Famous MAGA pastor says American women are “pigs with gold nose rings,” wants to overturn the 19th Amendment right of women to vote …
Famous MAGA pastor says American women are “pigs with gold nose rings,” wants to overturn the 19th Amendment right of women to vote …
The Bible also very clearly states that one should never get a tattoo
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+19%3A28&version=NKJV
or wear clothes made of mixed weaves of different fabrics.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy 22%3A11&version=NKJV
Yet its very common to see Christians with tattoos, especially of a cross, or wear clothes that have some mixture of cotton and polyester and denim or whatever.
… almost like they’re cherry picking the Bible to support the positions they themselves already prefer!
EDIT: (for these two verses, the translation is the same in basically every … translation version, just went with NKJV because why not?)
They do cherry-pick, that’s true. But my point is you don’t have to cherry-pick to wind up at awful levels of misogyny and racism. If you take it at face value, misogyny and racism is the message you should take from it.
They can hand-wave some of it away with the whole ‘Jesus fulfilled the covenant’ nonsense (which is 109% cherry-picking), but throughout the whole thing, both old and new testaments, women are property and some races are meant to be slaves.
This is what fundamentalists – who famously don’t cherry-pick, but believe the literal word – believe. It’s atrocious, but their interpretation is literally correct.
I agree with you that most fundamentalists who read it come away with very, very misogynistic and pro slavery views.
I do not agree that that is not the result of cherry picking.
I came from a fundamentalist upbringing.
For almost every single point espoused by them, ‘adhered to’ by them… you can find another verse that contradicts it, a parable that can be interpreted to negate it, a same story told multiple ways where various details of the different versions cannot possibly all be equally true and correct at the same time.
… While fundamentalists say that the entire Bible is inerrant, and has no contradictions… this just is not the case.
Even fundamentalist ‘literalists’ have beliefs that they base on non literal readings of verses.
Its… basically impossible to do a literalist reading of the book of revelation, for example.
Fundamentalists interpret that book metaphorically.
Yeah, contradictions are baked in, which is part of why it’s endured this long. But for the misogyny and sexism specifically, there aren’t really any contradictions.
Jesus never said woman are equal or slavery is wrong. You could maybe argue he didn’t condone the genocide of his father by saying lepers deserved compassion or whatever (though that’s also a stretch), but there’s plenty of misogyny and racism in the new testament as well, so he absolutely did not counter any of that.
Anyone trying to argue Jesus (an apocalyptic preacher who was a product of his time) wasn’t misogynistic doesn’t actually know scripture or history. The preacher in the article is absolutely following the gospel, even if that’s an uncomfortable truth.
There are multiple times where Jesus breaks with the established gender norms of the time.
Telling off the people about to stone the prostitute/adulterer to death would have been utterly shocking.
For starters… men and women were not supposed to be talking to each other in public, unless they were your family.
At the time, you basically needed two women to directly witness something… to be the equivalent of one man repeating hearsay, or claiming something with rather dubious evidence.
So… throwing himself into that situation… its actually so unbelievable that it would have played out as it did, that most non fundie scholars are almost certain it never happened… because Jesus most likely would have been beaten or killed.
If it is then a fictional story… the intent of adding it was clearly to indicate … not as equal of a view of women as say a modern feminist, but a radically, radically progressive and more equal view for the time.
As to being against biased treatment of ‘other’, foreign groups of people?
Jesus again talks with a woman, in public, a Samaritan drawing water from a well.
This is an oversimplification, but basically Samaritans were viewed by many other Jews as … not really Jews, as heretics, because they did not see the Temple in Jerusalem or its Rabbis as necessary or important to their version of Judaism.
Its… sort if analogous to how many modern Christians don’t view Mormons as Christian, even though Mormons believe they are.
But its much more extreme than that. Samaritans and other Jews would often refuse to speak to each other, beat the shit out of each other, kill each other, be very very intolerant.
But Jesus just sees this ‘foreign, heretical’ woman as another person, says it does not matter whether you worship at the Temple or not, and attempts to convert her as respectfully as with anyone else.
He ‘heals’ women with bleeding disorders, in a socioreligious environment where a bleeding woman would have been seen as untouchable, who should basically either be banished from society or sequestered and only tended to by other women, who would have to ritually purify themselves after every encounter.
…
You are correct that examples of misogyny and racism do exist in the New Testament as well. Paul comes to mind for having a much more traditional view of women.
But, there absolutely are ways to cherry pick or emphasize the … not as equal or progressive as modern views of equality and progress… but astoundingly more equal and progressive things Jesus did and said.
There absolutely are progressive churches that emphasize this.
You can interpret the totality of the Bible in many, many ways.
I’m not saying he wasn’t progressive for his time in the context of those stories, but progressive for his time still meant the utter suppression of women within the culture.
Women weren’t allowed to have opinions, conduct trade, or own property, because they were property themselves. eta: and Jesus didn’t explicitly say women should have those rights.
If you believe the bible is the infallible word of god, it shouldn’t be controversial that women are like livestock.
Now, you can rationalise progressive values by saying if Jesus was alive today, he wouldn’t have gone along with all that, but that’s just not what the bible actually says.
The bible isn’t the infallible word of God though, at least not according to anyone but the most fundamentalist and not particularly literate sects, it’s a collection of stories sometimes about God and mostly about their fallible human followers originating from entirely different religions, cultures, and centuries that were passed down though oral tradition and copies of copies of copies for centuries. Hence why so much of it is open to debate even within a given church, even before getting to how much of it is explicitly metaphorical or any of its actual history might have affected how said stories were retold and which parts survived.