Exactly. People need to take in the full context. Here is the full chapter, with the quote in the final paragraph, which… Makes the quote even worse?
Instructions on Worship
2 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time. 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
There is actually a lot of historical context missing and — like most things Biblical — this has been terribly mistranslated and deeply abused and twisted by patriarchal leaders to suit their own political ambitions.
Ephesus was home to the cult of Artemis/Diana, and the Temple of Artemis which was one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. The cult was matriarchal, Artemis being the goddess of girls and fertility, natural forces and archery, among other things. Her priestesses spoke with the authority and voice of their goddess, who was strong, fierce, and independent and the culture developed around this for hundreds of years.
The entire letter is to a specific group of people regarding specific cultural conflicts. What the letter is saying is that women who are converting must not be allowed use their sex as an excuse to suppress or dominate male teachers. Instead, they need to learn this new religion respectfully from the existing teachers, who are men, rather than taking over by force as the culture would have historically promoted as their Ephesian/Artemisian birthright. Flaunting wealth and social status is also frowned upon. And while the sexist “women made the mistake” line is there and is intentional, the call back to being “saved by childbearing” is meant to extend a familiar bridge for Artemis cultists. If it’s not immediately obvious why, then do you remember what Artemis was goddess of?
Thanks Gollum
Or fundamentalists. Contrary to popular belief, the problem with the worst christians is not that they don’t read the Bible enough, they read it too much. The Bible is full of self-contradictions, so for any interpretive framework to be at least self-coherent, the interpreter has to “add to the Word of God”.
In the case of fundamentalism, they’re organized much like cults. Highly isolated social structures, all aimed at insulating their children from outside perspectives, so they can groom them more effectively for the next generation of authoritarianism. The Bible is central to this process because it’s the nucleus of their authority over each other, and they regard it as actual law that even takes precedence over societal laws.
This is also why companies like Chick-fil-A and Hobby Lobby exist. They allow these youths to have jobs and be participants in the economy while playing a role in reinforcing these isolated social structures.
If anything, you can read Matthew chapter 23, replacing “Pharisee” with “fundamentalist”, and it turns out to be a perfect description.
Just for fun I decided to make my own modifications of Matthew 23. The changes are actually pretty extensive because I took liberties on a variety of parts that annoyed me, as well as trying to make it at least somewhat more relevant for our time.
Then Yeshua spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, Saying, “The Bible translation committees and the Fundamentalists have seated themselves upon the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they might tell you, whatever they are, do and observe, but do not act in accord with their deeds; for they speak and do not do. And they tie up heavy loads and place them on people’s shoulders, but they are not willing to apply a finger of their own to move them. And they perform all their deeds so as to be seen by men; for they widen the ash crosses on their foreheads and wear the most luxurious suits in the churches, And they cherish the chief couch at meals and the front seats in the churches, And the deferential greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called Pastor by all. But do not let yourselves be called Pastor; for there is one who is your teacher, and you are all siblings.
And do not call someone on earth ‘Father,’ for there is one who is your heavenly Father. Neither let yourself be called instructors, because your one instructor is the Anointed. And the greater among you shall live in service to others. And whoever will exalt themself will be humbled, and whoever will humble themself will be exalted. But alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you shut the Kingdom of the heavens in people’s faces; for you do not enter, nor do you allow those going in to enter. [Alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you devour the homes of those in poverty and declaim at great length when praying, for which you shall receive condemnation in greater abundance.]
Alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you travel all about the sea and the dry land to make one missionary, and when it is done you make him twice as much a son of Hell as you yourselves. Alas for you blind guides who say, ‘Whoever swears by the community, it means nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of Capitalism, he is under obligation.’ Fools and blind men! For what is greater, the gold of Capitalism or the community that makes the gold holy? And: ‘Whoever swears by the altar, it means nothing; but whoever swears by the offering upon it, he is under obligation.’ Blind men! For what is greater, the offering or the altar that makes the offering holy? Hence the one who swears by the altar swears by it and by all the things upon it; And the one who swears by their community swears by the sanctuary and by they who dwell in it. And the one who swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by them who sit upon it.
Alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you tithe a tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law, the love and the mercy and the faith; yet these things you ought to have done, while also not neglecting those others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but drink down the camel.
Alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are filled up with plunder and dissoluteness. Blind Fundamentalist, first clean the inside of the cup, so that its outside may also be clean. Alas for you, translators and fundamentalists, charlatans, because you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly indeed appear lovely, but within are filled with the bones of the dead and with all uncleanliness. Thus you also outwardly indeed appear upright, but within you are full of dissimulation and lawlessness.
Alas for you, translators and Fundamentalists, charlatans, because you build the tombs of the liberators and adorn the monuments of the upright, And say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we should not have had a part with them in the blood of the liberators.’ Thus you bear witness regarding yourselves that you are the sons of the liberators’ murderers. And you—you fully measure up to your fathers.
Serpents, brood of vipers, how may you escape the verdict of Hell? So look: I send liberators and wise people and scribes to you; some of them you will kill and shoot, and some of them you will beat in public, detain and deport and drive from city to city; Thus accrues to you all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the upright up to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Amen, I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. Bible Belt, Bible Belt, you who kill the liberators and stone those who have been sent to you, how often I have wished to gather your children, the way a bird gathers chicks under her wings, and you did not wish it. See: For you, your house is abandoned [to desolation]. For I tell you, henceforth you most assuredly will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed are they who come in the spirit of the Lord.’”
Look theres good enough reasons to hate Chick-Fil-A but you are not telling me your brain lives in a world where the teenagers who work there are all (or even a lot of them) isolated religious fundamentalist nuts who just got let off the cult compound to interact with society???
They hire normal people with interviews??? Teenagers go to fucking public school???
The leadership isnt even close to “westboro baptist church” levels of extreme???
Dude, I dated a fundamentalist once. This enraged her parents, who immediately forced her to quit her current job where we met, then they shipped her off to a church camp - by which point all forms of contact were supposed to already be cut off from me - then she was herded into joining a Bible college halfway across the country, where she also ended up literally working at a Chick-Fil-A to pay for that schooling before meeting and then soon marrying a guy who was a part of their system.
Yes, technically these businesses are open to the public. But that doesn’t stop them from being led by christian nationalists, having biases in favor of others like themselves, creating environments more amenable to their own kind, and playing side-rolls in supporting the relative isolation of these networks.
The thing you’re underestimating is how widespread and pervasive these groups are. Why do you think law enforcement organizations so readily support Trump and his policies? It’s because these groups outright worship power and authority, and part of their grooming is to train every generation to actively seek out every position of power they can - including military and police.
I can believe you knew someone like that once. But no. Religious fundamentalists are not widespread and pervasive. They dont make up the majority of a fucking fast food chain to the point where you would say it’s only “technically” open to the public. They dont make up much if any of the police force. What on earth led you to think that is the case. Did you live in a town with a population of 124 that was like that?
In my experience most Christians have never read their own handbook. Those that do are very good at cherry picking.
starting to understand why they never made me read the bible
I tried reading the Torah (what Christians call the “old testament”) and ducked out very early on.
I think it takes a special kind of idiot to read that and believe it’s fact.
The Torah is just the first 5 books of the old testament.
I read the entire Bible when I was a kid.
Atheism was the only possible path for me after that.
Surely, that was only the last nail on the coffin?
I think of the whole universe, the whole “creation”, as some kind of cosmic crime scene, and billions of Christians over the centuries have very thoroughly and desperately scanned it for evidence as to who did it.
That scene is the largest possible scene - there literally exists nothing else - and the number of investigators looking for clues is vast. Yet despite these odds, nobody has ever found any kind of undeniable evidence that God did it all.
I don’t need to read a book to understand that you can’t believe in a claim that contradicts that reality.
Vast? Not disagreeing by any means but you’re kidding yourself if you think humanity has “thoroughly and desperately scanned” even a fraction of a fraction of only THE MILKY WAY. We haven’t even set foot on another planet in OUR OWN SOLAR SYSTEM. Even if we were to assume all the species on earth were looking
We are SO helplessly ignorant when it comes to the rest of the universe. We’re still grasping at straws and don’t know how half the stuff works or even where any of it is really located.
Will we ever find God? I don’t know, but we’re sure as shit nowhere near understanding anything enough to say a god DIDN’T do it.
But it’s like dropping a plate from the top of the empire state building. You’re a block away and a little chip hits you. You don’t know where it came from or why. You don’t know the larger whole it used to make up. You and your family could spend generations examining that one little chip and learn EVERYTHING about it while still knowing nothing about it’s origin or original shape.
Either way, we’ve got a lot to learn, which excites me
we’re sure as shit nowhere near understanding anything enough to say a god DIDN’T do it.
But we also have zero solid evidence that a God did do it. Making and believing such an enormous claim without evidence is absolutely bananas
I agree, just like it’d be insane to claim we know anything else about our creation without evidence
Do you think the astronomers/cosmologists/astrophysicists piecing together the origins of the universe are doing so without evidence?
Will we ever find God? I don’t know, but we’re sure as shit nowhere near understanding anything enough to say a god DIDN’T do it.
By that logic, we can also not be sure that it wasn’t Ralph the Wonderllama who lives on Proxima Centauri and sings songs by Simply Red all day.
Also, you completely missed my point - which was that billions of people have been trying to come up with evidence for many centuries, and of course, they can only look at a tiny fraction of the universe, but that doesn’t matter. If you haven’t found even a trace of shit, you can’t possibly make a claim saying otherwise.
Well, you can, but in that case it’s such huge and extraordinary claim that frankly, noone in their right mind should even consider giving it a second thought.
Most humans are still confident we are alone in the universe, because it “would be too long to travel”. How arrogant is that? I think extreamly arrogant.
Completely agree. We’re so confident sometimes about things we know literally nothing about
Totally not trying to sow discourse but I don’t think the person you are replying meant that any meaningful search has occurred beyond our planet. I believe they may have just been saying that over the course of human history so many people have been trying to prove it and none of them have made any real progress.
Now we have museums showing people living with dinosaurs because enough people wouldn’t believe the bones were buried by the devil to test our faith… I’m all up for any evidence someone has, history is terrifying beautiful, and the bible has some interesting stories, but it doesn’t seem very grounded in this reality (personal opinion I suppose).
Oh no I love a good discussion about this stuff! Also wasn’t trying to sow discourse so hopefully that’s not how it came across. I definitely agree, but the person I was replying too specifically referred to creation as one big crime scene across the universe and how we’ve investigated it, when we most certainly haven’t. But yes, limiting our viewpoint to here on earth, I could definitely see people going either direction with it
Well, again, it doesn’t matter that we’re only able to observe a tiny fraction of the universe. The simple fact that billions of people haven’t been able to come up with proper evidence in over two millenia alone is a very good reason to remain extremely sceptic of any claims to the opposite.
I frankly do not understand your argument “we cannot disprove it, therefore it is possible”. Well yeah, you can never disprove the existence of anything.
What I was saying is that so far, noone has been able to prove it. Many people have tried over a long period of time. Therefore it is highly unlikely to be true, and we should refuse to believe in it until there is evidence - at which point I would be happy to change my position.
“Highly unlikely to be true” based on our teeny tiny frame of reference is wild. Remember when it was crazy to believe dinosaurs had feathers? There was no evidence of it… Until there was. And that’s just staying local to the planet.
Also, the size of the universe and how much we’re able to observe DOES matter. Using my plate metaphor again, imagine a graphic on the plate. The chip you got is white. There would never be any evidence of other colors, or of the picture as a whole, until you start looking for and seeing other pieces.
I do completely agree that as long as humanity has found no evidence there’s no reason to humor the idea. But millennia of experience in our corner of space is a fart in the wind in the grand scheme of things, and lack of evidence in an isolated system should not be taken as proof to the contrary. That’s all I was saying.
A human saying they haven’t seen something in the universe and using that to say said thing is unlikely is the same thing as a goldfish in a bowl saying an octopus is unlikely
What’s With The Camel Case?
Might be someone whose primary language is German.
Even in German it wouldn’t be that much?
Today I learned a expression, And it does explain why sometimes they’ll be a capital letter in the middle of German for no assistant reason.
In this case though I think they were just making a mistake in an attempt to use title case.
The rule in the German language is quite simple, if it’s a noun, use a capital letter. That’s all there is to it.
Pero like, why though?
Could be title case, absolutely.
I believe in the Bible. In fact, it’s one of the best selling publications of all time.
I, too, believe that the bible exists.
There’s no need to believe in the Bible, it exists, you can hold it in your hands. Believing in it is pointless.
Seeing is believing
Most Christians who know anything about the bible would say this is just a letter from Paul to Timothy on how to run the church in Ephesus, and not a doctrinal command from god.
Isn’t that cherrypicking? If you discount what Paul says to Timothy as being applicable only to his church then you have to discount the rest:
" For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, "
“Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.”
There is nothing in the text to suggest that Paul was instructing only Timothy about a special case for his church. Paul said " I do not permit." He didn’t say, “You shouldn’t permit.”
But shouldn’t it be concerning that a figure as prominent as Paul would say such a thing?
Yes. Dude is a fraud. Not jesus.
Cherry picking quotes from the Bible is about the least Christian thing you can do.
If by “least christian” you mean “just about the only thing all christians do”.
Very America pilled. Just because you got the nut job immigrants that we persecuted for their faith doesn’t mean all are like that.
Im not american… good on you for just assuming though.
And yet it’s pretty much all they use it for.
But why tho? Isn’t reading Bible and understanding what it says big part of it?
B/c a main point of jesus was pointing out how those old laws are worthless.
Christianity continued this tradition by obviating all those old laws like circumcision, no pork, misogyny, etc. That’s literally why christians don’t follow that stuff. It was rejected like thousands of years ago.
The people who still worship the old testament are mostly jews and phony christians/cultists.
Christianity continued this tradition by obviating all those old laws l
This is New Testament!
Are trying to say Timothy 2:12 is old testament?
The new testament is full of heinous shit too though. Jesus (who, don’t forget, is still the same vengeful, angry old testament God) condones rape, violence, and killing all throughout it, but says “love thy neighbor” once and everyone thinks he’s gentle as a lamb.
“I come not to bring peace, but a sword” - Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:17
Not really. The message is love and forgiveness and inclusion. Egality.
And also the opposite of all those things.
This seems to be a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument.
It’s not. You must understand the virtues displayed. And apply them. The wording is not special. We aren’t even reading the original text and cannot speak the old languages with their context of the time of writing without undue effort.
The virtue is to not let a woman teach or have authority over a man. It is New Testament. There is no mis translation.
I think you guys may be using different definitions of what it means to act like a christian. If you disagree on that then you’ll just keep arguing past each other.
When you refer to acting like a christian that seems to mean acting christ-like, or at least striving to, which makes sense.
The other usage I’m seeing, and which is probably more prevalent in societal/political discussions, is that being like a christian means being lily the actual group of humans who use that label, which often has nothing to do with christ-likedness other than in name.
The Bible is full of self-contradictions, so for any interpretive framework to be at least self-coherent, the interpreter has to “add to the Word of God”.
Seems about right.
Where are you quoting from?
No it isn’t.
Not unless you cherry pick quotes.
Matthew 10 is one of my favourites
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
You love your family? Straight to hell with you! Jesus is jealous
You’re talking about the gospels maybe, not the bible.
Sounds like you are gatekeeping Christianity.
Some things must be gate kept to be preserved. One cannot allow hatred when acceptance is the goal.
The only way you can come to the conclusion that “acceptance is the goal” of the Bible is by cherry picking from it.
deleted by creator
I was a kid in Sunday school when it dawned on me that my morality and ethics were better than god’s. I wouldn’t do all the awful things he does or punish anyone i love for displeasing me and calling it love. And if I, I mere human, have a higher sense of goodness and morality than god, he’s worthless.
I wouldn’t do all the awful things he does or punish anyone
This kind of wacky belief (god is a magic person who does awful things and punishes people) is a terrible foundation for both religion and atheism.
It was my foundation for doubting.
My atheism came about once I started reading and educating myself on beliefs and morality outside of religion. Once I realized the belief in a god is useless and harmful
I dont know. Maybe we are evil for allowing half the planet to also have an opinion but it doesnt feel like evil. Feels like justice.
Perhaps its just so simple that the bible has been modified many times by men. That would explain a lot. But otherwise, I just dont see why women would not be allowed to use their brain and their abilities. If god didnt want that, why create them equal to men in abilities?
Its hard to understand.
its hard to understand
One might say intentionally impossible. Almost like theres a million contradictions that make it impossible to draw any actual conclusions. Almost as if its a tool designed to allow the church to control people by being the only source of “truth”
Makes me think God was a woman, and this is her pulling up the ladder.
I’m not being serious, of course, but it’s a fun concept — to me.
I mean it’s not really hard to understand. God doesn’t exist he’s a creation of man, those men were often intimidated or wanted women to bow down to them and worship them. So therefore they created their own scriptures that reflected their own belief system and what they wanted to teach and be worshiped poor.
When discussing god with atheists it often comes down to a point similar to this, “God can’t be real because if god existed they wouldn’t allow XYZ.” In reality we have no reason to assume as much.
If there is a god that entity could be flawed and faulty while still being omniscient and omnipotent. We assume that a being with human sentiments and unlimited knowledge would have to be a good being, but that’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that if god exists it views us similarly to how we view ants and simply just doesn’t share the concerns or beliefs we feel are naturally just and fair.
At the end of the day god could be a giant toddler on the playground and while they are unfair and unjust you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.
This is all just a thought experiment, but the argument that god can’t exist because god isn’t good is inherently a flawed argument (not that you are explicitly making that argument, I’m just extrapolating off of what you posted, ie god might not be a good guy).
My issue is with the religious folks always hiding their god(s) in our scientific ignorance.
Lightning: A god did it! (Thor, Zeus) until we found out that it wasn’t a god, but just natural phenomenon.
Shipwrecks: A god must be angry! (Poseidon, etc) Nope, just stormy weather, or accidents. No god involved.
Failed crops: A god did it, we must sacrifice a virgin to appease him! Nope, just bad weather, viruses and other natural phenomena.
And now, they’re hiding their god(s) in the Big Bang, because we don’t know (yet) what caused it.
but at the same time they also claim that this eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, that created this entire universe is also a personal god that cares about what these puny humans are doing in this backwater of a galaxy in their short lives.
Why would an eternal being care about what dust asks them to do?
And why, if we’re so special to this god, did that god make his universe so lethal to us?No christian would possibly accept the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and evil god. Once you start imagining from first principals what ought to be real you don’t end up with Christianity. If you restarted humanity 1000 times you would get newtons conception of gravity every single time you would get Christianity zero times.
I don’t know, I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. If god exists, creation is because of them, and early humans and faith are shaped by them, then the concept of a god who purports themselves as objectively good despite subjective proof otherwise doesn’t seem unlikely. The idea that god might not be good in the way we think good should be is relatively modern and prior to the last 100-200 years god was good because everything prior said so. For fucks sake most people couldn’t read and just trusted the guy in robes to tell them what to think.
So yeah, just like me trimming a plant and putting it in rooting hormone 1000 times, I think an all powerful and knowable god could theoretically always inevitably result in Christianity if they wanted, the bar isn’t that high when the majority of the species lifetime is dismally stupid.
Also, your argument is inherently flawed if you think the contrast of a good god must be an evil one. Concepts of good and evil have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, both in location and sentiment. If god made everything and said they are good then at best good to us doesn’t mean the same thing as good means to them and trying to frame the argument in that is meaningless.
At the end of the day you get to decide if you believe in god or not, if you do believe in god you can still decide whether you like “god” and want to follow it; however, making the logical leap that god doesn’t exist because they aren’t good by your definition is fundamentally flawed.
TL;DR
I not so much claim God doesn’t exist as I reject it. If God can only be “proven” by faith, then it equaly can be “disproven” the same way.
That’s why I have a different (although, in a very minor way) position.
From experience I see that God would be at best indifferent to people. Given the choice to believe in such God I see no logical reason to do so.
Either it exists and need to jump through hoops to get into heaven (especially if our concept of good is not the same) or it doesn’t exist I loose nothing by not believing. I don’t even want to go to heaven, I want to just live with my loved ones and then die. I hate the concept of eternal life, there is no part of me that would want it.Now looking at christian God I not so much as disprove its existence as reject it. If God can only be believed in then it cannot really be disproven, so the next step for me is just to reject the concept the same way I am required to accept it. If God’s and my human moralities do not align, I do not need such God. Morality, by itself, does not require God or punishment to exist.
Moreover, I don’t want a God that requires belief for a reward. In no way I see it as fair and if God is not fair it’s no god of mine.You’ve still added god to the picture for no particular reason. The universe doesn’t need a sentient cause there is absolutely no reason to believe it needs one.
Yes, a god is unnecessary. However, discussing religion and faith is inseparable from discussing God. Especially when we’re discussing whether it is good, evil or even exist.
My point is more that you cannot argue a god doesn’t exist with logic and Occam’s razor and whatnot when the other side of the discussion doesn’t operate on logic alone. If you’re arguing faith you have to reject it on the same basis, i. e. faith.
My personal belief is that there is no god. Humanity made up religion as tool for control, morality, education, etc. I see no proof that god should exist and on the premise that it could exist (neither claim is provable) I reject it.
It’s a good argument when the whole premise of Christianity is “God is all good.”
Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”
Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”
Well that’s part of the problem, the people in the situation are flawed as well. A biblical reference that comes to mind is First Samuel 15:3 in which god instructs the Israelites to kill all of the Amalekites including men, women, infants, nursing children, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey. In the story Saul actually sins and disobeys god by not killing everything he is instructed to kill as fucked up as that is.
I’ve contemplated the possibility that there is a God but they regard us as no more real than we regard fictional characters. God, if they exist, could be on a whole different plane of reality than us. Why should they care about our problems? And if God has a plan for me, that might not necessarily be a plan that is good for me.
This is why the Bible is kind of a drag without the new testament. God is emotionally volitile, punitive, and illogical. Jesus provides a framework for redemption, which is what people need here in this life. Reading the new testament, even without the magic and miracles and omnipresent sky-god can give people real ideas about how they should interact with others in this corporeal existence. The old testament feels like kind of a bizarre fairy tale with some historical elements.
If you’ve never seen it I recommend you watch the movie, “The Man from Earth.” It’s a short “indy-esque” movie and, without too many spoilers, focuses on a man who claims he is a prehistoric man who just never died. In his long life span he says he traveled to India and studied with the Buddah and while returning west began to spread the Buddah’s teachings, in time people began to call him Jesus.
Really interesting movie, lots of great thought experiment stuff, but it does make an interesting point that the literal teachings of Jesus are so different from the old testament teachings that one almost wonders how they could come from the same source.
Knowing the context of this passage is important. This passage is not God speaking to his people, it’s the Apostle Paul telling Timothy how to run a church. It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show and Paul was telling Timothy that women and sex should not be the thing that draws in people whom he intended to minister too. He suggested they cover up and hide their heads and remain quiet and not be the focus of the moment because he should want to distance himself from what amounts to orgies in the area.
~former member of the church
priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
So you’re telling me we could have had a timeline where sunday’s mass would essentially be a strip show?
It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
That is disingenous, because the Pauline epistles are definitely part of canonical bible scripture in almost all denominations, and has been used as such by Christians as well in the past.
It’s more disingenuous to take quotes out of context.
And no christian has any obligation to bow down to paul. They’re not paulians.
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion?
B/c the religion was invented by people who run churches.
If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
It seems pretty obvious from the context that the quote is about dis/allowing disruptions during church.
So then the correct interpretation is that women are not to speak over men, at least in matters within the domain of the faith? And as such the OP stands at face value, no?
Because the overall letters do actually inform how to run a church in context. I.e. don’t use sex and sex appeal to attract attention for your church.
Ah, I read you as saying that the verse is to be taken as only relevant to Timothy. If it does indeed inform how to run Christian churches as part of the official Word, they should be followed, no?
Or is the argument that they only inform overall sect marketing strategy, just as Leviticus should only pertain if you’re to enter a church? (As it was God’s commands for Israelites to be in the presence of God)
(Let’s set aside the discussion on how to interpret context, as each denomination seem to have their own and seldom any actual historical methodology in how to form that context.)
The verse is meant to be taken, as with all things in literature, in context, to be applied to how to conduct a ministry. This passage is to say that if your ministry is in a place that sexualizes women culturally and that is a distraction for your congregation, do not sexualize women in a way that would distract them from your message. It is applicable to people other than Timothy, but the letter alleges to be written for Timothy in Ephesus originally.
Now you’re just re-asserting your point.
Let’s not talk in circles and just end this interaction here.
Indeed, it is not apocryphal, but canon. It is part of scripture and god’s word, regardless of who said it in the text.
Canon is still not god’s word. At least not in christianity and judaism. Its still peoples’ words except for a few sentences of the old testament or except for when Jesus is speaking in the gospels (who is still not the Father). Islam might be different.
This is… not what the bible says. The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man and subject to interpretation or waffling. It says that women are lesser than men and should be subject to them and it says it very very clearly.
You’re missing my point entirely and focusing on one sentence. What I’m saying is that these letters were alleged to be intended for Timothy from Paul and when taken in context, provide a good few recommendations on how to conduct a ministry.
This specific passage is not a directive to all churches at all times or even to all women in all places. This passage is specific to the area of Ephesus where culturally, people fuck a lot. It’s what they do and they are proud about it. Timothy was sent there to help a church which had struggled with the cultural sexuality and Paul says more or less “Those people are all horny, let’s not put women in front of them and risk tempting them sexually.” It was not to say “all women should hide away and shut up.” Like it might seem outside of the passages context.
The bible is most definitely subject to interpretation based on the reason 95% of it is illegible without interpretation.
As far as I know, taking that thing literally is a very Protestant/Evangelical way of looking at it.
Like, I distinctly remember in catholic education at school (since that was at the time my “official” religion) the teacher mentioning this. As an example they mentioned Jesus allegedly walking on water. Was it a miracle actually performed? Maybe. More likely it’s just a story made up to convey a message about Jesus since humans cannot physically walk on water and the act of walking on water alone is meaningless without interpretation.
The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man
Al the books in the new testament are named after the man who told the story or wrote the letters, so yes it does.
But those men were divinely inspired, right? After all that’s what I, an atheist, keep hearing from apologists.
Divine inspiration is not God taking over the body of man to write some words down. Despite what atheist on the internet want you to believe, religious scholars are still scholars and do have quite a high bar for intelligent discussion.
Other Christians in this thread seem to think you’re wrong and it’s not even up for debate https://lemmy.world/post/38611837/20430136
That’s not at all what that person said. Also I may be wrong but I think that person is making a joke.
I didn’t say the book of Timothy was not Divine Inspiration. I said Divine Inspiration is not God taking over the body of a man to write his thoughts down for us. Instead, Divine Inspiration is more akin to teaching that have God’s stamp of approval.
If you want an interesting topic to search around though, look into canonization of scripture. Churches all around the world have different books that are regarded as canon and divinely inspired. The Bible is not as straightforward as any church would have you believe.
In this case you’re saying it, not hearing it.
You’re a self-proclaimed atheist promoting the worst interpretations of the bible because that’s what comfortable for you.
I’m not promoting anything, I’m sharing what I keep getting flung to my head
I think its pretty clear that the word of man is not just like their opinion its the inspiration of the divine. It’s not really up for debate.
It’s funny, it is in fact up for debate which texts are divinely inspired as all the major churches have different canonizations around the world. Lots of crossover obviously, but plenty of questions about what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible.
You should read up on the concept of the Canon. They are part of the New Testament, which is part of the Bible, which is Scripture. This is objective fact. There is no slinking away from that even if the words may disturb you.
Scripture does not mean word of god. It just means a bunch of dudes in 325 C.E. decided that they thought that should be considered truth.
This is objective fact.
No. It’s subjective labeling far removed from facts.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
That is hard to believe and sound more like a post hoc rationalisation. Did you get this context from a good source, or was it a partial one, like a christian minister?
Ancient Ephesus was known for its cultural sexual deviancy. That’s not particularly in dispute. It’s kinda the whole reason Paul sent Timothy there in the first place. The church there was struggling because of its position on sex and monogamous marriage. That position was in opposition to the culture of sexual deviancy. Timothy was sent to help the church there. Paul, allegedly, wrote the Timothy letters to help guide Timothy.
Much of this is in question for actual historical accuracy, but that’s the proposed reason for the letters to Timothy in the Bible. Even if fictional, that’s the context of the letters.
I’m a strong atheist but I really hate when people cherry pick bible verses to support an argument either for or against.
It’s stupid when Christians do it and it’s stupid when we do it.
It’s not even that it’s a bad argument technique, which it is, it’s something exclusively done in bad faith to attempt to dunk on someone who isn’t going to interpret it that way anyway.
By the time people are pulling out Bible verses the entire exchange has turned into a dick measuring contest from which nothing will be gained.
It’s not a bad argument technique to pull out the actual primary document and examine it. You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.
“You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.”
This is literally what’s happening here though, there’s a whole ass comment explaining this quote is out of context that I responded to originally.
The explanation is bubkis historical re-imagining like when the media sane washes the babble that comes out of Trump’s mouth. He’ll spend 15 minutes babbling about how he thinks magnets work and they report hurr durr somewhere in there he said lower taxes.
It is not historical reimagining to explain what the context of this letter is. Timothy was sent to Ephesus to help the church there which was struggling with the people due to the church’s opposing position on several things that were culturally relevant to the Ephesians, like sex, monogamy, and prostitution. Paul, allegedly, wrote the Timothy letters to him at this time with this context in mind.
Ok even if that explanation is bubkis it’s still to my point that using Bible quotes goes nowhere because you’re using the root delusion to attempt to disprove their personal delusions.
You’d be better off quoting Harry potter or anything else that they haven’t already decided the meaning of or integrated into their personality.
You aren’t being fair minded about it or examining it in context.
That’s unfortunately most interactions I’ve had on reddit and Lemmy.
I think most people just want to comment to be right about something rather than communicate anything valuable.
every christian believes they live by the bible, which they fortunately don’t, actually
also faith is supported by the existence ilof the “perfect”, god-inspired text, if we can show it is neither, we shake the foundations that religion relies on“if we can show it is neither”
Not to be a dick but you fundamentally don’t understand religious people because ignoring what’s obviously in front of you is the core “faith” these people talk endlessly about.
You can’t logically disprove religion because it’s not a logical phenomenon.
You’re arguing with someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible when you argue the Bible with religious people, they have no objectivity to leverage.
That’s why I really don’t like using Bible quotes, it’s just indulging in delusion to attempt to disprove delusion.
You rarely convince christians or any other sort of fanatic you argue with them for the peanut gallery to create a pervasive sense that among smart people its a joke so that a few people should ultimately decide to laugh instead of being the butt of it.
It is on the overall working. Religious nones are a growing group and atheism is slightly more acceptable. Once nearly all were Christians. We are down to 62% of the pop and the youngest gen is 48%.
I’m not saying it will work on everyone, but the fewer “supporting” arguments people have, the more questions they will not be able to reflexively dismiss
and i’m basing this on myself, i used to be fairly religious, although i was on a “we don’t know what god really is, and the bible is not fully literal” level, so i didn’t have a problem with texts like thisIn your own words, what is faith?
In mine:
The denial of basic facts and the willingness to persevere in the face of all logic on instruction from a higher power for unknowable reasons.
There’s no shot at converting these people because they already decided the outcome of any logical argument put before them.
To them each incongruous fact is just a weird shaped puzzle piece that’ll fit their world view no matter how contrived.
It’s why cult deprogramming is so incredibly difficult.
Most modern scholars consider this epistle to have been written after Paul’s death, although a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.
Since it claims to be written by Paul it ought to be called a forgery.
it ought to be called a forgery
That is basically the entirety of the bible though.
Wasn’t practische the whole of the current Bible version written in something like 300 C.E.? The older books that have been found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls havent made it into the bible.
No. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
Though I just noticed that you said “version”. As I understand there ARE some changes that could have been that late. Like the insertion of the story containing “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” (the woman taken in adultery), and the Johannine comma (a small comment expounding on the trinity).
Maybe sophia is already an atheist before reading the book.
So theres a problem. I want to upvote you but you’re ar exactly 42 upvotes at the writing of this comment… What do I do?
Well now he’s at 142… damn. The dilemma continues.
It’s safe to vote now as they are at 50.
370 to go
at 69 right now.
Poor Sophia.
“The woman should only have a voice in the bedroom, and those voices need to praise the holy spirit or father” (2 Daddy 69:3)
What freaky ass bible are you reading? 😭
The good one
King Mix-Alot version.
2 Diddy 69
:3
deleted by creator
Here’s a good response:
“Shut it rib.”
