priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
So you’re telling me we could have had a timeline where sunday’s mass would essentially be a strip show?
Comment on She strongly disagrees
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Knowing the context of this passage is important. This passage is not God speaking to his people, it’s the Apostle Paul telling Timothy how to run a church. It is not the Bible nor God saying women should be silent. Instead it is Paul telling Timothy that they should not preach in Timothy’s ministry.
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show and Paul was telling Timothy that women and sex should not be the thing that draws in people whom he intended to minister too. He suggested they cover up and hide their heads and remain quiet and not be the focus of the moment because he should want to distance himself from what amounts to orgies in the area.
~former member of the church
Localhorst86@feddit.org 4 months ago
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 months ago
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion? If they’re only meant to be relevant to Timothy, shouldn’t thry have been cut with the rest of the apocrypha?
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
So why are there directives on how to run a church in the official doctrine of this religion?
B/c the religion was invented by people who run churches. Kinda obvious.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 months ago
So then the correct interpretation is that women are not to speak over men, at least in matters within the domain of the faith? And as such the OP stands at face value, no?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Because the overall letters do actually inform how to run a church in context. I.e. don’t use sex and sex appeal to attract attention for your church.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Ah, I read you as saying that the verse is to be taken as only relevant to Timothy. If it does indeed inform how to run Christian churches as part of the official Word, they should be followed, no?
Or is the argument that they only inform overall sect marketing strategy, just as Leviticus should only pertain if you’re to enter a church? (As it was God’s commands for Israelites to be in the presence of God)
(Let’s set aside the discussion on how to interpret context, as each denomination seem to have their own and seldom any actual historical methodology in how to form that context.)
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
The verse is meant to be taken, as with all things in literature, in context, to be applied to how to conduct a ministry. This passage is to say that if your ministry is in a place that sexualizes women culturally and that is a distraction for your congregation, do not sexualize women in a way that would distract them from your message. It is applicable to people other than Timothy, but the letter alleges to be written for Timothy in Ephesus originally.
Rothe@piefed.social 4 months ago
Indeed, it is not apocryphal, but canon. It is part of scripture and god’s word, regardless of who said it in the text.
kek_kecske_31@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Canon is still not god’s word. At least not in christianity and judaism. Its still peoples’ words except for a few sentences of the old testament or except for when Jesus is speaking in the gospels (who is still not the Father). Islam might be different.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
Some additional historical context, at the time where Timothy was going to minister, many pagan priestesses held gatherings where they would shout and show skin and attracted participants with sex and a show
That is hard to believe and sound more like a post hoc rationalisation. Did you get this context from a good source, or was it a partial one, like a christian minister?
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Ancient Ephesus was known for its cultural sexual deviancy. That’s not particularly in dispute. It’s kinda the whole reason Paul sent Timothy there in the first place. The church there was struggling because of its position on sex and monogamous marriage. That position was in opposition to the culture of sexual deviancy. Timothy was sent to help the church there. Paul, allegedly, wrote the Timothy letters to help guide Timothy.
Much of this is in question for actual historical accuracy, but that’s the proposed reason for the letters to Timothy in the Bible. Even if fictional, that’s the context of the letters.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
This is… not what the bible says. The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man and subject to interpretation or waffling. It says that women are lesser than men and should be subject to them and it says it very very clearly.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
You’re missing my point entirely and focusing on one sentence. What I’m saying is that these letters were alleged to be intended for Timothy from Paul and when taken in context, provide a good few recommendations on how to conduct a ministry.
This specific passage is not a directive to all churches at all times or even to all women in all places. This passage is specific to the area of Ephesus where culturally, people fuck a lot. It’s what they do and they are proud about it. Timothy was sent there to help a church which had struggled with the cultural sexuality and Paul says more or less “Those people are all horny, let’s not put women in front of them and risk tempting them sexually.” It was not to say “all women should hide away and shut up.” Like it might seem outside of the passages context.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
If this is so why is it such an article of faith for most of the next 2000 years that women not be allowed to serve as religious leaders. Your reading is just ahistorical. Ignores all other verses that clearly delineate the subservience of women and reasoning for same.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
How other people chose to use the scripture is not within my control. I just wanted to point out the context. I also pointed out in my OP that I am a former member of the church.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
The bible is most definitely subject to interpretation based on the reason 95% of it is illegible without interpretation.
As far as I know, taking that thing literally is a very Protestant/Evangelical way of looking at it.
Like, I distinctly remember in catholic education at school (since that was at the time my “official” religion) the teacher mentioning this. As an example they mentioned Jesus allegedly walking on water. Was it a miracle actually performed? Maybe. More likely it’s just a story made up to convey a message about Jesus since humans cannot physically walk on water and the act of walking on water alone is meaningless without interpretation.
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The bible doesn’t suggest that the bible is the word of man
Al the books in the new testament are named after the man who told the story or wrote the letters, so yes it does.
Rothe@piefed.social 4 months ago
You should read up on the concept of the Canon. They are part of the New Testament, which is part of the Bible, which is Scripture. This is objective fact. There is no slinking away from that even if the words may disturb you.
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Scripture does not mean word of god. It just means a bunch of dudes in 325 C.E. decided that they thought that should be considered truth.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
This is objective fact.
No. It’s subjective labeling far removed from facts.
madjo@feddit.nl 4 months ago
But those men were divinely inspired, right? After all that’s what I, an atheist, keep hearing from apologists.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Divine inspiration is not God taking over the body of man to write some words down. Despite what atheist on the internet want you to believe, religious scholars are still scholars and do have quite a high bar for intelligent discussion.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
You’re saying it not hearing it.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I think its pretty clear that the word of man is not just like their opinion its the inspiration of the divine. It’s not really up for debate.
Jyek@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
It’s funny, it is in fact up for debate which texts are divinely inspired as all the major churches have different canonizations around the world. Lots of crossover obviously, but plenty of questions about what should and shouldn’t be in the Bible.
turdcollector69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m a strong atheist but I really hate when people cherry pick bible verses to support an argument either for or against.
It’s stupid when Christians do it and it’s stupid when we do it.
It’s not even that it’s a bad argument technique, which it is, it’s something exclusively done in bad faith to attempt to dunk on someone who isn’t going to interpret it that way anyway.
By the time people are pulling out Bible verses the entire exchange has turned into a dick measuring contest from which nothing will be gained.
rapchee@lemmy.world 4 months ago
every christian believes they live by the bible, which they fortunately don’t, actually
also faith is supported by the existence of the “perfect”, god-inspired text, of we can show it is neither, we shake the foundations that religion relies onturdcollector69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
“if we can show it is neither”
Not to be a dick but you fundamentally don’t understand religious people because ignoring what’s obviously in front of you is the core “faith” these people talk endlessly about.
You can’t logically disprove religion because it’s not a logical phenomenon.
You’re arguing with someone’s personal interpretation of the Bible when you argue the Bible with religious people, they have no objectivity to leverage.
That’s why I really don’t like using Bible quotes, it’s just indulging in delusion to attempt to disprove delusion.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You rarely convince christians or any other sort of fanatic you argue with them for the peanut gallery to create a pervasive sense that among smart people its a joke so that a few people should ultimately decide to laugh instead of being the butt of it.
It is on the overall working. Religious nones are a growing group and atheism is slightly more acceptable. Once nearly all were Christians. We are down to 62% of the pop and the youngest gen is 48%.
rapchee@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I’m not saying it will work on everyone, but the fewer “supporting” arguments people have, the more questions they will not be able to reflexively dismiss
and i’m basing this on myself, i used to be fairly religious, although i was on a “we don’t know what god really is, and the bible is not fully literal” level, so i didn’t have a problem with texts like this
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s not a bad argument technique to pull out the actual primary document and examine it. You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.
TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 4 months ago
You aren’t bring fair minded about it or examining it in context.
turdcollector69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
That’s unfortunately most interactions I’ve had on reddit and Lemmy.
I think most people just want to comment to be right about something rather than communicate anything valuable.
turdcollector69@lemmy.world 4 months ago
“You can take small portions of a document in a fair minded fashion and examine it without deliberately being misleading or taking it out of context.”
This is literally what’s happening here though, there’s a whole ass comment explaining this quote I’d out of context that I responded to originally.
michaelmrose@lemmy.world 4 months ago
The explanation is bubkis historical re-imagining like when the media sane washes the babble that comes out of Trump’s mouth. He’ll spend 15 minutes babbling about how he thinks magnets work and they report hurr durr somewhere in there he said lower taxes.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
Most modern scholars consider this epistle to have been written after Paul’s death, although a small and declining number of scholars still argue for Pauline authorship.
Rothe@piefed.social 4 months ago
it ought to be called a forgery
That is basically the entirety of the bible though.
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Wasn’t practische the whole of the current Bible version written in something like 300 C.E.? The older books that have been found, like the Dead Sea Scrolls havent made it into the bible.
m0darn@lemmy.ca 4 months ago
Rothe@piefed.social 4 months ago
That is disingenous, because the Pauline epistles are definitely part of canonical bible scripture in almost all denominations, and has been used as such by Christians as well in the past.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 months ago
Guess what… The “canonical bible” was made by people not god.