The Word means what it says and says what it means. But this push in the West for sensitivity training has been going on now for a good 15 years steadily.
i'm not sure its 15 years but more like a good 50 years, antropology is built on being sensitive to other cultures, to me i see the 15 years as being an extremist view of cultural sensitivity to the point that we can say nothing without fearing some offence. but this view is a distortion or as far extreme you can get, nor is it common, dispite some peoples claims it is common
Yeah, I know you think Christianity is archaic and looking from the outside in I understand your view, perhaps more than some atheist/agnostics could ever believe, but yes, this is a bit much.
no i don't think its archaic, at least not if you understand where it came from and why it says the things it does. You just can't use laws from that time for this time or think the same way, that just is wrong, at last imo you should have laws and understanding based for your day and age not one from two thousand years ago
Well, the Divinci Code spins the yarn that the early Church was out to eradicate the matriarchal notion of female pagan deities so that it could institute its own patriarchal rule. This, of course, is pushing the boundaries of reality because the Tanakh (Old Test) came thousands of years before and so ascribes male attributes to Yahweh long before there ever was anything known as a 'Church.' But its been said that the Shekina glory of God expresses feminine attributes. I don't ascribe to an athropomorphic God, however, changing the text is just, no.
yes the devinci code does do that but being fiction with no evidence i think like many christians, its wrong, but i have different reasons.
the fact is the church was out to replace the older gods with jesus, or why take up christmas easter and other non-christian holidays?
in our eyes the tanakh is sexist, arach reminded me that its purely a product of thier culture and to pass judgement from our stand point is not really good or worth it, to change this changes more about the text than just the words, it changes the spirit of the text. this is what they beleived, to change this is to destroy the legecy of a people, even if we find it sexist and disturbing
as for god being both sexes, this is true, many scientists have found that the early hebrews tried to incorprarate both male and female attributes to yehwah to satisfy people who worried about crops and rain and children, which were all female gods areas. people would fear for these things because they didn't think yehwah could effect them
Well, that's just it. If someone wants to view the Bible as sexist or misogynistic or whatever other denunciations they feel are expressed within the text, then simply don't believe in it. But to change the Word in an attempt, I guess, to trick people into liking it better is something demeaning to the atheists who don't like it for a reason. I believe in miracels. The miracle in this case is that the translators hands were not at once palsied for their blasphemy.
most of the reasons for people disliking the bible is the changes in culture over the last 500 years. they also feel that christians today try to deny these facts. the bible is sexist and misogynistic and racist and religiously bias, but thats the way people were.
from our standpoint this is wrong so realisticly we can not place full value on this text as being the center of our morality, at least not in america, it just doesn't work
But to change the Word in an attempt, I guess, to trick people into liking it better is something demeaning to the atheists who don't like it for a reason.
i think its to satisfy those that get hung up on the words used, athiests i think wouldn't care, unless they were trying to argue for one view based on the authors words, i think everyone has done this but, mainly because people say this is the word of god and its written by god
I believe in miracels. The miracle in this case is that the translators hands were not at once palsied for their blasphemy.
maybe, but the translaters of the kjv wern't eather, considering how wrong they were too
™ Version 4.2