diana

I've noticed that there's a lesson to be learnt from any story. If you want to find a reason someone told you a story or why a story came out the way it did, you can find a "lesson" in there somewhere. This does not prove there was a reason for the story, though; it only provides further proof that the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything.

Preach it.

Well there's a classic non sequitor.

Kinda like David Koresh, huh?

You appear to have the Rose-Colored Glasses Syndrome pretty bad for someone who wasn't around in Paul's day.

d

John A. Broussard

How do you feel about the genocidal parts of the bible?

Places where god commits genocide all on his own?

Or do you prefer the instances where god commands the Israelites to kill their neighbor?

Or where god shows his hind end to Moses? No nit picking there. Is that describing yhwh as god is?

I do agree that in many places, it's a really fun book.

Lilyofthevalley

Nice to read this, Revolutionary. I also have read the Bible and have struggled with the character of Jesus. It's easy to disparage Paul but as for Jesus... Let's face it, no one wants to disparage his character.

But read the Gospels and you find a person (Jesus) who seems quite arrogant, impatient, overbearing, egotistical. People ask him quite reasonable things and he's short with them. He consigns people in little villages who don't like him to hell. In short, I never did like him all that much. At one point, he asks, 'How long do I have to put up with you people?'

I can only assume lots of Christians don't read the Gospels closely.

Helpmabob

Hi Diana – At the risk of appearing grossly pedantic, I think the fact that someone has been able to draw a worthwhile lesson from a passage that was specifically put forward as a one ‘which Christians must surely filter out’ supports the view that the Bible has value as an up-to-date guide book, even if you wish to deny that it is divinely inspired. Are you absolutely sure that the human mind can make sense of anything?

John A. Broussard

I read this passage several times and still have difficulty trying to decide what it says.

"A work of fiction can be inspiring, even though it's a work of fiction."

Is that what you are saying? If so, I agree with you.

If that isn't what you are saying, please clarify.

Thank you for your patience.

guy_683930

Paul's not so bad, if you understand him differently than the literalists do, who will ignore all the contradictions between the OT and the NT. First of all, Paul most likely did not write Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, or 1-2 Timothy or Titus. Also, if you understand that when Paul speaks of "Christ Jesus" he is MOST LIKELY referring to a descending-ascending redeemer who did not recently live, there is some interesting stuff in his letters. If you exclude the letters he almost definitely did not write (1-2 Timothy and Titus, and Acts is not Paul's own words, they are Luke's words put in Paul's mouth) he would actually have more in common with the gnostics of the 2nd century than with the literalists of the 2nd century. These are the mitigating factors of Paul. He was wrong about a lot of things, but literalists use Paul when it's useful for them and ignore him or don't pay attention to him when it's not.

freigeister

I love how Christ teaches. Basically, he starts by saying "fuck you all". Then, whoever doesn't walk away is maybe worth some trouble. Every teacher should have such balls.

Julian

This is indeed all true. It is also worth mentioning that the statements from 1 Corinthians that corroborate the pastorals' anti-woman stance were most likely later insertions. Actually, Paul seems to have been reasonably well-disposed towards women, as he refers to women in positions of some authority from time to time. Also, there are non-canonical writings that seem support Paul's acceptance of women, such as Acts of Thecla, for example.

The anti-woman bullshit in the Pauline letters is from some 2nd century asshole who clearly had some sort of self-esteem issues.

Now, I agree that Paul was a whiny, little man, far too full of himself, but he was probably not all that much of a misogynist.

Julian

John A. Broussard

You've brought up an issue here that plagues all biblical exegesis where the character of the writer is being examined.

How do we know which passages are really Paul, and which are someone else?

It seems rather ridiculous to judge Paul on the basis of writings which may or not be his.

And, there is the usual caveat. We don't have the originals--only copies of copies of copies. So, even if we are certain that a given chapter is Pauline, we have no way of knowing how much has been added or removed from the original by later scribes.

Even with the most "authentic" Pauline work, confusion reigns supreme.

See: http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...salonians.html for a good analysis of this letter.

diana

Hi, Helpmabob.

How do you know the correct answer is "the Bible has value as an up-to-date guide book" (which you wish to deny isn't divinely inspired), and not "the human mind is capable of rationalizing anything"? I understand that you choose to select the former, but how do you discount the latter as a distinct possibility?

My point was that your desire to pin an explanation on any given bible story does not mean that story is reasonable. It only means you have found a "moral" in it.

I think I can find a moral in anything. Try me. I may be wrong, but it will be a fun exercise.

Keep in mind that this doesn't mean every story has a moral. It means the human mind is capable of rationalizing* anything, if it tries hard enough.

* I know this is pedantic, but there's a difference between rationalizing and making sense.

d