3 ms·

The fundamentalist interpretation is only one way to read the biblical text, and it tends to ignore the context the text was written for. Women: Jesus' ministr

The fundamentalist interpretation is only one way to read the biblical text, and it tends to ignore the context the text was written for. Women: Jesus' ministry was financially supported by women. Jesus explicitly did not condemn the woman caught in adultery like the Pharisees did although he did not condone her conduct, either. Jesus taught to women (e.g. Mary, Martha's sister) while the rabbis forbid it; one rabbi said he would rather burn the Torah than teach to a woman, and the Torah was so sacred that they put old unusable Torah scrolls in the walls of the synagogue rather than the trash. A woman dealing in purple cloth hosted one of the early churches (and probably led it after Paul left). A woman is mentioned with the title apostle. Homosexuality: nowhere does the Bible hate homosexuals. It says that it is a harmful behavior and is not to be tolerated in God's people because it leads to death. It is not "hate" to consider someone's behavior unhealthy, or even to disapprove of someone's behavior. We don't "hate" thieves because we disapprove of thievery. In fact, most people hate thievery and think it is so harmful to society that it should be repressed, but it does not mean we must hate thieves. American LGBTQetc seem to require love to look like complete acceptance and consider anything else as "intolerance", but that is a false dichotomy.

lalaland1125 6y ago
Jesus might not have been anti-women, but the New Testament certainly is. > A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
- unpolloloco 6y ago
  In particular, Paul (one of the writers) was - take that as you will. Overall, it's generally extremely progressive (for its time and context!).
  - lalaland1125 6y ago
    > for its time and context!. The problem is that people are applying the morality of the Bible in the modern era when it's clearly outdated. Biblical morality is clearly not correct now on a number of issues (divorce, gay rights, etc, etc).
mattnewton 6y ago
I mean, comparing someone’s sexuality to thievery is almost exactly the point. As you point out, we are intolerant of theivery as a society; treating homosexuals analogous to how we treat thieves is probably intolerant.

lalaland1125 6y ago

Jesus might not have been anti-women, but the New Testament certainly is. > A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

unpolloloco 6y ago
In particular, Paul (one of the writers) was - take that as you will. Overall, it's generally extremely progressive (for its time and context!).
- lalaland1125 6y ago
  > for its time and context!. The problem is that people are applying the morality of the Bible in the modern era when it's clearly outdated. Biblical morality is clearly not correct now on a number of issues (divorce, gay rights, etc, etc).

mattnewton 6y ago

I mean, comparing someone’s sexuality to thievery is almost exactly the point. As you point out, we are intolerant of theivery as a society; treating homosexuals analogous to how we treat thieves is probably intolerant.