Errors and Contradictions in the Bible

[Alexander]

"Baptisim! You two are just dumber'n a bag o' hammers!"

- Ulysses Everett McGill

"Sold your soul to the devil, eh Tommy? Well, ain't this a small world, spiritually speaking? Pete and Delmar here just got themselves baptized and saved. I guess I'm the only one who remains unaffiliated!"

-ibid

Edited August 26, 2004 by Alexander

[Jim Alfredson]

You don't have to look too hard.

Paul 11:3

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

11:4

Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

11:5

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

11:6

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

11:7

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

11:8

For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

11:9

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Timothy

2:11

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Peter

3:1

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

3:2

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

3:3

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

3:4

But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

3:5

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Shall I go on?

[Alexander]

I think you've humiliated him enough.

(I think that when they challenge you to find something in the Bible, they really don't expect you to look...)

Edited August 26, 2004 by Alexander

[Big Al]

You don't have to look too hard.

Paul 11:3

Can you clarify which letter of Paul you're referring to?

[Big Al]

Never mind, I found it: 1 Corinthians.

[Big Al]

So how does this, in and of itself, "degrade" women? Nowhere does it say that women are to be mistreated, abused, raped, tortured, etc. I'll grant you that men over the years have taken your quote out of context to give them free reign to do just that.

It's times like this I wish we could see the letters that Paul was answering.

[Big Al]

Timothy

2:11

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Well now, here's a nice little contradiction that perhaps one better scholared in theology than I can answer: this phrase is thrown out many times. But certainly you've read of all the women in Acts, those who led worship and churches as they grew?

On the surface, this quote is very sexist. I’ll also grant you that men over the years have used this passage as justification for all manner of horrible acts done to women over the years. I seriously doubt that was Timothy’s intent when he wrote what he wrote.

Hey, my boss is a woman. Am I going to hell? I doubt it.

[Jim Alfredson]

It degrades women because it places them in service of men. I don't see any other way to interpret it. Or am I missing something?

And my purpose here is not to humiliate anyone.... but a lot of times when you bring up these things to people they say, "Oh yeah, where in the Bible does it say that?" and then you show them. It seems a lot of people don't actually read the damn thing, they just accept what their church says.

Not that I'm saying jazzypaul does that. But he asked.

I gotta go to a gig. I'll look up the references to slavery, racism, etc later. They are very easy to find.

[Big Al]

Peter

3:1

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

3:2

While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.

   

3:3

Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

3:4

But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

   

3:5

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:

Shall I go on?

Again, I'll grant you that men over the years have used this as the ultimate tool for abuse. Hard not to see why.

But these evil men leave out the single most-important part of this passage, the last line:

7   Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

The man is only allowed this kind of respect if he deserves it, and the only way he deserves it is by honoring his wife. You don’t honor your wife by treating her as a slave, a maid, a sex toy, etc. You honor her by treating her as a human being, as one worthy of only the highest love, honor, and praise. I have a hard time believing, even in the culture in which this was written, that Peter was issuing a free pass for men to beat their wives into submission.

Again, I wish I could see the letters Peter was responding to.

(EDITED cuz I didn't wanna leave the whole quote in there, conserve space & all that)

Edited August 26, 2004 by Big Al

[jazzypaul]

You know, we're told to be meek, but I can't just sit around and watch people take cheap pot shots at my faith when they obviously aren't even close to knowing what they're talking about...

Yes, Jim, you're missing something huge. Two things actually...

1) These letters were written to CHURCHES. They were also meant to be codes of conduct WITHIN CHURCH WALLS. How were women supposed to act during church, that's it. Women can still be presidents, queens, bosses, CEO's, musicians, ice cream truck drivers, you name it. They just can't preach in church.

2) These were also written around the societal norms of 2000 years ago. Appearance was huge in the new testament. Not just giving God lip service, but also acting in such a way that everyone around you would say, "wow, these Christians really have it together!" (For proof of this, look throughout Corinthians and Romans, where it talks of acting like Christ and acting in such a way as to not be a stumbling block) Sadly, we've let that one slip through the cracks pretty badly.

So, is Christianity degrading to women? Nope. Are people that take the Bible out of context one verse at a time degrading to the very notions of human thought and logic? Yep. Next time, quote entire passages, and read them for yourself instead of taking them from the "we're atheists and we'll take anything out of context to prove our point" website. Please.

And Alexander, no, I haven't had enough. Please, bring it on...

edited to say thanks to Big Al for keeping his cool way better than I can. And that quote in Peter ties it all nicely together. See how much better things look IN CONTEXT?

Edited August 26, 2004 by jazzypaul

[Big Al]

It degrades women because it places them in service of men. I don't see any other way to interpret it. Or am I missing something?

Well, FWIW, I've never been comfortable with these passages, either, and I understand where you’re coming from.

But look at the church today: are we, by and large, still following to the tenets of these commands? I don’t think so. I mean, mainstream Christianity isn’t like the televangelist-church-of-the-what’s-happening-now type. I like to think it’s a lot like my church. We have women in authority in all sorts of capacities. My cousin and her husband are both ordained ministers. A couple of dear lady-friends of mine are ordained ministers. Is their preaching wrong? Just because they’re women? I seriously doubt it.

It’s days like this that I wish I had the eloquence of a JSngry or a jazzypaul to get my point across. They say what I want to say, only they say it so much better than I ever could.

I hope you guys have a great gig. Wish I could be there to catch it.

[JSngry]

Citing letters written to local churches (letters that are so often written to address xpecific problems within those churches, and letters which are chock full of the cultural traditions and mores of the time and place) as the authoritative "word of God" is one of the dumbest (to say nothing of most harmful, and therefore counter-productive) things that "Christianity" has ever done (and still does). Not that that ever detered/deters anybody...

I'm vehemently opposed to this kind of ignorance and resultant manipulation/degradation that comes out of Scriptural "interpretation' of the Bible (or any "religious" text for that matter, but I'll take care of my own back yard, thank you...). "Reading in context" applies to more than quoting verses out of context, it means (or SHOULD mean, anyway), knowing the background and intention of the various writings, so one can not get bamboozled into thinking that Paul's telling women to cover their head and stuff like that is anything more than a regional director of a franchise trying to enforce "traditional values" in his various outposts.

Although I've read some commentaries that cut Paul some slack by noting that the individual liberation felt by many of the early Christians was degenerating into near - or more than near - orgiastic behavior, I say "big whoop". That makes that aspect of these writings useful as historical documents, but by giving them "cannonical" status, and especially by downplaying or even ignoring the true nature of pasages such as this, so much harm has been done that "the church" refuses to accept responsibility for, and by God, they SHOULD accept responsibility for it. Good luck on that one...

One of the most disheartening "religious" experiences of my life was when I set about to read the entire Bible straight through. Everything was going along fine (keep in mind that I'm quite firmly an "anti-literalist" believer, so the experience was like the ultimate spiritual archeological expedition), especially finishing up with the Gospel of John - one of the most truly "divine" writings extant. I left out of that one on a high that I thought wouldn't quit. Acts was kinda interesting in a "jazz immediately after Coltrane's death" kinda way, but then came Romans, with that opening salutation that immediately reeks of salesmanship and self-promotion (albeit under the guise of Jesus).

"Who the **** is THIS guy, and what has he done to the Jesus of John?" was my immediate reaction. It was a rhetorical question, to be sure, but the impact of going from the grace and joy of John almost directly into the braying of Paul was an eye-opener, somewhat akin to following a cut by Paul Desmond with one by Ace Cannon...

Iif you're looking for a believer to defend the kind of irresponsible and frequently ignorant and/or malevolent stewardship of it's (supposedly) core "meaning" that has been the hallmark of Christianity atleast since it shook hands with Constantine, you've come to the wrong place here. It's but one reason why I don't mind refering to myself, when asked (and in Texas, you get asked a LOT ) as a "Zen Christian" or a "Jesus Christian". My feelinngs about Pauline Christianity (and PLEASE let's not anybody try to pretend that there's not a difference!) are ambivalent at best...

Anyway, just had to vent about that. Sorry!

[Jazzmoose]

I agree that hurling insults is unneccesary and unproductive.

Yeah, but as much as it happens here, it must be fun...

[Big Al]

Like I said before, I wish I had the kind of eloquence that JSngry has. Thanks for verbalizing what I had trouble saying.

[Big Al]

I agree that hurling insults is unneccesary and unproductive.

Yeah, but as much as it happens here, it must be fun...

I thought that was one of the prerequisites for membership! :rsmile:

[Joe G]

I agree that hurling insults is unneccesary and unproductive.

Yeah, but as much as it happens here, it must be fun...

I suppose some people think so. But then again, some people think that toughing your genitals feels good.

[JSngry]

"Reading in context" applies to more than quoting verses out of context, it means (or SHOULD mean, anyway), knowing the background and intention of the various writings, so one can not get bamboozled into thinking that Paul's telling women to cover their head and stuff like that is anything more than a regional director of a franchise trying to enforce "traditional values" in his various outposts.

Just to amplify on this a bit - there were many different strains of Christianity that sprung up around the same time. Paul's "version" was but one. Some of them, like the Coptics, still surive, albeit in miniature, and others, like the Gnostics (a wacky bunch if ever there was one - how a group could get the point so strongly and then go about executing it so perversely is nearly Python-esque!). The various strains were mostly divided by regionality, but there were inevitably overlaps, and resultant ideological conflicts.

Now Paul was not one to tolerate variation from his party line (he even "took out" Peter, figuratively speaking), so he was on a mission to organize and propagate HIS vision of Christianity (those who wish to think that it was actually "God's vision" are welcome to do so, but apply the dynamic to any contemporary scenario and see if you can reach the same conclusion).

Thus we have the various letters to the various congregations. They are nuanced, and they do show a willingness to "keep the peace" by showing an awareness of the local customs and predelictions of each group, a willingness to keep the troops in line by giving them a little bit of space to keep their "cultural identity", jsut enough space to keep them actively involved and not drive them away.

One one level, this is good business, pure and simple, a model for building a broad, powerful, and effective coalition of diverse components from geographically separated areas. But recognizing that aspect of it is a far cry from making it "God's plan" for women. It's no such thing (Moses's sister was a priestess, for crying out loud, albeit one whose life is greatly downplayed scripturally in relation to the two brothers. Make of THAT what you will in terms of when, where, and by whom the Mosaic writings were codified/finalized), and even if you want to claim divine inspiration, to claim it as an inspiration for any "plan" other than to keep the early church together is just plain wack.

Christians have no grounds for complaint when somebody calls them on the B.S. that the faith has propagated. There have been innumerable tragedies as well as innumerable triumphs. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than a continuation of the same mindset that created those problems in the first place, the mindset that figures that the ends justify the means. Well, if you got such a cynical and corrupted (imo) view of what the ends are...

Another vent finished, hopefully the last one, at least for today.

[JSngry]

I agree that hurling insults is unneccesary and unproductive.

Yeah, but as much as it happens here, it must be fun...

I suppose some people think so. But then again, some people think that toughing your genitals feels good.

I'm a marked man from here on out, aren't I?

[jazzypaul]

Christians have no grounds for complaint when somebody calls them on the B.S. that the faith has propagated. There have been innumerable tragedies as well as innumerable triumphs. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than a continuation of the same mindset that created those problems in the first place, the mindset that figures that the ends justify the means. Well, if you got such a cynical and corrupted (imo) view of what the ends are...

Totally agreed, to a point. Don't punish me for my father's sins, and don't tell me that my faith is bad or corrupted or the like because other people (wrongfully) did horrible things in the name of that faith. Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot, trying to do good by their fellow man while preaching the good news to those who will listen.

Anyone and everyone should be able to tell the difference between words and action.

Boney James says he's a jazz musician.

Dave Holland actually is one.

Same difference.

[connoisseur series500]

(I think that when they challenge you to find something in the Bible, they really don't expect you to look...)

...and Jim definitely looked!

[JSngry]

Christians have no grounds for complaint when somebody calls them on the B.S. that the faith has propagated. There have been innumerable tragedies as well as innumerable triumphs. Pretending otherwise is nothing more than a continuation of the same mindset that created those problems in the first place, the mindset that figures that the ends justify the means. Well, if you got such a cynical and corrupted (imo) view of what the ends are...     

Totally agreed, to a point. Don't punish me for my father's sins, and don't tell me that my faith is bad or corrupted or the like because other people (wrongfully) did horrible things in the name of that faith. Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot, trying to do good by their fellow man while preaching the good news to those who will listen.

Anyone and everyone should be able to tell the difference between words and action.

Boney James says he's a jazz musician.

Dave Holland actually is one.

Same difference.

No, it's not.

"Good Christians" and "Bad Christians" are both Christians nevertheless. (The falseness of Duality raises it ugly head again!)

As for Holland and James, as far as the majority of the world is concerned, they both ARE "jazz musicians", Different types of jazz, sure, but hey...

Some of the vilest people imaginable have been Texans, as have some of the most delightful. Should I claim that the vile ones aren't "real Texans"? That's kinda, uh...naive, isn't it? So is pretending that "most" Texans are "good" ones. I don't know most Texans. Based on the ones that I DO know, I'd say that it's a pretty mixed bag, and that most of 'em have good days, bad days, and days that are a mix of the in-between. Don't know that that's "good", but at least it's real.

As for telling the difference between words and actions, yeah people do just that, and that's why so may people are turned of to Christianity, and to religion in general. The words and the actions have too often been fused in all kinds of ways. That's real, too.

Nobody, believer or non-believer, gets, or is entitled to, a "free pass" just because they claim to be "one of the good ones". You live your convictions and let the chips fall where they may. Can't worry about labels and/or what other people think about what YOU think. If you do, there's till an element of "seeking favor" that undermines the courage of the conviction. Or so I think...

I'm all in favor of balancing the endless negative attacks on religion in general with soem reality - namely that much good has also come from spiritually motivated people, and often enough, organized religion. But only to the point where it's truly balanced, and saying things like "Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities. But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot..." goes beyond balancing. Sorry.

You want to be judgfed as an individual? Cool, don't we all? T'aint the way of the world, unfortunately, especailly once you claim membership in a group.

You want to claim membership in a group, be prepared to be alligned with EVERY aspect of that group. If that strikes you as unfair or anything like that, hey, so it is. But a "real Christian" is as real as his or her actions, and claiming that only "good Christians" are "real Christians" is a pretty laughable concept, really. Think about it...

[nmorin]

Yes, people who called themselves Christians killed off the Jewish population in Spain, killed off the American Indians and had a hand in hundreds or thousands of other disgusting atrocities.  But the real Christians of the world have always been a good lot, trying to do good by their fellow man while preaching the good news to those who will listen.

Maybe I am misremembering, but I don't recall you being so subtle, or charitable, in your characterizations of 'real atheists' and 'bad atheists'.

[Uncle Skid]

Hey look! Chuck Nessa on the corner!

[Jim Alfredson]

See, this is the thing that irks me and ultimately turned me away from Christianity as an organized faith. You start with the premise that the Bible is the Word of God. The Great Holy Book. Written by the man himself. Ok, so I read this book, I learn the truths about life, and then I pray and be good and everything is cool.

Oh hey, what about this part all these cats having multiple wives?

Oh no, you can't do that. Unless you're Mormon, but those guys are not real Christians.

What about that part in Timothy talking about slaves having respect for their masters so as to not defile God's name and not to run away, even if given the chance? (Tim 6:1)

Oh don't mind that. Slavery is wrong. We're all equal. That was different times.

Ok. What about that part about adultery. The Bible says adultery is punishable by death.

That's the Old Testament. The New Testament replaces that. We don't do that anymore.

Ok, what about the Ten Commandments. Those are out the window?

No, you have to follow those or you're going to hell.

What about Lot's daughters sleeping with him in order to give him a son?

Umm.... just disregard that.

I could go on and on. I read the entire Bible, after studying mythology at MSU, and suddenly it just seemed like one big Aesop fable. Yes, there are some good ideas in there... some very wise words to live by. But there is also a lot of bullshit, a lot of stuff to imprison people with. A lot of stuff people use to control others with. The whole "original sin" thing for instance. I'd rather not form my view of this world and reality from a negative starting point, thank you. That doesn't seem very healthy to me.

Anyway, I could no longer accept the Bible as "The Word of God" or Christianity as the one true religion, or Christ as the way. I mean, if you just pick and choose what parts of the Bible are relevant and which aren't, doesn't that poke holes in the whole concept?

It became obvious (to me) that it's just a collection of stories. I fought with this for sometime. In fact, if you were able to go back to the old BNBB, you'd find me saying the exact same things to Alexander as jazzypaul is saying now. The idea of creationism and evolution going hand in hand (how long is a day to God?), looking at nature and thinking how someone must've designed this, it's so perfect... etc.

Do I think this world is the end-all be-all of existence? No. Do I think we can scientifically quantize everything and that which we can't does not exist? No. Do I think there is no such thing as God? No. But I also can't accept the idea of a vengeful God (as a "him", a purely physical definition of something that probably isn't physical in our sense of the word at all) sitting on his throne up in the sky, pissed off because I don't bow down and worship him every day. Angry because I don't fear him. Casting people into Hell that worship other deities. Give me a break. An omnipotent being who created the entire universe would not be so petty, so human.

But hey, that's just me.

[7/4]

Nice B3 and quite an interesting thread!