Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

A question of context

For 1900 years, women were a sub-human group to be seen and not heard, property of their husbands, property of their fathers, not allowed to have a voice, not allowed to work, let alone be a pastor or spiritual advisor. (from the perspective of Christianity)

For approximately 100 years, that has changed. From the viewpoint of Judaism, those rules have been in place for far longer than 1900 years.

That's a ratio of 19:1. Are the verses with which people have a moral conflict really "out of context", or are they merely inconvenient in 2013? Keeping in mind that there are still many denoms who believe women should not be the head of household, should not have positions of power (like president or governor) and should not be allowed to serve in a pastoral role...

More to the point - for 19 centuries, a religion evolved to become more restrictive over time, not less, spurred on by the same forces that split it into multiple denominations. Isn't it disingenuous to suggest after the 20th century that things are being taken out of context, rather than admitting that the morality of the modern world is in direct conflict with the morality of the religion that had the same core values for 2000 years?

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 11:28 AM on Mar. 28, 2013 in Religious Debate

Level 51 (421,172 Credits)
Answers (7)
  • Isn't it disingenuous to suggest after the 20th century that things are being taken out of context, rather than admitting that the morality of the modern world is in direct conflict with the morality of the religion that had the same core values for 2000 years?


    Yes, hence the need for cherry picking. Many try to make their religion mesh with their current 21st century lifestyle, while at the same time crying out about "the downfall of society" and needing to go back to "simpler", AKA the 1950's, times. It kills me how I'll see people post rants on FB about how being gay is a choice & marriage is between a man & a woman, when those same people had pre-marital sex in HS, college & after college. They used to drink heavily, do drugs, smoke & have tattoos. Hell, one even recently cheated on his wife but, still goes on about the sanctity of marriage. Can you say hypocrite?!?

    3libras

    Answer by 3libras at 11:57 AM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • The Bible was written in part to try to make sense of the world for a Bronze age society, while at the same time to try to justify the immorality of the times - like slavery and the subjugation of women.  They were just as wrong then as they are now . . . we've just caught up a little bit to reason.  Hopefully, we'll catch up to reason even more in this century and blow away the superstitions of ancient tribal concerns.

    jsbenkert

    Answer by jsbenkert at 12:05 PM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • If a religion that okays sexism, bigotry, slavery ect. didn't conform and use excuses like taking the verses and apply them to that time and society it would die out. It would not fit into our society... Well for most of us. Stand behind your religion compleatly or admit your uncomfortable with some of it tenets.

    Is gods word not literal and binding or not? Can people ,speak for god and change his tenets now?
    skinnyslokita

    Answer by skinnyslokita at 12:45 PM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • Christians can believe whatever they want but do not write laws based on one religion!
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:05 PM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • "Isn't it disingenuous to suggest after the 20th century that things are being taken out of context, rather than admitting that the morality of the modern world is in direct conflict with the morality of the religion that had the same core values for 2000 years?"

    Not when the quotes are truly being taken out of context. The Bible is a huge book and to pull 1 or 5 or 10 quotes out of different places and expect to understand the whole book is disingenuous.
    missanc

    Answer by missanc at 2:54 PM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • Not when the quotes are truly being taken out of context

    I think you're missing my point here - the original context is that you (or I or anyone else on this site) is not allowed to have an opinion on it in the first place. You are defending a document that says you are property, and then getting offended when that is pointed out.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 7:25 PM on Mar. 28, 2013

  • I'm not offended. The document I read says that my husband (and men in general) are to hold me up on a pedestal and basically treat me like a queen. No, I have no problem with that. It says that as a women I AM supposed to work and work hard, it says I am to be my husband's help mate and at times that may mean working outside of the home. It says that I should be a spiritual advisor to other women, that I should teach them, be their "pastor". But my husband is the head of my household.
    missanc

    Answer by missanc at 9:46 AM on Mar. 29, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN