Pyrrho

To make it easy for everyone:

That is not clearly saying that men and women should be treated equally. I believe the traditional way to take this is that everyone can be a follower and get into heaven, regardless of ethnicity, level of freedom, or gender. That is suggested by the context that I quoted above. Certainly, other Bible verses say that men and women are not to be treated equally, and therefore it makes little sense to say that this means that men and women are equal, particularly when the context suggests the traditional meaning.


The idea appears in several Greek authors. Plato, in the Republic, argues for the idea that women should be leaders, the same as men, though he does say that women tend to be physically weaker than men. Intellectually, he said that women are equal in ability with men. If my memory is correct, the Pythagoreans regarded men and women as equal, as well as the Epicureans.

All of these predate Christianity.

Arvel Joffi

It sounds like, Squirrel, that, if labels were insisted upon, you could call yourself a neo-Christian, holding to basic precepts of, it sounds like, the sermon on the mount, and the concept of Christian love.

When I was spiritual, I referred to myself, for the sake making it easy on the curious, as a pseudo- or neo-Buddhist. I was Buddhist only in that I believed in reincarnation, karma, and the unity of all things. I knew none of the dogma.

Nice Squirrel

Yep, pretty much it. Dogamaja can get quite annoying.

Arvel Joffi

I think is very human of her.

Well, I suppose if I were to get some nice palatial home in the heavenly mountains, that would be fine. But I ain't mowin' the damned lawn! And who's cleaning up the cat crap? Heaven without my cat is no heaven at all. Heaven with cat crap is my litter box.

There are myriad places to find arguments and adages for, and parables of the virtues of modesty, respect, and justice. I'll keep my own counsel on their respective places and values, with careful regard to their worth to those around me.

Peter Kirby

Doesn't your Bible come with a user's guide?

I have a NAB with a "How to Read Your Bible" in the beginning, which states: "You may hear interpreters of the Bbile who are literalists or fundamentalists. They explain the Bible according to the letter: Eve really ate from the apple and Jonah was miraculously kept alive in the belly of the whale. Then there are ultra-liberal scholars (outside the Catholic Church!), who qualify the whole Bible as another book of fairy tales. Catholic Bible scholars follow the sound middle of the road, keeping a balance between fundamentalists and scholars who are too liberal. You may make your own choice as long as it is not contrary to the teaching authority of the Church."

Your question tends to assume that "belief in the Bible" is the basis of Christianity. This may be true for many Protestantisms. As I understand the Roman Catholic tradition, trust in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" is the rule of faith that guides biblical interpretation.

To quote the "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" of the Vatican II Constitution: "However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words. ... For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God."

Very convincing, I'm sure.

your friendly ex-Catholic,
Peter Kirby

Common_Cents

You are sweeping in broadstrokes here. I don't think the bible is full of errors and myths. I am a liberal. I don't think the Bible is anti-evolution. I do however believe that the bible is the tool to describe how "to go to heaven not how the heavens go". Equality of women isn't anti biblical either. Eve has a different but equal role in the home. In a marriage the love in the relationship makes both husband and wife surrender to the other but it doesn't matter because you can trust whom you love. Like the trinity. Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are true love. There is no distrust, all three willingly submit to one another. In that setting which the family is based the Husband reigns but would never do anything to dishonor, abuse, or mock his wife and children. Ditto for the wife and kids. Women are equal. Premarital sex however isn't biblical at all.

Arvel Joffi

Broad strokes aren't always bad. It's a pretty generalized inquiry. Although I did say that I'm "people who will admit that the Bible has errors and contradictions, but insist that the general message is absolutely from God." That doesn't mean all liberal Christians; there as just about as many types of Christians as there are Christians. (Except the fundies. They're clones. Evil, evil clones.)

Most Christians I have met use the Bible as a cornerstone of their faith, so things like evolution are part of the question. The Bible states that God created the Earth and everything on it, seemingly in their present forms. So the Bible itself goes against the concept of evolution. Most Christians I know - I tend not to hang out with the literalists - believe quite firmly in evolution. It's seeming paradoxes like this that make me curious. It's obvious they don't take the tales of Genesis literally, but that's the whole crux of the OP.

And the Bible and historic Christianity may tell a husband to love and honor his wife, but expect her to be subject to his will. This is not equality.