From the Main Blog: Which promotes better values, the Bible or Chatgpt?

[webmdave]

By Rebekah ~

I stumbled across this verse in the New Testament...

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." – 1 Timothy 2:12-13

This prompted me to ask Chatgpt, "Should women be allowed to speak or lead over men?" The response was...

"Yes, women should be allowed to speak and lead over men if they possess the necessary skills, qualifications, and experience for the job. Women have the same fundamental human rights as men, including the right to freedom of speech, the right to participate in decision-making processes, and the right to pursue leadership roles."

Bible passages are often used to justify men being deemed the head of the house, which means his opinion will always outweigh hers, and he is divinely ordained to make every decision. Many women end up realizing they have very little control over their own life in this system. Through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the only power women are granted when they are stuck in a position like this is to submit to, and pray over him, and not to quarrel. Divorce isn't permitted except for infidelity.

The truth is, there's nothing about men which makes them inherently better at speaking, leading or making decisions. So how did the church get away with making it the norm to exclude women from such important roles in society? Most churches still don't allow women to be members of the board, deacons, pastors, etc.

View the full article

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, webmdave said:

By Rebekah ~

I stumbled across this verse in the New Testament...

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve." – 1 Timothy 2:12-13

This prompted me to ask Chatgpt, "Should women be allowed to speak or lead over men?" The response was...

"Yes, women should be allowed to speak and lead over men if they possess the necessary skills, qualifications, and experience for the job. Women have the same fundamental human rights as men, including the right to freedom of speech, the right to participate in decision-making processes, and the right to pursue leadership roles."

Bible passages are often used to justify men being deemed the head of the house, which means his opinion will always outweigh hers, and he is divinely ordained to make every decision. Many women end up realizing they have very little control over their own life in this system. Through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, the only power women are granted when they are stuck in a position like this is to submit to, and pray over him, and not to quarrel. Divorce isn't permitted except for infidelity.

The truth is, there's nothing about men which makes them inherently better at speaking, leading or making decisions. So how did the church get away with making it the norm to exclude women from such important roles in society? Most churches still don't allow women to be members of the board, deacons, pastors, etc.

View the full article

 

According to my research, these supposedly are the wordings of Paul. Such wordings in the new testament referring back to rules of the old testament are somewhat rare. This quote probably relates to the supposed quote of Jesus saying " render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's," which in this case could refer to the local laws of the land.  Men were the responsible parties of the household according to law, while woman, children, concubines and slaves were the property of the men. Men could also be punished for the illegal/bad deeds of their wives, children, concubines and slaves so they had to keep them all in check with rules of the household,, where husband-inflicted corporal punishments often applied.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

Paul was a strict Pharisee and his writings show it. Jesus wasn't, and the stories about him tend to feel more kind to women (except that Syrophoenician one where he came across as totally rude to the foreign woman). Christianity, if it didn't have Paul and still survived would look and sound a lot different. All hail the new JPT! 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

51 minutes ago, Fuego said:

Paul was a strict Pharisee and his writings show it. Jesus wasn't, and the stories about him tend to feel more kind to women (except that Syrophoenician one where he came across as totally rude to the foreign woman). Christianity, if it didn't have Paul and still survived would look and sound a lot different. All hail the new JPT! 

Oh, this has me curious, especially that last line. Please elaborate! What would it look and sound like, ya think? 

[♦ Fuego ♦]

The difficult part is figuring out what Jesus might actually have said and done. All the new testament books are written in Greek many decades after the crucifixion, but the disciples and likely Jesus were illiterate and only spoke Aramaic around Nazareth and Galilee. They wouldn't speak the "trade language of the day" because they caught fish, had no refrigeration, and had to sell to locals. So depending on the the stories the writers had heard about Jesus, we have variations of gospels. Some emphasize the Jews being rejected and Gentiles embraced, some emphasize fulfilling prophecy in Jewish scriptures. Mark seems almost patterned after the mystery cults of the day, with Jesus speaking in parables specifically to keep the average listener from understanding and being saved! We tend to gloss over the differences and try to meld them into a coherent story, which doesn't work very well. 

 

Miracles would have caught the attention of lots of people in authority, but didn't. Lots of people raised from the dead when Jesus died would have been recorded by lots of people in Jerusalem, including the Romans. It is fairly clear that the gospels include a lot of embellishment. Professor Bart Ehrman has the position that Jesus was an apocalyptic Jewish preacher and felt he would be the new king, or at least usher in the new king. He made the trek to Jerusalem and did or said things that made him seem like a rabble rouser, so Pilate killed him as he did with thousands of others (The drawn out scenes of Pilate washing his hands and the Jews screaming for the death of Jesus are very likely added by those with an anti-Jewish bent). When he died, his disciples retooled his words and began preaching about being raised from the dead (still in Aramaic). Paul is the one that had learning, converted without ever meeting the physical Jesus and began preaching a Jesus that didn't have a virgin birth (but was born of a woman), Paul ignored any miracles other gospels give to Jesus, and nearly ignores the other disciples except to be in conflict with them over the law and Gentiles.

 

So... if we go back to just what Jesus likely said, he would likely sound more like John the Baptist exhorting Jews and anyone willing to listen to be obedient to the Jewish god, quit cheating people out of money, give generously to the needy, stop being religious hypocrites, and in so doing they would get the favor of the Jewish god and usher in a new literal kingdom on Earth.