Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am aware of where the non-Gentiles got their ideas and have said as much. My response was directed at the clear expression of misandry spewed out in this post here and I was highlighting the irony therein.
LOL! "This post here" is my post ... and I'll happily send you every cent I'll ever receive for the rest of my life if you can reproduce a quote from me that has me "spewing" a "clear expression of misandry."
I'll wait right here while you try to find the non-existent quote you THINK I said.
If you're going to refute me, don't lie or misrepresent things that I've said in order to do so. In a professional setting, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. I would appreciate some intellectual honesty, thanks, as would anyone else on this forum.
Are you saying that you were not expressing contempt for what you regard as a purely Patriarchal G()D concept in that post?
It sure looks like that is exactly what you were doing.
But as it has been pointed out since then, while it might appear that this idea of G()D is a 'MAN', it is obvious not just displaying masculine tendencies in relation to the deeds you are complaining about which are attributed to 'HIM'...this idea of G()D as evidenced in the stories of the non Gentiles.
Perhaps if you could publicly acknowledge that these are not JUST the actions of MEN, you could show that your expression is not as it appears, that being simply an ignorant opinion of misandry.
If not, then at least be honest about your expressed position in relation to your attitude about this idea of G()D which is supposed to be a MALE as cease with complaining you are being miss-represented/understood.
Yes, because it's not like Jewish sages wouldn't have any confirmation bias, now, would they.
Nooooooo .... of course not.
I mean it would be like me taking your material and writing an opposing view to what someone else said you meant, someone that was actually there with you and knew what you meant...
To say that the entire point of the story is merely the geneaolgical notice of the Moabites and Ammonites, embellished with the later etiological name tale, is a bit simplistic. There are many other things at play here, starting all the way from Yahweh's encounter with Abram in 18, the blessing, and the sending of the Messengers to see if the "outcry" against the city is valid and thus worthy of destruction. It has definite parallels to the story of the inhospitality of the Benjamites in Judges 19 and their sexual misconduct. Worth checking out, as it is a FAR worse story! The author, no doubt, was aware of the other story!
Yes, I stand corrected, there is more than the punch line at the end, but the story is a set up to ultimately get to that ending. It's not that the other parts don't have their own separate value, it's just that the significance of the conclusion--as well as other features that you mentioned--are often lost in the excitement of finding the story as justification for anti-homosexual activity.
Yes, I stand corrected, there is more than the punch line at the end, but the story is a set up to ultimately get to that ending. It's not that the other parts don't have their own separate value, it's just that the significance of the conclusion--as well as other features that you mentioned--are often lost in the excitement of finding the story as justification for anti-homosexual activity.
Yes, I agree. The story is not an explicit condemnation of homosexuality and should not be used by moderns as such. Too many fundamentalists use this text as some sort of "proof-text".
Not much there to give any clues...Maybe something in the Talmud could give an explanation...
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers
Better at Interpreting according to Jewish tradition and dogma? Yes.
Reading the text to reach the closest plain sense meaning, without resorting to later Jewish tradition coloring the reading? No. Gentile scholars have shown that it is possible to try to critically read the Hebrew Bible with a much less biased understanding of what the text actually says - not what later Rabbis invented to make sense of a text that gave them conflicting messages.
The religious and cultural ideas portrayed in the Bible are not the same as later Jewish Talmudic midrashim. That is an important distinction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Yes, because it's not like Jewish sages wouldn't have any confirmation bias, now, would they.
Nooooooo .... of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
I mean it would be like me taking your material and writing an opposing view to what someone else said you meant, someone that was actually there with you and knew what you meant...
Your example is a false one, Richard, and your entire line of reasoning is - as Shirina hinted at - biased towards an "orthodox" Jewish stance that is only valid for Jews who accept such a religious stance. I'm not interested in a "history of reception" or "history of interpretation" approach.
The various stories in Genesis were not written by a Jew practicing Judaism; they were written by several ancient Israelites (whether we more narrowly define them as Israelite or Judahite is debatable) who wrote about several different forms of Israelite religion, which are much different from our archaeological and iconographic sources for Israelite-Judean religion of the time. These are some rudimentary terms of how Biblical religion is portrayed in the Bible:
Patriarchal religion, as opposed to the later
Mosaic Yahwism.
Patriarchal religion is vastly different from Mosaic Yahwism, which in turn is vastly different from later Judaism, not to mention Rabbinic Judaism, etc. Unless Jews still worship at local cultic sites, employ the name "Yahweh" when referring to the Israelite-Judean god, etc. - then we are talking about very different religious practices. Abraham may have been the so-called "father of the Jews", but he was not Jewish, and he did not practice a Jewish religion.
So no, the stories in Genesis are not simply the material of later Rabbinic Jews and solely open to interpretation by religious Jews of today. They were the products of Israelite-Judeans who practiced and wrote about anything BUT the later Judaism. Sure, later Jewish tradition may have some insights, but it is from a decidedly biased and rabbinically minded interpretational stance. You may believe, personally, that you have a monopoly on interpretation, just as a Christian believes THEY have a monopoly on interpreting the Jewish Bible through the lens of the Greek Scriptures and their own Christian tradition. Who is correct? Neither. Unless you are an ancient Israelite-Judean, you are removed many degrees from the texts in question.
Yes, Richard, thank you. I am familiar with the Talmud. And I am not critiquing IT. I am critiquing the idea that the best "interpreters" of an ancient Israelite-Judean text are members of Rabbinic Judaism.
My usage of "midrashim" was colloquial, not meant to be specific. Any interpretation of something is necessarily creative in nature.
Lot didn't allow incest, his daughters got him drunk so he would have sex with them, their motive was so that he could have an male heir. please read the whole account .
Let's see. Lot gets so drunk that he is incoherent enough to have sex with his own daughters. This means that Lott must managed to get as hard as his pillar of salt wife while that wasted. I'm impressed.
I'm talking about the whims of a God who is supposed to be infinitely loving, just, and good. I'm talking about the God that many fundamentalists believe exists in his Old Testament form and who seem eager to put on their flouncy cheerleader uniforms, pick up the pom-poms and say a cheer for God's genocides, mass murders, psychological tortures, and other miscellaneous actions that are immoral.
It's not about taking today's morality and judging past societies based on our rules. Not at all. Because this isn't really about how Man treated his fellow Man -- or Woman in this case.
So it's immoral for God to judge and wipe out sin? That's the amazing double standard that I see atheists use when it comes to "judging" God from the Bible. If God does nothing to stop evil, you say He is immoral. If He takes action, you say He is a mass murderer which isn't even accurate. God can't commit murder because He is the creator. He has full right to end our lives at any time because we wouldn't exist without Him. So we are born into this world already owing a debt to God. All your accomplishments wouldn't be possible without God giving you the talents and abilities either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
My post was about a supposedly infinitely loving, just, and good God doing things that weren't particularly loving, just, or good. If misogyny is wrong, if slavery is wrong then why did this God let it continue for thousands of years? For crying out loud, Southern slave owners as recently as 1865 were using the Bible to justify slavery in a nation that is supposed to be Christian.
Well if God transformed their society and stomped out such things, what's next? Why doesn't God allow this to continue, or this? Eventually you will be complaining because God allowed a splinter in your finger to cause pain and demanding that all negativity be wiped out. But such high level of interference completely destroys free will. But there will be a day where God does wipe out all wrong doing and cleanse this earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
God certainly seemed concerned enough with how many tassels you're supposed to put on your cloak, how long you could grow your hair, and lopping off chunks of penises but yet seemed to have forgotten more important matters like slavery, misogyny and even pedophilia.
So ... because this infinitely loving, just, and good God didn't bother to "inspire" the Biblical authors to abolish such things, we've had to put up with slavery, misogyny, and church-and-state sanctioned pedophilia for another two and a half thousand years.
Is there a verse in the Bible saying I am God and I approve of slavery? God is concerned about individual relationships, your own personal spiritual journey, not bending an entire society to his will. The message in the Bible is to make best of your circumstances even if you happen to have the misfortune of being a slave. But then again, people like you just flat out refuse to acknowledge that the cultural context was completely different from modern society's concept of slavery. Slavery in the Bible often was voluntary, treated with respect, temporary to work off debt or given a chance of freedom if they wanted it. There's actually a number of verses that do not support slavery like 1 Corinthians 7:23. But you will continue to ignore all these elements so you can go on trashing God as being cruel and loving slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
All the hallmarks of a Man-made religion, not the nobility and morality of an infinitely good God.
Christianity has none of the hallmarks of a man-made religion. If it did, the Bible would simply be a rulebook, do this physical action, win your favor with God. It would promote self pride by accomplishing achievements like other wordly religions. It doesn't. It teaches complete surrender of self-pride and forming a personal relationship that is a unique journey for every human being. Other religions tell you to blend in the with the masses by doing the same thing, the same rituals and etc...
Are you saying that you were not expressing contempt for what you regard as a purely Patriarchal G()D concept in that post?
Yes. I am expressing contempt for a supposedly good and just God that cares more about foreskins than whether women are treated with any kind of respect. To me, that isn't the behavior of a truly loving, just, and good God.
Misandry is defined as a hatred of men and I hold no such hatred or dislike. I'm not displaying reverse sexism or claiming women should be in charge or any such nonsense. I was talking about equality, plain and simple.
My point isn't that God is patriarchal -- pretty much all the major religions are patriarchal. However, just because religion and the concept of God is patriarchal doesn't mean women have to be treated as "lesser than" or as 2nd class citizens. Unfortunately, the Bible, as well as many other religious writings tell their readers that women are weaker, more sinful, more easily corrupted, and quite often there to seduce men into evil with their wiles. Sorry, but that's what is said or implied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
It sure looks like that is exactly what you were doing.
My underlying point was to demonstrate how easy it is to confirm that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God. As I told someone else -- if God were truly loving, just, and good, the Bible would have put a stop to such things as slavery, misogyny, and pedophilia. But, because those three things were so deeply rooted in the society of that time, the Biblical authors merely regulated slavery and said nothing about the other two. An All-Powerful, sin-hating God wouldn't have cared and would have put a stop to those things but he didn't.
I was simply showing some places where misogyny and sexism could be seen in the Bible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
But as it has been pointed out since then, while it might appear that this idea of G()D is a 'MAN', it is obvious not just displaying masculine tendencies in relation to the deeds you are complaining about which are attributed to 'HIM'...this idea of G()D as evidenced in the stories of the non Gentiles.
God is depicted as male because 1) males are considered disciplinarians, 2) men wrote the Bible, and 3) femininity was all but a synonym for "weak" ... and still is, quite frankly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
Perhaps if you could publicly acknowledge that these are not JUST the actions of MEN, you could show that your expression is not as it appears, that being simply an ignorant opinion of misandry.
Nothing I've said has been proven wrong. My argument still stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rotagivan
If not, then at least be honest about your expressed position in relation to your attitude about this idea of G()D which is supposed to be a MALE as cease with complaining you are being miss-represented/understood.
Uh, no. You're essentially telling me that I have to admit that I'm completely wrong or admit that I hate men. Sorry but I've explained precisely what I was driving at with my post.
A loving, good, and just God would NEVER have considered Lot the only righteous man in the city if he offered to toss his virgin daughters out to the crowd to be raped. Nor would the angels have tolerated such a suggestion. In addition, God never bothered to consider the innocent women who were NOT surrounding Lot's house to rape angels. They were just sitting at home wondering where their husbands and boyfriends had gotten off to in such a hurry.
These are not the hallmarks of a loving, just, and good God and yet fundamentalists would cheer for God and his murdering ways regardless if this story happened 3,000 years ago or if it happened yesterday. The morality of the Bible, God, and modern fundamentalists are horrifically flawed.
No one has refuted my point -- no one ever has without resorting to the "God is God and he can do whatever he wants" argument. Therefore, there is no reason to admit I was wrong or "ignorant" (as you put it) and I still stand by my challenge for you to produce a quote which says positively that I hate men (which is what misandry is ... misandry is NOT being critical of a patriarchal society that treats women as less than men.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
