the young white ones will come to those of my people and ask for this wisdom.
Well, I did just that!
Well, in discussion forums - we have various opinions.
Is the telegraph.co.uk a tabloid?
It has been criticised in recent years for a certain ‘tabloidization’, i.e. more stories on celeb gossip, less on important news. For this reason, well known satire/investigative journalist magazine Private Eye has called it the ‘Hellograph’ (in reference to gossip magazine Hello.
The Telegraph (along with the Guardian/Observer) is regarded in the industry as the last remaining “proper” mass-market broadsheets.
However, I will change the word “tabloid” to “newspaper” - your honor! The jury is to disregard, the use of the word “tabloid”. And to reference the Telegraph as “newspaper”.
1 Like
God does not “cast [his] pearls before swine”. The New Testament and I think even the Old Testament is absolutely opposed to misogyny, slavery, rape, etc in spirit and it is easy to see this if a person sincerely desires to seek God, truth, and goodness. A sincere person desiring truth and correction can only believe that Jesus condoned looking down on women, hatred, slavery, spousal rape, etc if they are profoundly mentally disabled(in which case they are to be pitied and corrected rather than shunned) or if they have a good heart but have inherited moronic interpretations from others.
My tone here is not intended to be harsh or insulting, I just mean to emphasize how either blind or wicked a person must be to read the whole New Testament and conclude that it is not blatantly against the things I mentioned above.
I would also give those that do not claim to be christian more slack, but many are still insincere in interpretation and see an evil god because that is what they want to see, like a christian that finds fault with the most innocuous verses of the muslim scriptures(which I suspect are full of harmful lies but that does not justify uncharitable interpretation where it is not due).
1 Like
They also have significant commonalities like monotheism , both believe the OT and Jesus referenced the OT hundreds of times. Also Rabbinic Judaism goes beyond biblical Judaism so this terminology could be referring to biblical Judaism.
Many people would consider Paul to be misogynistic because of what he says about marriage and so on. Paul’s views, and I think God’s views, on marriage and gender roles are probably much more politically incorrect(and not traditional either) than even many christians are willing to acknowledge. I am not sure what it means for a wife to submit to her husband or the limits or meaning of “obey in all things”, but I suspect it would be terribly offensive to many and against our modern understanding of “the natural order” of things if we were to understand it as intended. But marriage in the New testament is consistently spoken of as being mutually radically altruistic and I would agree with egalitarians that claim that husbands and wives are to mutually submit to one another in some sense(although I would consider myself an egalitarian-complementarian). My impression is that Paul’s ideas about marriage can be summed up as “Put the needs and well-being of your spouse first. Altruistically serve one another.” God nor even Paul would cast their pearls to the “swine” that misinterpret the Bible to be tyrants or abusers, they would not attempt to correct them through the scriptures because the Bible authors were wise enough to know that such “swine” will always find some rationalization to do what they do.
I would not try to correct “swine”(again, I don’t use the word hatefully) through scripture. If a person is using the Bible to try to justify his evil tyranny or abuse of others, I would at most try to dissuade him from using scripture to do so out of respect for scripture(and for him to find some other excuse to do his evil desires). But I know from my experiences with addiction that if we want to do something and our heart is in the wrong place, we will conjure up a justification. My point being that if these people were not able to persuade themselves of their perverse insincere interpretations of scripture, they would find some other way to justify/rationalize their bad behavior.
Do you think I should be softer on slavers and rapists? I do not hate such people, at least not when in a good state of mind(I have at times in indignation).
I am an animal lover and I guess swine is not such an insult to me, neither is “dog” or “sheep”! lol I use the word “swine” to refer to the people that Jesus was speaking about when he said not to cast pearls before swine. I think people often use it as a mean-spirited expression but I think Jesus was a swine-lover.
Speaking of casting pearls before swine, it is against my better judgement to even engage you on a superficial level. This statement alone, that I have quoted above is evidence enough that one will not be able to have a fair discussion with you. Who would waste their time? To point out the problem with your quoted post is this: Your attack wasn’t against slavers and rapists. Your attack was against those who believe the that Bible (largely the OT) either condones or is silent on those issues.
I can’t imagine people here will engage with you much if you come in with “Anyone who really really knows, knows (wink!!!) that you can only believe the way I happen to believe” - Yes, I paraphrased you to hopefully demonstrate how you are coming across and if you insist on making false statements I can’t say I will reply further.
1 Like
I also want to clarify if I have not already, that I am using such language to refer to self-proclaimed christians that misuse the Bible to justify evil, NOT people who make no claim to believe in the Bible.
I would try to explain things to you or another unbeliever(if I felt up to it) because I can understand how a Godly(honest truth-seeking) and intelligent/literate agnostic could arrive at the conclusion that even the New Testament is sexist. I don’t say that out of condescension, I love and respect the agnostics in my life(including my brother, who inspired me intellectually, and my Dad) it is not that I think non-believers lack intelligence or reasoning ability, but that the Bible won’t make sense to someone that is not a follower of Jesus.
1 Like
Thank you for the clarification.
1 Like
Without looking online and going solely off of memory, I’ll see if I can recall scenarios in the old testament that are seemingly unfair, or have a negative view of women.
I recall Lot offering his daughter to residents who wanted to rape his guests. This is disturbing on a few levels, but primarily I find it disturbing that Lot would place the well being of a guest over his own flesh and blood. Secondly, the offering of his daughter seems incredibly cruel. Was Lot really in a position that he could do no else? Presumable the men with him, if we are to believe the scripture, were angelic beings, capable of defending themselves. So if the argument was that Lot was protecting the beings because they were angelic, I find it troubling to think angelic beings need our assistance. If Lot didn’t know they were angelic, I find it even more troubling that their status would mean more to Lot than his daughter. I personally don’t see a way out to explain the Lot situation.
Arranged Marriages - women were traded to men. They were a commodity.
When a specific tribe of Israel needed to repopulate and needed wives… They hid in a bush and then stole women from another people group to make them their wives.
Polygamy - only for men. Women didn’t have the luxury of multiple husbands. I don’t personally believe Polygomy to me wrong in and of itself, but it certainly would be if it only allowed Men multiple partners, and not women, which it did.
King David had many wives - those women were essentially sex slaves. How can a King, let along a normal man with zero responsibilities (which is clearly not the case with David) be a husband to several women? Is it fair to those women? Essentially they serve the king and are called when the King wants sex, or something else. I don’t think these women had a choice.
King Solomon had 1,000 female partners, or so the text claims.
When King David’s son slept with his wives in broad daylight in the open,“for all of Israel to see”, King David sent them away. Once again, a disturbing double standard.This propagates the “damaged goods” belief today. A women needs to be a virgin, or she is a whore, whereas a man gets the “score!!!”
I’ll think on this some more and see what else I can come up with, but I but some resources on line could really bring up several more…
1 Like
As I said, there is misogyny IN the bible; bit that does not mean the bible IS misogynistic.
Like Bill Clinton - it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ ‘is’. 
I think that is a fair assessment.
1 Like
Nothing much Qaz but it’s OK to agree to disagree
I am not convinced that the old Testament doesn’t have any double standards or so on, at least when the various laws/rules are applied in isolation to other relevant rules and only in letter(not considering the spirit of the law), which people ought not do and why I say that the Bible(Old and New Testaments) is against slavery and so on rather than just the NT. That being said, I will try to provide some alternative explanations(alternatives than it simply being sexist).
As far as Lot is concerned, there are a few possible answers. Keep in mind that Lot was not necessarily infallble and pure.
A. It might have crazy standard of hospitality. The problem with this answer is that he could have offered himself if he was trying to protect his guests, but maybe he was an overly-hospitible coward.(It arguably would have been better if he tried to protect everyone and not even give himself up)
B. Lot may have been really sexist. But these were his daughters so even if he was sexist, I doubt that he would value strangers over his own children. Being sexist is wrong, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that you hate those you are prejudiced about(especially if they are your children).
C. My suspicion is that Lot was wrong to do so. An eerily similar and more horrific story in Judges 19 was about the Benjaminites that raped a woman to death because she was a concubine to the cowardly Levite that pushed her out of the house that they had surrounded. I think the story is too similar to be coincidence. I suspect that it was history repeating itself and that those Benjaminites had the “spirit” of the Sodomites(not necessarily in a supernatural way). Note that the Sodomites were horrendously evil and I use them as an example of how shockingly corrupt a culture or community can get, they were not killed for being friendly gay guys(they were mass-gang-rapists and raped/tortured their victims to death if my theory on their connection to the Benjaminites is correct!). I think that Lot was very possibly misguided if not cowardly in this case and I think the Levite was certainly guilty of a horrendous betrayal. The Bible has a lot of antiheroes, readers should understand that the Bible does not condone everything the “heroes” do, they are not supposed to be emulated. Be aware of the “argument from silence” fallacy that both critics and defenders of the Bible fall prey to.
Wars or specific atrocities that are talked about in scripture are not necessarily condoned. One thing to be very careful about in interpretation is that there is a difference between a “character” claiming that God told them this or that or that God is on their/our side VS God actually commanding or saying something, just like we experience people claiming divine favor or revelation today. AT least a few stories are morally ambiguous and it is not clear what the human author or God is trying to tell us through the story. There are some parts of the OT that really disturb me and that I can’t explain. I think that the attributions or revelations of God’s will are either not all correct or I am not understanding what is going on or what is being said.
I think the sexual behaviors of David and Solomon(and at least a few other “heroes/antiheroes”) were simply wrong and certainly against NT teaching. Paul(the apostle) would not have condoned it and there is no way that David or Solomon could have fulfilled their marital duties to that many women. No, I am not only talking about sex(which is an important fraction but still a fraction of marital duties) but even that alone would become a chore that would be incredibly difficult, exhausting, disabling, and impractical, even with “only” 20 or 30 wives. lol
Polygamy is very arguably condemned by the Bible(I think Solomon was explicitly told not to have tons of wives), it is certainly against biblical principles when the wife/wives do not consent to their husband marrying another woman(that would be blatantly unloving). I am not aware of there being any explicit double standard of women not being able to marry multiple husbands in the same way, I think it was probably just so unheard of that it was not mentioned in scripture(as far as I can remember) and any women that did try to marry multiple husbands probably would have been punished for it(which is to say that I think there probably was a cultural double standard but not a Biblical one that I am aware of).