[kaesar14]

I'm not cherry picking out of context. The following lines don't make it any better to me. The text is ultimately still saying women should bow and submit to their husbands decisions in all things, as long as their husbands treat them well. Yeah, I get that this was 'progressive' for its time. I still find it absurd people follow text like this as holy.

Your interpretation is well and dandy but perhaps as a society we need to stop holding text that's so dated in such high regard, where many peoples interpretation is far less optimistic and charitable than yours.

[garmaine]

It’s worth noting though that all your quotes are from the various post-gospel letters, not quotes from Jesus.

[kaesar14]

It's all in the Bible.

[garmaine]

Yeah but this subthread discussion is regarding "are those passages taken out of context by preachers?" And it is interesting to note that the quotes given are all examples of 1st century preachers attempting to apply Jesus' message out of the original context. Yes the epistles are part of the Bible, but they are a distinctly different category from the gospels or accounts of Old Testament prophets. The guys writing them are not believed to be infallibly writing from the hand of god, and even fundamentalists agree they must be interpreted within the context in which they were written and their intended audience.

Mind you I'm an atheist, albeit with an amateur interest in biblical scholarship and archaeology. I just find that period interesting. And I think there is plenty of bad things Jesus actually said or did to point to. But I do believe the most egregious moral flaws of the New Testament are in the epistles, not the the gospels.

[AuthorizedCust]

I think you're committing a historical fallacy. What you're saying is like condemning Abraham Lincoln because he said things that today we'd find unsavory or unenlightened. Fact is, Lincoln was highly progressive in his days.

Yes, the scriptures include things that are problematic, especially in the context of today's mores. But in so many cases, understanding the norms of the times really helps understand the "why", which is important.

[kaesar14]

The historical fallacy would be saying that early Christians were reprehensible because of their views independent of the time they existed in. I never said that. What I am saying is that following the teachings of those people 2000 years later is what's foolish, as we've come quite a long way in moral development since then.

In the case of Abraham Lincoln, he deserves credit for being progressive for his time in his pursuit of abolition. Does that mean we should follow his views on the inequality of white and black people, because he was progressive then? No, we've come a long way since then.

[AuthorizedCust]

I think we're more on the same page than not.

For Lincoln, celebrate his accomplishments and how he helped us progress. For the difficult things, understand they are artifacts of his time. They are important to understanding him and can further help color who he was.

Reasonable Christians do the same with the Bible.

[kaesar14]

Lincoln was a person. The Bible is meant to be the actual teachings of divinity. That's a key difference.

If we're meant to update for modern morality maybe we need a Newer Testament. Until then, the ambiguity of the words of long dead shepherds leave quite a lot to be misinterpreted, as well-intentioned your interpretation may be.

[coliveira]

However, people don't go around claiming that Lincoln was God's chosen one and that his word is sacred. That's why we're fine in understanding that Lincoln was a man of his time and many things he said should nowadays be considered garbage. This is not how religion sees the Bible and the words of Jesus and other prophets.