Politcally correct Bible

Originally posted by whodey
In my opinion, these are not translations, rather, they are attempting to rewrite certain passages of scripture based on their individual agenda's. For example, when you add or subtract words that define who and what God is you are adding of subtracting from from who God says he is. Do you not find this troubling? I think that masculine pronouns that are u ...[text shortened]... ee it as the literal words from God. I just wish Christians felt the same about the Bible.

Do you think the original writers of the bible didn't take a little liberty with their use of language?

Originally posted by whodey
If the Bible is the inspired word of God then who is man that he should tamper with these words. Do you not agree? However, if it is indeed not the inspired word of God then I agree, who really cares. It just seems odd to me that those who are tampering with the Bible claim to believe it is the inspiried word of God. Why then tamper with the words if it i ...[text shortened]... this world, however, any Chrisitian found doing so with the Bible seems to have wide acceptance.

What if God deigned that they should do it? He created them knowing full well in advance that they would do this. Wouldn't you be the hypocrite then?

Originally posted by whodey
I have found that the Bible is full of symbolism.

I thought you believed it all to be literally true? These two comments must be mutually exclusive, surely?

Originally posted by whodey
God created both male and female

Yes, but he made women subordinate to men. Man was made "unique", women are simply a rib. Definitely a snub.

On this topic, why did God make women? I believe it [the bible] says that Adam was lonely. Why not just make him a drinking buddy instead? Let's face it, procreation wasn't exactly necessary - God could have made humans asexual. We could bud.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I am curious as to why mentioning God as female negates his masculine qualities but not the other way around?

I think you are well aware that in the Bible, or at least in the family unit, woman are to be subordinate to their husbands as Scotty has pointed out. Men are to have the ultimate authority in other words. God is also the ultimate authority over mankind. Therefore, to refer to God using a femamine pronoun would negate this authority that should be conveyed. The implication would be that God is subordinate to another which is simply not the case.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're quite loony, as well as someone who believes in a lot of ridiculous stereotypes.

Is it a sterotype to say that men are have an edge as far as physical strength on average than that of a woman? This was all I was pointing out. God as well has superior power compared to man thus giving him a masculine reference is indicated. In fact, Christ is seen in scripture as the husband coming back for his bride who is the church.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do you think the original writers of the bible didn't take a little liberty with their use of language?

My belief is that scripture was inspired by God, therefore, any liberal use of the langauge would also have been inspired by God with a purpose for it being so.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I thought you believed it all to be literally true? These two comments must be mutually exclusive, surely?

So you are saying that one can not write scripture as being both literal and symbolic? I disagree.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, but he made women subordinate to men. Man was made "unique", women are simply a rib. Definitely a snub.

On this topic, why did God make women? I believe it [the bible] says that Adam was lonely. Why not just make him a drinking buddy instead? Let's face it, procreation wasn't exactly necessary - God could have made humans asexual. We could bud.

I disagree with the notion that God was snubing women. It is true that women are to be subordinate to men, at least in the context of marriage, however, does this mean that men are better than women? I see this as simply fulfilling certain roles assigned to each sex. Men have the burden of making the right decisions for the family unit and women have the burden of supporting their spouse with these decisions.

Let me ask you, is George Bush better than you? After all, you are to be subordinate to him in certain areas, no? We can't have two Presidents calling the shots now can we?

Granted, I do see the potential for abuse with such subordination and I therefore do not endorse subordination when abuse is present in a marriage much like you should not have to endure abuse from George Bush even though he is sitting President over you. After all, you have rights given to you even though President Bush has authority over you. Thus there are ground rules for such subordination. I do see how the femanist movement would be appalled at the notion of women being subordinate to a men. After all, abuse does occur at times when men exercise their authority over women. I feel as though this is at the root of the femanist movement. Like I said, I do not see man as given the right by scripture to abuse women. Therefore, the woman has the right to leave such a situation if presented with this problem.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What if God deigned that they should do it? He created them knowing full well in advance that they would do this. Wouldn't you be the hypocrite then?

If God changes the meaning or context of the inspired word he has already given, what does this say about God? Perhaps he got is wrong the first time, no?

Originally posted by whodey
If God changes the meaning or context of the inspired word he has already given, what does this say about God? Perhaps he got is wrong the first time, no?

Why is the bible so long then. Maybe your point is that God is verbose.

Originally posted by whodey
woman are to be subordinate to their husbands as Scotty has pointed out.

This is not my position. I merely pointed out that the bible (and by implication, God) is a sexist document.

You point out that men are physically stronger (generally). That is true, as shown in many studies, and therefore not a sexist statement - unless you were to then imply that their physical lack of strength makes women inferior and use it to justify discrimination. However, women are better than men at many things too. As a karate-ka I know from first hand experience that girls tend to excel at different kata (forms) than men. They are physiologically built differently. They are much more flexible generally (due to the fact that they don't have some tendons men have to stop our testicles from jangling about all the time). Women are better at multitasking. Men and women have different strengths and different weaknesses. Perhaps you have to be an atheist to see that.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why is the bible so long then. Maybe your point is that God is verbose.

I find it to be very repetitive, not verbose. For example, you have the four gospels about the exact same event which is the life of Christ. They give similar accounts of the same story with different perspectives. I find this to be reassuring in that different books by different authors during different times seem to converge along the same lines. Another example is Revelation. You may think Revelation to be a unique book with unique prophesies. However, you would be wrong. The prophesies are simply reiterations of the same prophesies mentioned in the Old Testament with additional information and perspectives.

Originally posted by whodey
I find this to be reassuring in that different books by different authors seem to converge along the same lines.

Ever been told the same joke by multiple different people?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
This is not my position. I merely pointed out that the bible (and by implication, God) is a sexist document.

You point out that men are physically stronger (generally). That is true, as shown in many studies, and therefore not a sexist statement - unless you were to then imply that their physical lack of strength makes women inferior and use it to e different strengths and different weaknesses. Perhaps you have to be an atheist to see that.

I would agree with you 100% other than the assumption that the Bible is a sexist document. The Bible, in fact, is and has been a huge advocator for women. For example, in the Torah provisions were made for women to have protection via the family unit. Marriage was the institution for such protection. Men could not simply sleep around and have babies outside the family unit that he had no obligation to or care for and simply push the burden on the woman. Also, if the woman lost her husband it was then the duty of his brothers to then see to it that the woman was cared for.

Another example is that there is an entire book in the Bible, namely the book of Ruth, about a woman. Not only that, the book exalts her as a hero in every way. What other religious document exalts a woman in such a way?

Also take into consideration the ministry of Jesus. Women were an intergal part of his ministry. In fact, the early church used to be home groups that were led by women. I think your views about such sexism are misplaced. Granted, there is and has been sexism in the world of Christiandom. I do not deny that. However, is this the result of God or his word being at fault?