I believe in the Bible. In fact, it’s one of the best selling publications of all time.
There’s no need to believe in the Bible, it exists, you can hold it in your hands. Believing in it is pointless.
I, too, believe that the bible exists.
Most Christians who know anything about the bible would say this is just a letter from Paul to Timothy on how to run the church in Ephesus, and not a doctrinal command from god.
But shouldn’t it be concerning that a figure as prominent as Paul would say such a thing?
Knowing the context of this passage is important. This passage is not God speaking to his people, it’s the Apostle Paul telling Timothy how to run a church. It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show and Paul was telling Timothy that women and sex should not be the thing that draws in people whom he intended to minister too. He suggested they cover up and hide their heads and remain quiet and not be the focus of the moment because he should want to distance himself from what amounts to orgies in the area.
~former member of the church
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t they have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
So you’re telling me we could have had a timeline where sunday’s mass would essentially be a strip show?
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
That is hard to believe and sound more like a post hoc rationalisation. Did you get this context from a good source, or was it a partial one, like a christian minister?
This is… not what the bible says. The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man and subject to interpretation or waffling. It says that women are lesser than men and should be subject to them and it says it very very clearly.
The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man
Al the books in the new testament are named after the man who told the story or wrote the letters, so yes it does.
But those men were divinely inspired, right? After all that’s what I, an atheist, keep hearing from apologists.
I think its pretty clear that the word of man is not just like their opinion its the inspiration of the divine. It’s not really up for debate.
I’m a strong atheist but I really hate when people cherry pick bible verses to support an argument either for or against.
It’s stupid when Christians do it and it’s stupid when we do it.
It’s not even that it’s a bad argument technique, which it is, it’s something exclusively done in bad faith to attempt to dunk on someone who isn’t going to interpret it that way anyway.
By the time people are pulling out Bible verses the entire exchange has turned into a dick measuring contest from which nothing will be gained.
It’s not a bad argument technique to pull out the actual primary document and examine it. You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.
“You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.”
This is literally what’s happening here though, there’s a whole ass comment explaining this quote is out of context that I responded to originally.
The explanation is bubkis historical re-imagining like when the media sane washes the babble that comes out of Trump’s mouth. He’ll spend 15 minutes babbling about how he thinks magnets work and they report hurr durr somewhere in there he said lower taxes.
Ok even if that explanation is bubkis it’s still to my point that using Bible quotes goes nowhere because you’re using the root delusion to attempt to disprove their personal delusions.
You’d be better off quoting Harry potter or anything else that they haven’t already decided the meaning of or integrated into their personality.
You aren’t being fair minded about it or examining it in context.
every christian believes they live by the bible, which they fortunately don’t, actually
also faith is supported by the existence ilof the “perfect”, god-inspired text, if we can show it is neither, we shake the foundations that religion relies on“if we can show it is neither”
Not to be a dick but you fundamentally don’t understand religious people because ignoring what’s obviously in front of you is the core “faith” these people talk endlessly about.
You can’t logically disprove religion because it’s not a logical phenomenon.
You’re arguing with someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible when you argue the Bible with religious people, they have no objectivity to leverage.
That’s why I really don’t like using Bible quotes, it’s just indulging in delusion to attempt to disprove delusion.
Most modern scholars consider this epistle to have been written after Paul’s death, although a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.
Since it claims to be written by Paul it ought to be called a forgery.
Wasn’t practische the whole of the current Bible version written in something like 300 C.E.? The older books that have been found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls havent made it into the bible.
I was a kid in Sunday school when it dawned on me that my morality and ethics were better than god’s. I wouldn’t do all the awful things he does or punish anyone i love for displeasing me and calling it love. And if I, I mere human, have a higher sense of goodness and morality than god, he’s worthless.
I dont know. Maybe we are evil for allowing half the planet to also have an opinion but it doesnt feel like evil. Feels like justice.
Perhaps its just so simple that the bible has been modified many times by men. That would explain a lot. But otherwise, I just dont see why women would not be allowed to use their brain and their abilities. If god didnt want that, why create them equal to men in abilities?
Its hard to understand.
its hard to understand
One might say intentionally impossible. Almost like theres a million contradictions that make it impossible to draw any actual conclusions. Almost as if its a tool designed to allow the church to control people by being the only source of “truth”
Makes me think God was a woman, and this is her pulling up the ladder.
I’m not being serious, of course, but it’s a fun concept — to me.
I mean it’s not really hard to understand. God doesn’t exist he’s a creation of man, those men were often intimidated or wanted women to bow down to them and worship them. So therefore they created their own scriptures that reflected their own belief system and what they wanted to teach and be worshiped poor.
When discussing god with atheists it often comes down to a point similar to this, “God can’t be real because if god existed they wouldn’t allow XYZ.” In reality we have no reason to assume as much.
If there is a god that entity could be flawed and faulty while still being omniscient and omnipotent. We assume that a being with human sentiments and unlimited knowledge would have to be a good being, but that’s not necessarily so. It’s entirely possible that if god exists it views us similarly to how we view ants and simply just doesn’t share the concerns or beliefs we feel are naturally just and fair.
At the end of the day god could be a giant toddler on the playground and while they are unfair and unjust you have the choice of either believing and following (assuming the Christian god) to go to heaven or not believing and following and burning in eternal torment.
This is all just a thought experiment, but the argument that god can’t exist because god isn’t good is inherently a flawed argument (not that you are explicitly making that argument, I’m just extrapolating off of what you posted, ie god might not be a good guy).
My issue is with the religious folks always hiding their god(s) in our scientific ignorance.
Lightning: A god did it! (Thor, Zeus) until we found out that it wasn’t a god, but just natural phenomenon.
Shipwrecks: A god must be angry! (Poseidon, etc) Nope, just stormy weather, or accidents. No god involved.
Failed crops: A god did it, we must sacrifice a virgin to appease him! Nope, just bad weather, viruses and other natural phenomena.
And now, they’re hiding their god(s) in the Big Bang, because we don’t know (yet) what caused it.
but at the same time they also claim that this eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god, that created this entire universe is also a personal god that cares about what these puny humans are doing in this backwater of a galaxy in their short lives.
Why would an eternal being care about what dust asks them to do?
And why, if we’re so special to this god, did that god make his universe so lethal to us?No christian would possibly accept the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and evil god. Once you start imagining from first principals what ought to be real you don’t end up with Christianity. If you restarted humanity 1000 times you would get newtons conception of gravity every single time you would get Christianity zero times.
I don’t know, I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. If god exists, creation is because of them, and early humans and faith are shaped by them, then the concept of a god who purports themselves as objectively good despite subjective proof otherwise doesn’t seem unlikely. The idea that god might not be good in the way we think good should be is relatively modern and prior to the last 100-200 years god was good because everything prior said so. For fucks sake most people couldn’t read and just trusted the guy in robes to tell them what to think.
So yeah, just like me trimming a plant and putting it in rooting hormone 1000 times, I think an all powerful and knowable god could theoretically always inevitably result in Christianity if they wanted, the bar isn’t that high when the majority of the species lifetime is dismally stupid.
Also, your argument is inherently flawed if you think the contrast of a good god must be an evil one. Concepts of good and evil have fluctuated wildly over the centuries, both in location and sentiment. If god made everything and said they are good then at best good to us doesn’t mean the same thing as good means to them and trying to frame the argument in that is meaningless.
At the end of the day you get to decide if you believe in god or not, if you do believe in god you can still decide whether you like “god” and want to follow it; however, making the logical leap that god doesn’t exist because they aren’t good by your definition is fundamentally flawed.
I’ve contemplated the possibility that there is a God but they regard us as no more real than we regard fictional characters. God, if they exist, could be on a whole different plane of reality than us. Why should they care about our problems? And if God has a plan for me, that might not necessarily be a plan that is good for me.
It’s a good argument when the whole premise of Christianity is “God is all good.”
Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”
Also I don’t think it’s even worth examining a flawed deity in the context of Christianity, because it’s clearly something they made up. “Whats that, lord? Go kill the people we don’t like and steal their land and take their virgins as war brides? Well if God says so 🤷”
Well that’s part of the problem, the people in the situation are flawed as well. A biblical reference that comes to mind is First Samuel 15:3 in which god instructs the Israelites to kill all of the Amalekites including men, women, infants, nursing children, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey. In the story Saul actually sins and disobeys god by not killing everything he is instructed to kill as fucked up as that is.
This is why the Bible is kind of a drag without the new testament. God is emotionally volitile, punitive, and illogical. Jesus provides a framework for redemption, which is what people need here in this life. Reading the new testament, even without the magic and miracles and omnipresent sky-god can give people real ideas about how they should interact with others in this corporeal existence. The old testament feels like kind of a bizarre fairy tale with some historical elements.
If you’ve never seen it I recommend you watch the movie, “The Man from Earth.” It’s a short “indy-esque” movie and, without too many spoilers, focuses on a man who claims he is a prehistoric man who just never died. In his long life span he says he traveled to India and studied with the Buddah and while returning west began to spread the Buddah’s teachings, in time people began to call him Jesus.
Really interesting movie, lots of great thought experiment stuff, but it does make an interesting point that the literal teachings of Jesus are so different from the old testament teachings that one almost wonders how they could come from the same source.
Here’s a good response:
“Shut it rib.”
Poor Sophia.
“The woman should only have a voice in the bedroom, and those voices need to praise the holy spirit or father” (2 Daddy 69:3)
What freaky ass bible are you reading? 😭
The good one
King Mix-Alot version.
2 Diddy 69
:3
deleted by creator
Maybe sophia is already an atheist before reading the book.
So theres a problem. I want to upvote you but you’re ar exactly 42 upvotes at the writing of this comment… What do I do?
It’s safe to vote now as they are at 50.
370 to go
at 69 right now.
8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Timmy, old boy, I think you might have a point here… lol
Id say its important to remember that these are not the words of god. They are the words of men, who would use the idea of god to force their world views on to others. Kinda like reddit… but with less paedos moderating…
It’s Paul. All of the numbered chapters in the new testament are letters from Paul. In this case, to Timothy.
Paul is lame and destroyed the anarchic majesty that was the early church
I’m not that knowledgeable about Christianity. But didn’t god just deliver 10 rules and the rest is men writing shit down?
Heres a secret. Men wrote thise rules also… not a burning, talking bush.
Obviously. 😁 But I mean aren’t the ten commandments the only words attributed to god himself? Or the 613 ones according to Viking_Hippie. Unless you count whatever Jesus said
According to yhe bible in revelation…its all thw word of God, and dont you dare change 1 word or youll get all the plagues and shit om you.
10? Could be as many as 613, depending on who you ask
Christianity is more about the beattitudes. The 10 commandments by themselves are Jewish.
Are you telling me the christian church has less child molesters as moderators than reddit?
Look up subreddit of the year 2008. Pass it on.
more paedos moderating
