"Women are commanded to respect their husbands but men are commanded to love their wives."
Neither love nor respect are true when they're the result of a command.
"we can safely disregard Paul, the misogynist writings."
While I'm happy we agree about Paul, Draug...why?
It's in the Bible, so why is it OK to shrug him off?
I get that it's not the same as a Gospel or anything...
And that I think most believers AND non-believers alike would be a lot happier if Deuteronomy, Leviticus and a fair chunk of Corinthians were just severely red-lined or absent from the Bible altogether (obviously you can't do that, gotta leave it in now, I'm just saying I get the feeling most nice Christians and Jews and Muslims don't tend to look on those books with the same sort of zeal or respect or awe or whatever you'd character the feeling one's supposed to get from a religious awakening in those books.)
But you can't, and it's in there, so...why isn't it fair game, 1 Corinthians?
I mean, it's not as if it's some nobody, either, it's Paul...
And Pauls in duos with peace-loving, attention-getting hippies who are Fools on the Hill or Day Trippers but nevertheless think All You Need Is Love tend to be kind of important, right? ;)
I mean, you could make the fun argument the Jesus/Paul relationship does mirror the Lennon/McCartney one only insofar as the latter in each instance lived longer and "spread" the music/message of those groups to new generations and places.
Paul--er, we're back to Misogynist Paul--is a pretty major Paper Back Writer...
So why is it OK to just disregard him like a Nowhere Man (sorry, these puns are too fun, and make me helpful that All Together Now We Can Work it Out.) :p
"he "grab in secret" means she drub him off by his cock and balls. The penis was considered unclean and not to be touched except for sexual purposes. If she grabbed his hair and drug him away or pulled a grandma ear grab, all would be fine."
...And as fun as it is to think that a bunch of rabbis put what is, undeniably, way, way, WAY too much thought into that...they STILL prescribe having her hand cut off and STILL say to show her no pity (or mercy, as your translation may differ.)
That's not acceptable then OR now.
And then the other example still involves selling a daughter...
Even if you wanted to argue the absolute nicest and say that's like selling her into "marriage" via getting a dowry for the wedding...1. it's in the company of a line discussing the buying, selling and dealings with slaves, so I'm not inclined to be that charitable when its context is against it and 2. that's STILL a sexist take and, I might add, not a case of men and women being equal, as was the original point of those quotes.
"christians that aren't literalists are just inconsistent wishy washy people that want to square their silly irrational belief with things that they can't defend."
I'm inclined to agree somewhat, Socrates...
Obviously there's some room for interpretation with things like the Psalms (they're really more just examples of religiously-themed poetry than theology...which explains why if I had to pick three books to defend it'd probably be Psalms, Job and Ecclesiastes, just because each are more focused on philosophy and literature than 900 year old men and world-wide floods that never happened) but otherwise, yeah...
I think that the Moses story makes for a troublesome-but-good Jewish myth or legend, the same way the Greeks ahead their mythic heroes...
And in the same way Kings Arthur and Lear were likely inspired by real people long ago (the former has plenty of candidates that have long debated, the latter taken from an earlier mythical count of such a king which, in turn, may have been inspired by a real person) but in their given form are just mythic, I think the same holds for King David...he makes for a nice equivalent to Kings Arthur and Lear (all three are arguably great leaders until they lose their way, and all three are, erm, well, not at all as successful at home as they are in the field, and all three face rebellion from their children at that.)
So I think those are the two fair ways to read the Bible--
As either being literal (in which case you're pretty much doomed, as no way in hell that works in 2014), or as a collection of poetry and philosophy and myths and a LOT of very, very, very bad theology that's led to (to be fair) some good things over the years, but (let's also be fair) more bloodshed than just about anything else in the West...and it's not as if the book's anti-violence, either.
(Go ahead, argue that point, anyone, I dare you.) ;)
Generation Jobless
)
)
)
)
)
)