What does it say about women speaking again?
I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.”
Paul probably didn’t write that paragraph of verses. It was most likely added by someone else along the way.
To your point of people wanting to take only portions of the Bible literally and ignore others, there are TONS of things that the old testament says to do that we don’t do every day.
That sounds like a very feminine opinion
Nah, I can see Paul saying that, I just cannot see Jesus (who was openly kissing women like men kissed men and basically publicly recognising them as equals! The horror, lol) saying that. 🤷
Christians on old testament laws:
-
prohibition on eating pork: god actually didn’t mean we should stop eating pork. It was an accident bro.
-
prohibition on vaguely sexual acts without clear translation: this is the word of god, how dare these people exist
I’m not defending Christianity, but the actual defense of pork is that Jesus had made pork clean, in a vision to Peter where the analogy was that Jesus also made non Jewish people clean, since mixing with them was also forbidden. So less accident, more amendment.
They would also claim (from my experience in a cult anyway) that the old laws were necessary at the time they were given, but by the time Jesus came he could revise them as they were more ready.
If we look at it from a secular viewpoint, badly cooked pork probably caused a bunch of illness to was banned, and by the time Jesus supposedly existed people had learned to cook it more safely.
If only they took jesus’ thousands of negative views on the wealthy as seriously as they take his one revision to pork law.
-
Equally controversial fact:
I am not obliged by law or morality to follow what is written in your fucking book either way.
Did God marry Mary, before he knocked her up?
Some really unfortunate power dynamics in that relationship.
Problematic
Dysfunctional
Outside the Ten Commandments (supposedly), the Bible was written entirely by fallible humans - these assholes keep forgetting that part & act like it’s 100% perfect (which we know it’s not simply by its own self-contradictions).
Also somehow the King James version is authoritative, after who knows how many links of translation phone games?
Excuse me but old baldy Elisha successfully cast summon shebear swarm and I posit any being able to summon and command not just a shebear but a swarm of shebears just might be infallible
Thou shalt boof but not before 3 days after the sabbath. So it is written
What should be controversial is pretending a goat shepherds religious book from the bronze age should have any kind of authority in the 21st century.
I mean, if the goat shepherds have some strong moral positions, I don’t see why they’d be disqualified. Ethics isn’t something we invented in the 21st century, ffs. Bronze Age humans had as much a claim to it as anyone. Just ask Socrates or Confucius or Nezahualcóyotl.
Given the current state of the 21st century political scene, I’m not bending over to give modern day philosophers extra credit. Say what you will about Thomas Aquinas, he doesn’t appear anywhere in the Epstein flight logs. That’s more than Noam Chomsky or Peter Mandelson can claim.
Every time I hear the word bible and fact in the same sentence the church bells start ringing in my head.
The Bible is very contradictory because it’s a collection of books written throughout millennia, usually with prophets saying A and judges and scholars saying B (and people usually following B).
And I see Stanzi is on her Madonna-styled Trinitarian rebellion, lol. I love her content, hopefully she’s not doing too many bumps!
Stanzi is fucking hilarious.
I can’t read
