I recognize mine is not a fully rationalist/ skeptical position, but that's because I'm not an atheist or someone looking for cheap BOOM! online wins (and if your starting point is "none of it has any validity," then what's to debate? I wouldn't bother.) So I give a lot of bandwidth to self-described believers, because faith has an illogical quality to it, definitionally.
Faith still requires consistency and logic to some degree, which I think your views lacks.
a strong faith should be able to allow it has has some aspects that are reflective of the time of its inception - or may reflect compromises or limitations of the day of its origin, particularly on matters that are not true "core" tenets. Because of course every comment isn't a core tenet....nor should every word be weighed equally.
I already explained my issue with this line of thinking regarding your insistence upon the allegedly dated nature of the Bible, but beyond what I said previously this really boils down to differing mindsets we have. You seem to be a progressive-leaning type, so I feel that's coloring your perspective on the matter.
If you were to go back and review all your comments on this platform, do you think they would all - as expressed - be what Christ would say and how he would say it?
Please don't deflect, and answer my question.
Do you think that societally we have the same concept and view of slaves and servants as existed in 1 A.D.?
Who is "we", Americans? Westerners more broadly, or Christians? And who are you referring to in 1 A.D, what group or country? I'm not even sure what exactly you're taking issue with, I showed you that slave doesn't necessarily mean being whipped as you pick cotton, didn't you see what I posted?
As mentioned a couple comments back, Jesus engaged with women in ways his contemporary society did not.
Cool, but Jesus didn't have a single female among the Twelve Apostles, so you're cherry-picking while presenting the situation as more than it was.
I've been deeply steeped in Christianity for a long time, and challenged to be somewhat thoughtful about it.
I see, that's good.
I don't favor abolition of gender.
That's good as well, but you had me fooled.
And my lived life has certainly aligned to basic gender roles - I am a dedicated mother whose greatest aim and hope has been the development of my children into good, wise, and thoughtful adults. They were christened, baptised and confirmed.
That's great, I wish you and your family well.
But is the thoughtful, loving, and focused rearing of my children the limit of my life as a woman and a person? Absolutely not. I'm a highly capable person. I have goals and aims that exist outside of 1st century (or fantastical 21st century) societal expectations for women.
This is a bit broad but I don't take any particular issue with any of it, though your language echoes a feminist tone, which twists my stomach into knots.
Much like the women disciples of Christ who also bankrolled his tour/life, I also bring more to the table than birthing hips, great ta-tas, and a supplicating and pleasing demeanor (though I have or can do those, too).
If you're not married I'm afraid you'll have to prove that.
Micromanaging people's home lives and roles seems...small.
I disagree, we were created with a purpose, to please God. There's roughly
613 commands, some you may consider small, but "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." - Isaiah 55:8. Our opinions don't matter.
Vying for petty and negative with "begone."
That was in petty retaliation to you falsely accusing me of taking scripture out of context:
Speaking of takings out of context!
I was perhaps a bit more harsh than necessary, sorry about that.
Shitty god if it thinks I should be a submissive broodsow to some dude
You choose dehumanize terminology, that's your warped view of the gift God gives us.
"Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward." - Psalms 127:3
