4 ms·

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. Does the gender of a books author really matter

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. Does the gender of a books author really matter?

laumars 5y ago
It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Thus her accounts should surely matter at least as much as the mens (probably more so in reality). The New Testament was collated in an era when organised religion was used as a tool for man to retain control. To that end, much of content of the “modern” Bible is about man and why one should follow man because he speaks on “behalf of God”. This isn’t some new morality interpretation in the new age of political correctness either. This is an observation that’s gone back as long as I’ve been alive (40+ years) because, as I’ve said above, the testaments of those closest to Jesus were even excluded.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  Everything you're saying is true but does not to attest to whether the Bible itself is a good book, judged solely as a literary work. It is possible for it to be an enjoyable and interesting read despite all of your valid complaints.
- orange8 5y ago
  I do not think it matters whether a book is written by a man or woman, if the discussion is about worthwhile books to read. The bible is not just any other book though, and I understand why you'd have political, moral or religious ideas against anyone reading it. I do not think it was being recommended for any of those reasons though. Looked at as just a book, its very much worth reading regardless of what was edited out or translated out. The idea is to read it as a book, and not some 100% accurate 100% inclusive 100% politically correct collection of books.
  - laumars 5y ago
    You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case. I had also made points about why it’s also not a good book from a literacy standpoint too. My point was it doesn’t work either as a factual piece, as a piece of literacy nor even as a set of moral principles. It’s just not a good set of texts by any modern standards.
    - orange8 5y ago
      > You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case. In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.
      - laumars 5y ago
        I got that but you’re being disingenuous to my point by distilling it down to the gender of the author. I’d never suggest one should read or not read a book because of the gender of the author. My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. Thus if you were to choose not to read it, it wouldn’t be because the authors were male, it would be because it lacks authenticity. I also gave other examples of how it lacked authenticity too so even that point about authenticity wasn’t just about gender. So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.
        orange8 5y ago
        > Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. > My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender. And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real? > So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with. You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.
- orange8 5y ago
  > It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Which book was this? How do we know about it, and have you read it?
  - laumars 5y ago
    Background as to why Mary Magdalenes account is so important when discussing Jesus and the New Testament. Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. Though it should be noted that there are some disagreements about whether other books from the New Testament were actually written by their respective disciples either. https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.htm... This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. What isn’t explained in that article though is how religion was used to control a populous, often even used as a legal system. Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html
    - orange8 5y ago
      > Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? > Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? > This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? > Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI
guerrilla 5y ago
I think it's a valid political complaint considering the role of the book in the world but I don't think it's a valid literary complaint because men (and groups of men) write some books and women (and groups of women) write other books and neither are bad for the reason that they are written by only one gender. If the latter were true, then all books written by groups of women are also bad, which is absurd.
- orange8 5y ago
  My point exactly. I don't think politics has any place in this discussion. The request was for good book recommendations for everyone, not good book recommendations for republicans, christians, feminists etc
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    I wouldn't go that far. I think one could make an argument that one should not recommend the Bible because of these reasons. It doesn't have to be a bad book to be a bad recommendation.
  - laumars 5y ago
    The issue here is you’ve focused on the political context and not on the actual reason I disagreed with the recommendation, which was: 1. It’s not authentic for a plethora of reasons (you disagree on that point, which is fine) 2. Even treating it’s stories as just stories, they can differ a lot from one translation to another. Even when you look at different versions of modern stories, at least the basic premise remains roughly the same. Some of the translations of the Bible change key events in hugely significant ways. Which then begs the question, which version of the Bible should one read? 3. It’s also just not well written by modern standards. It’s fine to disagree with some of the political context but you’re being disingenuous to my original post by distilling it down to an argument about gender and politics.

> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. Does the gender of a books author really matter?

laumars 5y ago

It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Thus her accounts should surely matter at least as much as the mens (probably more so in reality). The New Testament was collated in an era when organised religion was used as a tool for man to retain control. To that end, much of content of the “modern” Bible is about man and why one should follow man because he speaks on “behalf of God”. This isn’t some new morality interpretation in the new age of political correctness either. This is an observation that’s gone back as long as I’ve been alive (40+ years) because, as I’ve said above, the testaments of those closest to Jesus were even excluded.

guerrilla 5y ago
Everything you're saying is true but does not to attest to whether the Bible itself is a good book, judged solely as a literary work. It is possible for it to be an enjoyable and interesting read despite all of your valid complaints.
orange8 5y ago
I do not think it matters whether a book is written by a man or woman, if the discussion is about worthwhile books to read. The bible is not just any other book though, and I understand why you'd have political, moral or religious ideas against anyone reading it. I do not think it was being recommended for any of those reasons though. Looked at as just a book, its very much worth reading regardless of what was edited out or translated out. The idea is to read it as a book, and not some 100% accurate 100% inclusive 100% politically correct collection of books.
- laumars 5y ago
  You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case. I had also made points about why it’s also not a good book from a literacy standpoint too. My point was it doesn’t work either as a factual piece, as a piece of literacy nor even as a set of moral principles. It’s just not a good set of texts by any modern standards.
  - orange8 5y ago
    > You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case. In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.
    - laumars 5y ago
      I got that but you’re being disingenuous to my point by distilling it down to the gender of the author. I’d never suggest one should read or not read a book because of the gender of the author. My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. Thus if you were to choose not to read it, it wouldn’t be because the authors were male, it would be because it lacks authenticity. I also gave other examples of how it lacked authenticity too so even that point about authenticity wasn’t just about gender. So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.
      - orange8 5y ago
        > Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out. > My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender. And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real? > So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with. You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.
orange8 5y ago
> It does when those books were purposely excluded because the author was female. It also matters a lot when one of the books excluded was written by the person who was actually closest to Jesus too. Which book was this? How do we know about it, and have you read it?
- laumars 5y ago
  Background as to why Mary Magdalenes account is so important when discussing Jesus and the New Testament. Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Magdalene Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. Though it should be noted that there are some disagreements about whether other books from the New Testament were actually written by their respective disciples either. https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/gospel-of-Mary-Magdalene.htm... This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. What isn’t explained in that article though is how religion was used to control a populous, often even used as a legal system. Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html https://www.compellingtruth.org/lost-books-Bible.html
  - orange8 5y ago
    > Also shows the tension and resentment some apparently had towards her. This is life. There will always be tensions, envy, politics and resentment whenever people come together, regardless of gender. Jesus was betrayed by one of his very own disciples after-all. So you say you've read the whole bible, but have you read the gospel of Mary Magdalene which you consider would "redeem" the bible by? Why, haven't you read it? > Gospel of Mary Magdalene is a book that is believed to be an account of her albeit not directly written by her. There are many books in the bible that give a females account. You should know about them as someone who's read the whole book (an impressive feat). And what do you think of the many other books omitted from the bible, for example the gospel of Thomas? Is it because it was written by a man? > This last link helps illustrate how the Bible is collated by man to fit a narrative defined by man. Is there really anything in this world that is written and collated that does not fit a narrative defined by their authors? > Which should cast scepticism about the motives behind the various rewrites and decisions behind what gets included and what doesn’t. The changes have been greatly exaggarated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI

guerrilla 5y ago

I think it's a valid political complaint considering the role of the book in the world but I don't think it's a valid literary complaint because men (and groups of men) write some books and women (and groups of women) write other books and neither are bad for the reason that they are written by only one gender. If the latter were true, then all books written by groups of women are also bad, which is absurd.

orange8 5y ago
My point exactly. I don't think politics has any place in this discussion. The request was for good book recommendations for everyone, not good book recommendations for republicans, christians, feminists etc
- guerrilla 5y ago
  I wouldn't go that far. I think one could make an argument that one should not recommend the Bible because of these reasons. It doesn't have to be a bad book to be a bad recommendation.
- laumars 5y ago
  The issue here is you’ve focused on the political context and not on the actual reason I disagreed with the recommendation, which was: 1. It’s not authentic for a plethora of reasons (you disagree on that point, which is fine) 2. Even treating it’s stories as just stories, they can differ a lot from one translation to another. Even when you look at different versions of modern stories, at least the basic premise remains roughly the same. Some of the translations of the Bible change key events in hugely significant ways. Which then begs the question, which version of the Bible should one read? 3. It’s also just not well written by modern standards. It’s fine to disagree with some of the political context but you’re being disingenuous to my original post by distilling it down to an argument about gender and politics.