For the Love of God, The Bible as an Open Book, in paperback, by Alicia Suskin Ostriker (Rutgers University Press, 2009).
Alicia Suskin Ostriker's latest book of essays will make provocative reading for liberals who want to say "Yes, We Can" to taking back the Bible as it seeks to pry a few more fingers from the iron grip conservatives have had on its meaning in the American cultural imagination.
This Bible is not, Ostriker wants us to see, the sole property of those who deny the links between "spirituality and sex, skepticism and joy, Us and Them." As a woman and a Jew, a poet and literary critic, Ostriker refuses to turn her back on the Bible; 'this is mine, too' is the persistent whisper between the lines.
The Hebrew Bible in particular is, for Ostriker, like a river that has shaped the channels of thought and feeling in her mind. But like a river, that force is flowing--dynamic--and quite capable of changing its course over time.
Simple phrases like "the love of God" and "an open book" come to mean...
Read the rest at Religion Dispatches...
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminist Poet & Critic Takes Back the Bible.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/13436
This book sounds VERY interesting. I may have to purchase it myself. As a Jew, I have managed to reconcile the Bible and feminism myself, but it will be nice to have some other resources.
Yes, it's so great to see that feminists are interested in reclaiming the Bible and not ceding it to those who distort it to their own ends!
The link to the book is in the original at RD... thanks for reading!
I'm sorry, but I just cannot see how the bible and feminism can co-exist. I mean, yea people can say "well that's only if you take the bible word for word" but I feel that if you do not take the bible word for word, there is reason for you to disagree or be skeptical about the bible. so, what does it have to contribute if you cannot even take it as a whole? i know many people do not want to "throw the baby out with the bath water" but i just dont see how the bible could have anything more to offer than just basic knowledge. i.e. don't commit murder - well, no one likes to see their loved ones get killed so why would they kill others?
i dont know, i am an ex-catholic here so i used to be into the bible and religion a lot. i dont think taking the bible and using it to co-exist with feminism is really that good because of all the horrible things it says about women...you can never erase that.
Well, I don't know much about the Catholic religion. If it's anything like my Catholic ex portrayed it as, then of course a word-for-word reading of it is very important. But that doesn't hold true for every religion that uses it.
Since the author of the book in the OP is a Jew, it's very clear to me that she is not using the Bible in a word-for-word way. No Jewish congregation that I've ever studied or prayed with has ever done so.
It always made my Catholic ex just about have a heart attack when I would question and probe at things in the Bible, but that's pretty much part and parcel of Judaism to do so. Judaism is a lifelong study, and you'll often hear that you can ask 3 Jews a question and you'll get 4 answers. For me, personally, I feel like the point is not to arrive at a final answer, but to keep asking and discussing. I find real joy in that.
To the OP - thank you for posting this, I'm always glad to add new female voices to my collection of Jewish books.
I agree. I dont think religion is good at all. Its not all about just the religious people that choose to follow it crazily that makes religion seem so irrational. Religion is just silly, infantile and is more akin to stories than truth. Of course, if they are going to be practicing religion they should do it in a non-discriminatory way, but if they arent going to change the words in the Bible any zealot in the future can try and revive the old interpretations as the "Gods word" version and make it sound more authentic, thereby jeopardizing any progress from taking root.
Anyways, religion doesnt seem to make much sense or have any intellectual quality to it. Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, turning to salt. It sounds all like crappy childrens fables. I mean what would the Bible look like without all the discrimination, violence and misogyny? Probably about 10 pages of 'duh.' They'd also have to change their religion. The 'virgin' birth is idiotic and the fact that a 13 year old girl was impregnanted by her father (father God) is far fetched. The reality is, she was either raped by God, or Joseph, and being that I dont think it was God, it most clearly points the finger at Joseph.
I am happy, however, that there are those out there that are trying to espouse a more enlightened version of their belief system and trying to change the extremist discriminatory religious culture.
Exactly, it's a myth. And certain myths you can't pretend to be feminist when it isn't.
Yea, I think that is what I was trying to get at...it is just so contradictory and I think one of the reasons people try to hang onto it or "fix" it in a way is because they do not want to let go of their beliefs. And hey, for some, that is completely fine because some people just cannot get through their lives without a belief in something. But other than that reason, i cannot see why anyone would want to be two things that completely contradict one another.
Anyways, religion doesnt seem to make much sense or have any intellectual quality to it.
Gopher, if you believe that, you've never debated a Jew. Seriously.
We are not "Christians without Jesus". Judaism shares the the Hebrew Bible with Christians (and to some extent Muslims), but most of us have different views of God and religion than Christianity or Islam, neither of which is incompatible with feminism.
While we are monotheistic, Jews are agnostic in the sense that nature of God is not defined. For many Jews (if not most) God is not the paternalistic deity of Christianity or Islam. (We don't do Hell, either.) And liberal Judaism does not take the Bible to be the infallible word of God never to be questioned. We see it as the work of men of their time. We are taught to question everything , and adapt when necessary. This is why Biblical law has largely been replaced with a modern value system, which includes equality for women and gays.
I really wish people would learn something about what Jews believe before calling us "silly" or "infantile".
Doesnt the orthodox Jewish religion think women are dirty if theyre on their periods and are less than animals?
Jewish women as less than animals? Heck no! That... I don't know where the hell you got that idea.
Okay, there is something to the "women on their period are unclean". But, that's the only point your comment.
I got the 'ess than pigs' after watching a movie called "When Do We Eat" a while ago. They are all over for Seder and their oldest son is a Hassidic Jew and right before he has sex with a distant cousin he says that he shouldnt be tempted by women because they are less than pigs (of course then they have raunchy sex).
And if I'm right about the periods thing, even though thats one thing then that proves that its sexist (and surely not devoid of sexism like you claim). I know theres more sexism but havent read up on religion lately to point anything out.
I also wanted to ask you and I know this is going to sound ignorant but what is 'that wall' that I see on TV shows in which the jewish men are kissing and bowing their heads called? And what are they doing and why dont I see women doing it? I could look it up but info off the interet could be distorted.
I never said devoid of sexism... just far, far less sexist than seems to be assumed in this thread. And I have never seen that movie (or heard that opinion from either of the Chasidic rabbis I've spent any time with).
As for the Wall, it's the Western Wall, the last remaining part of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. (Also known as the Wailing Wall or the Kotel). You don't see women because it has two sections, one for men, and another for women (one of the other places traditional Judaism does have some degree of sexism), and for some reason most of the pictures only seem to be of the men, though I can tell you, having been there, women can be just as emotional there. The location is the holiest accessible site in Judaism. (The place that is the holiest is probably under the Dome of the Rock... we can't be sure if it's there without archeological studies, which just aren't going to happen.)
If you want my criticism of the way religion in Israel is handled, let me know. Believe me, I'm perfectly capable of criticizing my own religion.
Also, thanks for the explanation about the Wailing Wall. I didnt mean to sound ignorant, but always wondered what it was.
You're welcome
I said the stories are silly and infantile. Surely you would agree if youre a liberal religious adherent? The Virgin Mary? Adam's rib? Noah's Ark? There is always someone out there that has the 'original' script of the denominations religious screed and wants to claim that this is the authentic way of practicing the religion because 'this' book has not been altered. It threatens any liberal interpretation.
Well, I'm not going to comment on Mary, as that's outside my religious tradition. As for Adam's rib and the Noah story, they are, in liberal Judaism at least, seen as lesson-stories. Not silly or infantile, but rather stories we are meant to take a lesson from. Admittedly, most of the Adam story interpretations are heterosexist, and some are sexist (there's several interpretations), while the Noah story has layers to it that are very interesting (and details that are fascinatingly similar to the Gilgamesh stories). Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Bible, any of it? Those stories may be that, stories, but they aren't infantile.
As for the person who claims that they have the "right way" and the "unaltered book", well, Judaism has a "unaltered book" in ALL denominations. And yet, the liberal denominations are going strong. If you want a history lesson on why in Jewish theology this works, e-mail me at ElaineRose@aol.com. I don't know enough about Christian denominations to say how true what you said is to them.
"Out of curiosity, have you ever read the Bible, any of it?"
Sadly, yes. When I was about 6 I attempted to read the entire Bible word for word to get power, authority, prestige and pat on the head points at Sunday school and to learn this supposed 'wise' religion. I thought it would make me look good since I was so young. Everyone touted that they had read the Bible and knew it word for word and so since I was a procious kid and a smart student decided to take it on as well. However, I got a complex after a few pages of reading it in which I started to hate myself as a female and never again opened it unless it was to look up a passage as instructed by the Sunday school teacher (or oclor in it when I got bored as an adolescent). Reading point blank that women brought evil into the world doesnt exactly build a girls self-esteem up. I stopped reading it for a week and then resumed reading another chapter a week later which bored the hell out of me. It was pages and pages of family trees. "Izakial marries Mary, ect and they had a son named Joshua, ect, ect."
Women brought evil into the world? I guess... but that's not really how the story is looked at from a Jewish perspective. It's a loss-of-innocence story. Not that evil suddenly exists, but the KNOWLEDGE of evil does. The name of the tree is the tree of knowledge. And, at the end of the story, both man and woman are punished.
Like I've said before... The Bible can be seen to say many different things.
And yeah, the "begats" are horribly, horribly boring.
Right. I forgot how Adam was punished, but woman was punished by making child birth painful (which is why Catholics dont believe a woman should se birth control because its her natural everlasting punishment). Was Adam's punishment everlasting like womans? And why is knowledge of evil something to punish? Wouldnt you want to have knowledge over it so that youre empowered? I think no matter the interpretation it still sets up woman as the one who brought evil or knowledge of evil into the world and therefore meaning that they should be punished (which is why in Catholicism women cant be priests). If Adam and Eve were perfect then why would it be a problem for them to know of evil?
Judaism doesn't have a big hard-on for sin like Christianity does, and Genesis isn't interpreted in a "sin sin sin!" way in Jewish tradition.
God was less angry with Eve than with Adam, because Adam was told directly about not eating from the tree. Eve only got the information secondhand, through Adam.
Essentially, the punishment for Adam and Eve was the same - leaving the Garden of Eden. Eve feeling pain at childbirth wasn't a punishment so much as it was a foreshadowing of what was to come. By leaving Eden, they now had to live and feel human troubles.
Viewing this story through a Jewish lens, it's important to remember that Jews don't have the concept of Original Sin. We believe that people are born as a blank slate. If you're using Genesis as a blow-by-blow of what really happened (I'm not sure if any Jews DO, I have very little contact with Orthodox Jews), Eve didn't really change much, if anything. She certainly didn't ruin the world.
The Catholic Church condemns the use of birth control, not because of a belief that women should be punished, but because of the belief that all sex should be open to the possibility of procreation. (For similar reasons masturbation and such are condemned.)
And the Catholic Church forbids the ordination of women because Jesus and his twelve apostles were all men, and the church has traditionally only ordained men.
While those are the teachings of the Catholic Church, many Catholics, including some Catholic theologians, disagree with them or ignore them. In the US, a majority of Catholics disagree with each of those positions (around 80% consider birth control acceptable).
Also what about the orthodox practice of not having unmarried women in the presence of men after a certain time. I was watching "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and Larry David was trying to get his friend bumped up the transplant list so that he didnt have to donate one of his kidneys to him. He finds out that the director of the transplant program is an orthodox Jew and befriends him after ramming his car and posting a note on the windshield. Larry invites him to a cabin to go skiing and the director brings his orthodox daughter. Larry and the daughter end up on a ski lift together and like ski lifts do, it stopped. She asked what the time was, and he said (I think) almost five. Anyways about two minutes before six (I think) she asks him to jump. He chokes out a "what are you, crazy?" And she fumes at him and then tosses herself off the ski lift. She said she had to because a single woman cant be with a man after a certain time. Thats another example of sexism.
You're taking Curb Your Enthusiasm as fact?
Untrue. Now, unrelated women and men aren't supposed to be alone together, but women and men can be together.
"Those stories may be that, stories, but they aren't infantile."
Why isnt Hans Christian Anderson in there too? Why isnt his fables a religion? I cant imagine getting much depth from any religious screed any more than I can from one of Anderson's story books. I dont think any adult would get real ethical or philosphical depth from the Bible stories even if theyre not thought of as tangibly real. Why not just add more? Some Sartre?
That's where faith comes in. And in Judaism, the Talmud. You wouldn't believe what can be found from a story. (Sometimes I think the Talmudists went overboard.) And in some way, they are their own collection. Like Aesop has his lesson-fables, the Bible is a specific set.
And there really is some real philosophical depth. The sheer numbers of philosophical, and mystical works derived from the Bible indicates that there are some. Look up Maimonides for a Jewish rationalist view, and the Zohar for a roughly contemporary mystical view. Judaism is also a religion of questions. If you got that far, there's the story of Jacob wrestling an angel, and his name gets changed to Yisroel, Israel, meaning "wrestles with God". That's the Jewish philosophy. Questions and challenges are part of it. Accepting things unquestioningly is against everything I grew up believing. Judaism emphasizes the times major religious figures argued with God- and won.
I wonder what would happen if I gave a bunch of Talmudic scholars Sarte and told them to interpret it the same way they do the Tanach. Actually, it would probably be one of the most in depth, and odd readings of Sarte... but it would be fun! (I'm not sure if they'd do it... but I'd love to see it done.)
Feminist theologians have been finding amazing and fascinating ways to reclaim the Bible for awhile now. I've never been able to reconcile it with my ethical system, for a whole host of reasons, but that's another story. To say that it is 'silly, infantile and is more akin to stories than truth' shows a disturbingly patriarchal view of the world that privileges rationality and the notion of one truth (interestingly, both ideas very closely associated with Christian thought) over an appreciation of ambiguity, complexity, and all the plurality of the world.
I think its sexist to define women as ambiguous, pluralistic and faux complex and to denote anything thats not like that, a extension of the patriarchy (ie, male). I think limiting gender roles and constructs are a product of the patriarchy and thats what youre doing in the above post.
I have no idea how you got the idea that I was suggesting that women are 'ambiguous, pluralistic and faux complex' .... I was saying that the view that rational thought is the only legitimate form of thought denies ambiguity and complexity in the world, not that women are ambiguous and men are rational. That would be absurd.
I'm generally in favour of questioning hegemonic ideas and complicating binaries. This includes gender, but also the associated rational/irrational thought binary that has dominated our thoughts for quite awhile now, promoting foreign policies, ways of using medicine, and cultural practices in ways that hurt everyone - but particularly women. I don't think it's possible to break down gender binaries without breaking down other binaries in our society as well.
As for this: 'It establishes the false premise that anything you dont agree with is because it has been distorted by patriarchy and is therefore illegitimate. In short youre using the patriachy to silence diiverging opinion.'
Again, I have no idea where this came from, but I wasn't aware that putting forth my opinion silences yours (especially considering yours seems to have a lot of weight in the world today... most people, even religious people, tend to be in favour of there being a Truth that we can discover with facts). Yes, I do believe that by living in a patriarchal society, most of our views (including mine) have been distorted by patriarchal thought. But to try to overcome that, I believe we should be open to new ideas and learn to truly listen to other people (which is rather hard to do if we believe there is one truth), not just assume that anything we think is okay because we think it. I don't feel comfortable with the idea of having unquestioning faith in anything, whether it be science or religion (science does of course allow us to question things, but not its basic underlying premises, which is where the problem lies).
Anyway, here is where I back out, I've been spending a lot more time on this blog than I should have been and I'm afraid I'll have to retreat back into the real world for awhile.
"shows a disturbingly patriarchal view of the world that privileges rationality and the notion of one truth (interestingly, both ideas very closely associated with Christian thought) over an appreciation of ambiguity, complexity, and all the plurality of the world."
This is also dismissing my views under the default (that I cant help) of living within a patriarchy. It establishes the false premise that anything you dont agree with is because it has been distorted by patriarchy and is therefore illegitimate. In short youre using the patriachy to silence diiverging opinion.
Agreed 110%. There's a gay theology professor here who I love to pieces, but seeing him try to use the Bible to support homosexuality just makes me cringe. It's not God's word; it's the word of 2000-year old heterosexual bigots. God may love you (though I don't believe in a higher power), but the tools who wrote that book never will. Toss it out.
The thing is, it's easy for me to say "stop basing your self worth on some stupid book" because I'm an atheist. In the end, I think it would be way better to just scrap religion, but I know that ain't gonna happen anytime soon. So in the meantime, if people want to try to re-interpret clearly bigotted, 2000-year-old word-- I say go for it. Because 1) lots of people need religion, including women and members of the LGBT community, and 2) modern-day bigots who will never give up the Bible need to be dealt with on their own terms sometimes.
Right, it would be like preaching racial tolerance from Mein Kampf. I mean, why not just read from a proper book?
Not an accurate or appropriate analogy
Why not?
1. The Bible is the world of God; Mein Kampf is the word of Hitler. Yes, God is a genocidal maniac as presented in the Bible, but comparing him to Hitler, I think, gives the latter far too much credit.
2. This thread discusses Judaism, and bringing a Hitler analogy into the mix is insensitive and unnecessary.
God may love you (though I don't believe in a higher power), but the tools who wrote that book never will. Toss it out.
Win.
HA. Thanks
It seems to me that the bible was written with the purpose of establishing Jews (and later Jesus followers) as members of distinct societies with the express exclusion of others. As portrayed in the bible, god is not loving; he is jealous, vengeful, and inflicts horrible punishments on those who do not follow his word. I am thinking that this runs counter to the tenets of feminism.
Exactly.
"and inflicts horrible punishments on those who do not follow his word"
And sometimes on the ones that do (Job, anyone?). And on animals, for no damn reason...
Really, the God described in the Bible is a *monster*.
"Really, the God described in the Bible is a *monster*."
I know this is abysmally weird but when I was a toddler I had a fear that God would impregnate me against my will. I thought about worshipping the Devil for awhile. I always made sure to never be too religious (which was easy since I didnt really like it).I grew up in a modern (ie, my parents used birth control) Catholic family in my early years. And all this when I was about 6!
That's another thing: God is a rapist. A child rapist, at that (Mary was 13). If you read the scene with Gabriel, you realize no one ever asks Mary if she wants to carry the son of God. She is TOLD. Not that the consent of a 13-year-old would mean anything, anyway.
Her response to this news, by the way, is the enduring model of Christian womanhood: "Let it be with me, as is your will."
I can't even listen to the Beatles song without cringing.
Yeah. I agree. The God that many worship in the Christian religion is a pedophile incestual rapist. I mean, why would God impregnate a girl of 13? Why wouldnt he rescue her from an arranged marriage to a man more than half her age? But we all know it wasn't God, but Joseph who raped her. Its so weird and sick that Mary, a rape victim/survivor has been fetished to such an extent through the Christian religion that people dont even stop and think realistically about what happened to her. Its sick that a religion was created that revolves around such a tradegy that happened to her. Its like everyone's is persisting in this rape denial and furthering victimizing her long after she died. Its barbaric.
This thread, the last several posts, are why I sometimes have trouble reading Femenisting, and being a feminist. I've been told that what I believe is "silly, infantile" and is childish myths. It makes me feel like I have to choose between being Jewish and being a feminist, that there is NO way to reconcile them. This isn't the first time it's been said, either.
I reject that. I am part of an egalitarian Jewish denomination. I am part of a denomination that allows clergy to perform same-sex marriages. I am Jewish, and I am a feminist.
Why the hell can't religion and feminism co-exist?
RoseRose,
I promise you they can co-exist. I am a Christian (United Methodist) and very active in United methodist Women. We do great work for women around the world and in the United States. I am a Feminist and a Christian at the same time. I don't know why some of these other posters are being so intolerant of religion. It actually sounds like they have a bigger problem with faith than religion. Religious groups do horrible things but they also do good things, like give people community and comfort. Please don't give up on feminism or Feministing (I really like this site).
TO THE OTHER PEOPLE,
Remember how a few weeks ago there was a discussion about not being so negative? Maybe this is one of those opportunities to validate and discuss instead of just bashing. I am sure that you have had experiences that lead you to be negative about religion or faith and if you would like to talk about them I think that would be a valuable post but let's keep the discussion respectful and inclusive. Your opinions are valid and important to open, honest discussion but your tone felt, to me, snarky.
TO EVERYONE, this is such a great site. I am so glad when we can all talk openly.
I think we need to differentiate between being negative and being somewhat realistic here...I don't think there is one person who can deny that the Bible does not hold hostility towards women and especially women who engage in sexual activities. I mean, fornication is punishable by death in several passages. Yes, we recognize that there are churches in todays time that are more lenient and not so black and white on issues, but one the whole, most churches in the world would go by the teachings of the bible than against them. So in my opinion, and in many other peoples, religion is plain oppression especially towards minority groups and women. I'm glad that some people can belong to churches that are more understanding and kindhearted, but one just cannot deny the fact that on the whole, religion and feminism are contradictory ideas.
I am not trying to judge anyone here, but that is just how I personally feel and it is what makes the most sense to me. But then again, I am not one of the people who needs religion in order to feel fulfilled, and as I said before, that is fine as long as no one tries to dictate how society should live.
Somehow, your post comes off as patronizing. It makes it sound like religion is a crutch for people. Also, in specifically saying it condemns sexual acts for women, you forget it also condemns many of them for men (including one of the more famous passages that has at least one other reasonable interpretation that banning masturbation.) Read in an historical context, many of those passages can easily be read to refer to temple prostitution as well, as opposed to general acts. Also, while the Bible is regressive by today's standards, it was a great leap forward for the women of the time (I'm talking about the Hebrew Bible, as I am not familiar enough with the Christian one, or the Koran to comment.) The Hebrew Bible acknowledges women have a desire, and a right to sex, in the same situation as it allows it for men (inside marriage), and gives it as a marital requirement- for the husband. The Talmud (a Jewish Biblical commentary that holds a fairly strong force of law, to varying degrees depending on the denomination) acknowledges this need even more explicitly. In fact, despite its insistence on marriage, Judaism is incredibly sex-positive, acknowledging its power to bring pleasure, as well as to build closeness for a couple. Some of the most frank discussions with an older woman I've had about sex were those with the local Chabad (rather Orthodox Jews) rabbi's wife. The Bible is a large, hard to interpret document. Absolutes don't apply to it very well.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to come off that way and I was really trying not to.
And you are right, the only understanding of the Bible I have is from my Catholic upbringing and so I don't know very much about the Hebrew Bible; I have heard about more of the freedom to express ones sexuality from a friend of mine who is Jewish, and that is great. I also know that Jews tend to be more secular and just "culturally Jewish" than most to where they don't actually believe there is a higher power or follow the laws of the Jewish religion. They just follow some of the customs and traditions because that's all they are; traditions.
And I just want to point out that I do not think religion is a crutch for all, but I actually do think it is for a lot of people; I'm sorry, again I am not trying to come off in a bad way, but this is what I have observed in my life so far and I can really only say that the people I have come across who are religious but I do not think it was a crutch for them are people who are sort of spiritual and do not put themselves in any religious category or institution. I think about 98% of the Christians I have met have been afraid of something, whether that be death, hell, disobeying god, or there being nothing out there at all and so they do not know what life would be without God or religion. For me that is frustrating a bit because I live to help those who I deeply care about, not because god wants me to. And I live to make others happy, not because god wants me to.
And it boggles my mind to no end when someone says that they put god before anything else in their life; even when I was Catholic, I could NEVER say that because I knew it was not true in my heart. I knew that if my family was being held at gunpoint and they person asked me if i believe in god and if i said yes, he would kill them, that i would have absolutely no problem with saying "no i do not" because my family means more to me than something i never really knew or connected with. I just don't understand how someone could put an invisible being or concept above the people in their life who they love; if someone said that to me, i would be horribly offended.
Sorry, my frustrations came out a little...Getting back on topic, I think I have more of an issue with fundamentalist religious people than anything and just people who would try and use their religion to dictate how one lives. But even reform churches can be a problem as well. Catholicism used to say that gay people will go to hell, but now they have switched their views to more of "well, we love the sinner but not the sin. they are ok with god as long as they do not give in to their gross behavior"........is that really all that better? That is just what I mean; that some churches could be changing their ways a bit, but until I see them changing to where they are completely reformed, non-judgmental, and staying out of the personal affairs in peoples lives, then I don't think my view about religion will change.
I'm sorry again if I said anything offensive but I often get very heated about this topic without realizing it.
Thank you for explaining more. To me, yeah, some people use religion as a crutch, but for me, the world makes more sense with at least some sort of Creator, as opposed to atheism. And I am more convinced of that the more I learn about archaeology and anthropology especially. Of course, everyone has different views, but... I guess I just hate the assumption I'm being illogical for believing in God, when I actually have some logical reasons. (I also HATE the people who try to say science and religion can't coexist- on both sides.)
As for the phenomenon of the "cultural Jew", while it is common, it isn't everyone, and isn't me. The idea has to do with some of the differences between Judaism and Christianity. The first is that if you're born a Jew/ Convert to Judaism, you're Jewish. There isn't an actual belief requirement. You become an atheist? You're still Jewish, and if you're a woman, your kids will be Jewish. (Judaism passes down through the mother.) This allows for people, unlike in Christianity to identify as both atheist and Jewish, in a way both sides will accept (though there is one group of very religious Jews who have decided it's their mission not to convert non-Jews, but to make Jews who are secular more religious).
As for the "hate the sin, love the sinner", not all liberal churches feel that way. My aspiring Methodist minister friend is so pro gay marriage, and stuff in general. Religions are so diverse, it's the broad-brush painting that annoys me.
Again, thanks for clarifying.
You're welcome. And just to clarify one more thing, I do not identify as atheist but more agnostic because I cannot disprove the existence of a higher power so I am not going to try to. I am just going to accept the fact that there are some things I cannot comprehend, understand, explain, etc and in a lot of religions I feel that is what they try to do; is give a definite answer as to why we are here and what we should be doing.
But I do feel comfortable with not knowing (most of the time) just because I feel like I don't have to wrack my brain trying to understand things like why bad things happen to good people, why natural disasters occur, why if this is true then why is this an exception and what makes exceptions to the rule, etc.
It makes my life easier in a way, but also harder because I have to be constantly weighing out my own morality and wondering if my choices are the right ones. I don't think that if someone is no longer religious then it makes them free to do whatever they want as many religious people tend to think. People still have a conscience they have to answer to.
Thank you for having this discussion with me, and I hope that you learned as much from me as I learned from you :)
"It makes it sound like religion is a crutch for people."
Most of the time it, uh, is...
Most of the religious people I know find that their personal religion makes sense to them. It's not a crutch, it's the worldview that they find the most fitting. Yes, some people use it as a crutch, but I'd love to see your evidence for "most of the time". I'm not denying it's used that way, just wondering how you prove that frequency.
I think that's a bullshit statement.
" So in my opinion, and in many other peoples, religion is plain oppression especially towards minority groups and women"
Agreed. I remember a funny story when my mom was going through her Baptist Christian faze when I was in elementary school (I, indiviually stopped going in 6th grade). While my mom was in her Christian marriage classes with my step-dad I would have to go to kids Christian school. I remember that they showed how the Big Bang theory wasn't correct and was in fact silly by tossing a bunch of materials into a box, covering it, shaking it up and then spilling it onto one of the tables and saying "see, did anything get created there?" I was about 11, but thought it was idiotic. My mom also tossed away one of my beloved movies; E.T. because it was satanic (my moms not crazy, but this is what the Baptist Christians Fascists dictated).
Anyone seen Religulous? Love that movie (some sexism by Maher)! I can't believe that no one ever sought out what the Baptist Christians were saying when they spoke 'in other tongues!' Crazy!
When atheists criticize religion, they are called intolerant.
When religious people criticize atheism, they are considered moral.
Nobody is saying that you can't be a feminist and a Jew. They are expressing their opinion, as you are, that certain things are just incompatible. We can all disagree, but can we not call the atheists "intolerant" because that's a double standard.
RoseRose,
Although I'm not an expert on being a feminist or a Jew, I am both, so just wanted to say a few things.
First, I like Feministing, and I hope that you will continue to post here. But keep in mind that Feministing is not feminism. If you honestly feel that have to leave the blog, please don't give up on feminism. There aren't enough of us fighting for women's equality, and we need all the help we can get. :)
Second, I can't speak from much experience because I'm not observant, but (Orthodox aside) Judaism (especially Reform) is generally an open-minded, liberal religion that has changed quite a bit over time. Women rabbis, Bat Mitzvahs, and same-sex marriage (as you pointed out) are all relatively new. Judaism is still evolving and, IMHO, your feminism is something valuable that you can bring to your congregation. And a Jewish view of feminism is something valuable that you can contribute here.
Last, I understand where you're coming from about the criticism for being religious. As I said, I'm not an observant Jew, but do strongly believe in God. I've noticed, though, that on many left-leaning blogs, atheism seems to be the "in thing" (perhaps as a reaction to the religious Right?) and faith often gets jeered. I think you were right to call it out, and I hope you will stick around in case it comes up again. Feminist spaces should safe for all feminists, not just those with a particular religious view.
Of the places I've looked, this is the MOST tolerant for religious feminists. I doubt I'll disappear, just this was the straw that broke the camel's back on a rough day and week, and school term.
I'm Conservative, and I've found myself most comfortable there, though I have been to Modern Orthodox and Chasidic services and been okay (though the separation of genders can bother me). As a college student now, women rabbis and Bat Mitzvahs have been around my entire life, and same-sex marriage started arriving at about the same time as my political conscience. I'm watching my father (who isn't really opposed to secular same sex marriage, or non-Jewish same sex marriage) think about changing denominations. But, in the end, he likes the rabbi enough that he won't change as long as the same rabbi is around. In fact, I've noticed that he's mellowed as the years have gone by. Sometimes, the religion is a liberalizing influence itself.
This isn't the first time I've defended religion on this site, and I doubt it will be the last. My best friend (who wants to be a Methodist minister, and is going to seminary in the fall) and I have talked about this atheism preference before, though in liberalism in general. She has, in the past, found herself alienated from groups whose goals she agrees with because they ASSUME that because she's religious, she must be a conservative Republican. I think something we all need to remember, and which is found in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is to "Love thy neighbor as thyself". It's the line religious people forget, and force people like me to defend the fact of having religion from the awful deeds committed by a loud, obnoxious few.
"Of the places I've looked, this is the MOST tolerant for religious feminists."
Hmm, I'm trying to think of blogs that focus on feminism and religion, but I can't think of many. Daisy over at http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/ is a religious Catholic feminist, and she often takes people with "OH NOES YOU CAN'T BE A GOOD TRUE FEMINIST UNLESS YOU RENOUNCE ALL RELIGIONS AND I'M THE FEMINIST POLICE AND YOUR GOING TO JAILZ!!11!!!1!111!" type attitudes to task.
specific link to religious posts
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/search/label/religion
So you assume that because it's a liberal blog, that the Atheists are lying to be trendy?
Let's not pretend we don't exist, please.
I am pleased to hear of people who have found a balance between religion and feminism; the world would be a much better place if more people would hold religious beliefs as a means of inclusion rather than exclusion.
I have read many uplifting interpretations of the bible; I have also read many interpretations of the bible as a work of exclusionary violence. However, I believe they remain as interpretations which are used to fulfill both positive and negative political agendas. Much blood and ink have been spilled over the meaning of the scriptures and, while a discussion of exegesis is important, it is unlikely to come to any form of consensus.
My aunt is a retired nun; at 80 years of age, she still spends twelve hours a day volunteering in her community. On a recent visit with her, though, I was shocked to see her kill a spider. I would have caught it and set it free in the garden. I, however, love chicken even though I know chickens do not have very pleasant lives (or deaths), a fact which conflicts with my belief of all life having a divine spirit. The point is that religious beliefs are very complex and often contradictory; poeple are even more so. It sounds to me like you have a very postive belief system, something to be proud of.
There are many things I have read on this site which do not fit in with the feminism I studied in university; for instance, the defence of pornography as freedom of speech and of choice, as is sometimes seen on here, does not sit well with me. As I have written, I do not think a unanimous consensus can be reached; perhaps, however, we can learn from one another and grow together.
Thank you for these respectful words of kindness. I think that actions and intentions are much better at defining people instead of labels.
Also I just want to point out, in terms of the "atheism trend" that some people pointed out, atheists are actually the most despised group in the united states; when people were asked in a survey which of the following groups “shares my vision of American society,” out of a list that included Muslims, Homosexuals, Jews, Hispanics, African Americans, Immigrants, etc..atheists came in last place. A 2002 Religion and Public Life survey found that 54% of Americans have a mostly or very unfavorable opinion of atheists, and just over 28% have a mostly or very unfavorable opinion of “people who are not religious.”
I don't believe atheism is a "trend" but more that people are questioning religion a lot more than they were allowed to and are probably going on to higher education and learning more about other religions which causes them to question their own. But regardless of why it is happening, to be irreligious or atheist is putting a stigma on yourself and putting yourself in a marginalized category.
At my university, among both my philosophy and political science classes there is about an overwhelming majority that identify as either atheists or non-religious. And this in Colorado! So maybe gen Y will bring a big change in that arena?
I'm sorry if people feel targeted here for being of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (seriously, I am sorry), but you have to realize you are NOT the minority. And I think you need to realize WHY you're being targeted: your holy book is incredibly offensive to a range of minorities. I wish you luck on somehow making it more inclusive, but I'm not going to be super-considerate and hold your hand as you explain to me why your God doesn't REALLY think I should be raped or stoned or beaten or forced to get an abortion.
Judeo-Christian is BS. As a Jewish person, I'll tell you I am part of a minority, as many of these comments show. MANY of the negative comments said to apply to all of Judeo-Christianity really only apply to Christianity. Synagouges are regularly vandalized, anti-semites speak on my school campus (thankfully that's mostly stopped this past year.) And as I said before, many of the most offensive (though admittedly not all of them) passages of the Hebrew Bible have been reinterpreted by Christianity to be something FAR more offensive than many Jewish interpretations. The Talmud is the most authoritative Jewish interpretation, and stoning is almost removed, and raping is clearly criminalized in it. (Abortion isn't mentioned in the Hebrew Bible except for one possible passage that indicates a fetus is property, having to do with what happens if a woman miscarries due to getting in a fight.)
Jew are a minority. I will not use the Judeo-Christian generalization but please at the same time don't lump all Christians in together. I know that there are tons of fanatics out there under the flag of Christ but they don't speak for all of use, and I dare say they don't speak for most of us.
Many Christians find the bible to be a text that is, although flawed, about love, charity and strength. My personal feelings about the bible is that it is a collection of stories and myths (that is right I said it and I don't mind if other people do too) that are from a different time but can get across some points about goodness and forgiveness.
I don't have a problem with Atheist. We get along just fine because I understand and respect their views and my atheist friends give me the same respect.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to do that (and usually I get upset at the people who do the same thing). I was just trying so hard to defend my point of view that I generalized what shouldn't have been. (Though I stand by my statement that often the Christian and Jewish interpretation of the same passage is vastly different.)
No Problem RoseRose. I get your point.
1) Being neither a Christian nor a Jew, I'm fine if you want to dictate the terms of this discussion. I won't use 'Judeo-Christian' anymore. Your point is valid.
2) I don't understand how or why you identify as a Christian without accepting any part of the Bible as fact.
I know that Jews are a minority group. I wasn't referring to Jews as a minority group or the Jewish religion; I was referring to the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. Please read my comment again.
The problem is, the idea of a Judeo-Christian religious tradition is a construct, created to otherize people. You also stated that the tradition is the majority. Now, that is true to some degree, but the problem is that the conflating doesn't do what you said it does in the first post. You accused an artificial group (it was created in America with WWII to unify the country) of one thing. Jewish religious tradition and Christian religious tradition became different in essential, critical ways before 250 AD. As I say again, the Bible is ridiculous difficult to interpret in some spots (many of them the ones used to justify the assorted oppression).
And I'm not asking you to be super-considerate. I'm just asking you not to insult my intelligence, the fact I have faith, or my rationality. Is it too much to ask that I be granted common courtesy?
Yes, 'Judeo-Christian' does 'otherize' people, one of them being me. But since I am neither Christian nor Jew, I accept the fact that I don't get to dictate the terms used to describe them. So if you don't want me to use 'Judeo-Christian', I won't. Your point is certainly valid. I'll restate: both the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition are incredibly offensive towards and oppressive of women, homosexuals, and other minority groups.
I'm not sure how I'm insulting your intelligence, other than by arguing with you. Which implies that I think you're wrong, not stupid.
Sorry, I think I confused you with an earlier poster who did call a belief in God "infantile and silly" which to me is insulting my intelligence. I was starting to reply by that point when I really should have been taking a breather from the discussion.
I also think that anybody that wants to leave the site because they think its anti-religious (meaning, unjustly discriminatory) is coming from a very privileged background in which religion is the norm and is never undermined or derided by the majority of Americans. Any religious person is used to being specially respected and sanctified and when this 'insulation' is not held up, they accuse you of discrimination against their religion, when in fact this is not the case, they are just not used to hearing criticism and misintepret it as irrational hate. There are many diverging opinions on this site and just because it does not uphold the majority opinion does not mean that somehow you are dealing with persecution. Others dont leave when they feel a comment is out of hand, or when they are the minority being criticised by the majority, so I dont know why the religious types would think themselves so special.
Atheists make a up a substantial minority in America (nonetheless in the world) and being able to criticise religion helps to foster more enlightened perspectives about women.
I admit, I was overly frustrated when I posted that. I had been having frustrating things happening, and when I got frustrated with being told the infantilism of my beliefs, I overreacted. I'm not actually going to leave because I get inappropriate criticisms. I don't mind criticism, as long as it is informed, and isn't belittling. (Would you like it if I called the Big Bang sill and infantile?) Belittling IS inappropriate and discriminatory.
I've faced discrimination because of my religion. I've been told that I live in a Christian country and that I have to learn to live with it. I've seen posters that tell me I'm a liar and part of an international conspiracy. Can't I hope that on a feminist space I get at least legitimate criticism (which there is much) of religion rather than belittling insults?
YES.
I am so sorry that you feel like that is what all Christian want to do. I am not really sure where you got that from but I promise forcing you to have an abortion is not on my to do list. I have no desire to explain my faith to unless you ask me. I am also sorry that my faith offends you so much.
Do you feel like you are being tolerant or do you feel like you are on defense? I in no way want to hurt you or change the way you live your life but I do ask that you treat me with that same respect.
Seriously, what is with the reading comprehension here? "Judeo-Christian religious tradition" DNE "Jews" or "Christians" or "the Jewish religion" or "the Christian religion" or 'THIS Christian religion" or "THAT Christian religion." It refers to the histories of oppression within the Jewish and Christian religions. It refers to the holy texts on which those oppressions were and are justified.
By the way, you can identify yourself as a "Jew" or a "Christian" and claim you don't believe in what Holy Text says about x y or z, but by claiming the label of "Jew" or "Christian", you associate yourself with x,y, and z anyway. If you really don't want to be associated with the vile things the Bible and the Talmud say about women, homosexuals, children, and people of other religions, you're going to have to choose another label. Such as, I don't know, 'religious.'
*I meant 'Torah' not 'Talmud.' It's been a long day.
The funny thing about your typo is that while the Talmud doesn't mitigate everything, it CERTAINLY makes the "vile things" about women and children (and to a far lesser degree people of other religions) far less vile. The Talmud strongly respects women's sexuality, and respects a woman's role (though it is gendered in that there are men's and women's roles), and has respect for children. And the Talmud is the "Oral Law" in Judaism. It holds nearly as much force as the Tanach (which is the term for the whole Hebrew Bible).
And the other issues? That's why I'm specifically a Conservative Jew. That's why there are denominations. Within them, people generally agree on an interpretation of a holy book. In Conservative Judaism, there's acceptance of homosexuality, equality for women, and children are treated well, and people of other religions are respected. This is all the doctrine of Conservative Judaism, and is what is stated to be believed by them. I reject that identifying as Jewish makes me guilty for everything done wrong in the name of my religion. It's the same kind of thinking that has gotten Jewish people killed because our ancestors "killed Jesus". I am not responsible for the wrongdoings of others. It is my responsibility to speak against them, to try and stop them, but if I fail, the guilt is theirs, not mine.
Yes, because I totally said that identifying as Jewish makes you responsible for everything every Jewish person has ever done. I remember using those exact words. And, by extension, you killed Jesus.
Or, oh wait... maybe I actually said it means you associate yourself with what's written in your religion's holy texts. Yeah-- that is what I said. Thank you for not reading it.
I understand there are different interpretations, but you can only bend words so many ways.
And fine-- the Jewish tradition AND the Christian tradition and, while were at it, the Muslim tradition as well-- all are sexist. Good luck with fixing that; I'll be over here outside of the patriarchal tradition and not under the power of a vindictive, violent lord and master.
The thing is, you don't really have to bend in order to come up with other interpretations.
I've been to lots of Jewish classes, lectures, read lots of Jewish books. There are so many interpretations and the startling thing is how valid they all seem to be.
The first problem arises in translation, of course. There are so many places where a Hebrew word can mean more than one thing, and simply using a more correct translation or using another meaning of the word changes things. One scholar I studied with was always saying, "Translation is interpretation, folks," reminding us to not cling too hard to the English words that we normally associate with the Bible.
The second thing to remember is that in Judaism, we have the written Torah (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible) and the oral Torah, which we received at the same time. The oral Torah was eventually written down in what became the Talmud. Just because the Torah says x, y, z doesn't mean that's all there is to it. You simply cannot understand the Torah without the Talmud. And when you read the Talmud, you realize that there is no one understanding of the Torah - it's kind of comparable to the US Constitution and all the Supreme Court decisions. Even highly respected Jewish philosophers and scholars, such as Maimonides, have written texts on Jewish law that are considered authoritative.
Which is a long way of reiterating that finding other interpretations is very far from "bending" the words - it's what Rabbis and other Jewish thinkers have been doing from the very beginning.
So that whole thing about God creating Eve from Adam's rib-- that can be translated differently? And when Eve eats from the tree of knowledge and dooms all of humanity forever-- that can be translated differently? When he drowns the entire planet and kills everyone-- that doesn't really happen?
I could go on forever.
And that's just talking about the texts. That's not touching actual Jewish (and Christian... and Muslim...) tradition.
By the way, thanks for apologizing for accusing me of anti-Semitism because you read my comment incorrectly.
I think I'm done with this thread.
On the thing with Eve created from Adam's rib: http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/a-jewish-feminist-view-of-the.html
I never accused you of anti-semitism. I just was trying to give an example of why that kind of blaming was offensive to me. YOU aren't anti-semetic, just... that logical method has been used by them. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that I was impugning your logic, not you.
As for the rest of your argument about the text... yes, there are other ways, maybe not to translate it, but to interpret it.
I already addressed the "Eve dooming humanity" bit up above - but in two words: she didn't. The concept of Original Sin is not a Jewish one.
Ruchama already linked to her post about the rib. I've heard other variations before, including ones involving Lilith, but no matter the variation, the Jewish tradition does not consider Eve lowly and belonging to Adam simply because she was made from his rib - some scholars even say that she's superior since Adam was made from dirt (sometimes these scholars get a little too women-are-superior, which rankles me just as much as the men-are-superior narrative, but that is a whole 'nother debate).
You still seem like you're resistant to the idea that what the Bible says can mean so much more than it does on the pages, which certainly has been hammered into our consciousness by the Christian Right. It's a bit like looking at the laws regulating free speech in the US and saying, "But, but, the 1st Amendment says Congress can make no law abridging free speech!" Obviously the dearth of USSC opinions regarding what free speech IS and when laws may regulate it tell you that the words in the Constitution aren't the whole story, and if you're like Scalia and refuse to budge from, "This is what the Constitution says, period," you're going to have a completely different understanding and philosophy than the liberal justices.
And I really have no idea if you're being sarcastic or not, as I have not accused you of being (or even thought you've been) anti-Semitic, nor have I apologized for it, so you're going to have to be more specific if you think I've said so.
No one here denies, though, that God made Eve from Adam. Creating a man first and then making a woman from him is sexist, no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise. And you know why it's sexist? Because it's a myth that was written 2000 years ago.
The fact that people struggle so hard to believe such a weird and ludicrous story-- to twist it to mean whatever they want it to mean so they can continue believing it-- is offensive to me. It shows just how much they don't want to give up the privilege that comes with identifying as "Christian" or "Jewish". Yes, even Jews have a tremendous amount of privilege in comparison to agnostics, atheists, and those who just identify as spiritual. In some ways, I have much more respect for fundamentalists who take the Bible at it's really-fucked-up word; at least they don't have to try to make it say what they want it to say.
And, no, I'm not being sarcastic about you calling me anti-Semitic. I said claiming the label "Jew" means you are identifying yourself with a holy text and with a tradition, which you purposefully misread to say 'identifying with all bad things any Jewish person has ever done.' That is a form of anti-Semitism.
Yes, I do deny that Eve was created from Adam. Read the link I posted. Jewish tradition quite clearly says that Adam and Eve were created together, and then split into two people.
I did read it:
"So, we can turn to the midrash and see what the rabbis had to say about it. 'Hitherto there was but one such creature; I have now ADDED TO HIM another who was TAKEN FROM HIM...' "
Wow, that's taken incredibly out of context. The point of that post was that Adam and Eve were created as one, and then separated, as the next sentence after the one you quoted clearly states.
I think you're confusing me and RoseRose.
If you don't understand a religion and why and how it uses a text or what value and meaning it derives from it, I can't really do much more by way of explanation on an internet message board than I have. You seem to be throwing around the words "myth" and "story" like they're insults, but the funny thing is that that's simply the truth. Who wrote them? What meaning are we meant to take from them? How do we apply it to our lives? How has our understanding of them changed as our world has? Those questions are ones that Jews have been debating for our entire history - asking these questions is Being Jewish. You might not find value in it, but that doesn't mean that other people don't.
You're right; I think I did confuse you and RoseRose at least for the last part of that comment. I never meant 'myth' to be used as an insult-- it is what it is. No, I don't understand the value in trying to re-interpret them; I don't understand the value in religion at all. I began on this thread by stating that I understand other people find value in them. My point is that I think it would be more productive to throw out these religions all together. We can certainly disagree on that.
You kidding me? You're accusing me of wanting to keep my religion because of PRIVILEGE? Jeez. I may have screwed up, but I've been TRYING not to be offensive... but this bit... just... wow.
I believe in God. I believe in the Jewish God. I believe in the Jewish way of thinking about God. Yes, I have some problems with some of the texts. But, just because I have a problem with some of the aspects doesn't make Judaism not for me. Can't you accept faith as a reason for something?
And, in my geographic location (I know this isn't true over the whole country), Jews get more crap to some degree than atheists. Where I live, I don't get any privilege for being Jewish. (Religious privilege is definitely a geographic/age issue, with different areas having different degrees and groups gaining the most.)
And you know what? That so-called "twisting" has a long, long tradition in Judaism. The Talmud is the Oral Law, and there have been commentaries for centuries. That's part of MY religion, the ability to look at it and argue with it. To make commentaries and look for alternate explanations. It's not "twisting", it's been a part of my religion since before Christianity started.
You kidding me? You're accusing me of wanting to keep my religion because of PRIVILEGE? Jeez. I may have screwed up, but I've been TRYING not to be offensive... but this bit... just... wow.
I believe in God. I believe in the Jewish God. I believe in the Jewish way of thinking about God. Yes, I have some problems with some of the texts. But, just because I have a problem with some of the aspects doesn't make Judaism not for me. Can't you accept faith as a reason for something?
And, in my geographic location (I know this isn't true over the whole country), Jews get more crap to some degree than atheists. Where I live, I don't get any privilege for being Jewish. (Religious privilege is definitely a geographic/age issue, with different areas having different degrees and groups gaining the most.)
And you know what? That so-called "twisting" has a long, long tradition in Judaism. The Talmud is the Oral Law, and there have been commentaries for centuries. That's part of MY religion, the ability to look at it and argue with it. To make commentaries and look for alternate explanations. It's not "twisting", it's been a part of my religion since before Christianity started.
I wasn't trying to be offensive there. It seemed to me you didn't really believe any of this stuff; you were just using the label. Apparently you do believe in certain things-- the same things you earlier denied? Truly, I'm not following. You believe in the Jewish God, but not the one presented in the Jewish texts. How is that the Jewish God? You're right-- I don't understand faith, and I don't understand it as a reason for anything. Anything positive, anyway.
I'm not here to play oppression olympics with you. If you really think that having a common history and common belief and community makes you WAY less privileged than people who have none of those things...awesome.
Not twisting. You know what? Whatever you say.
I didn't mean to repost what you said; sorry.
I think we're totally just not understanding what the other is saying.
1. I never said way less privileged. I just said in my particular location, that privilege doesn't exist. Religious privilege is geographic. I swear, the town where I go to college has one of the highest per-capita atheist populations in the country, or so it feels.
2. I said I have some problems with some things in the Bible. That doesn't mean I reject everything. That doesn't mean I don't believe in much of the portrayal. It does mean I find some of the texts need to be interpreted differently.
I hope that made some things clearer.
Actually, the whole idea of god creating man first and then woman is an interpretation, one which many biblical scholars recognize as an incorrect interpretation. The difficulty lies in English translations; for much of the original biblical texts, there are no literal English translations. This sort of difference in translation can be found among much of the scriptures.
It is believed that god created a human with two sides, which were later split into man and woman. Again, an interpretation, but one in which the translation is more literal than that which is commonly acceped.
I'm sure you can find an equally likely interpretation for all those awful things in the Bible and the Torah, right? Awesome-- whatever works for you. And those 2000-plus years in which the vast majority of people have interpreted it differently and used it to oppress people is something I'm sure we can now safelyassume wasn't part of Judaism or Christianity. That was just, I dunno, unfortunate.
I probably could. Point is that I am open to exploring other interpretations rather than just condemning everyone else.
"No one here denies, though, that God made Eve from Adam. Creating a man first and then making a woman from him is sexist"
Agreed. Even if Jewish denomination chooses not to nterpret it the 'catholic' way, it still denotes secondary status to women. This is what the quiverfulls use to justify submission fo women to men.
Wait, wait...! In CONSERVATIVE (right?) Judaism theres acceptance of homosexuality, expanded roles for women and is more religiously respectful of others religions? I thought conservative was supposed to mean traditional? Ie, conservative Christian, Republican, bigots and misogynists?
"It's the same kind of thinking that has gotten Jewish people killed because our ancestors "killed Jesus"."
As an Italian I worry that they'll start blaming Italians too since it was also the Romans who killed Jesus. But I dont think its really about Jesus but is used as a cheap cover to simply hate on the Jews. I dont think Italians will ever be blamed because they formerly aligned under one of the Christian denominations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism
Nooo, not at all. Conservative (big c) Judaism is not conservative (little c) in the modern liberal/conservative sense. The name refers to the movement's attempts to conserve rituals that Reform Judaism cut out.
There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian tradition." There are Jewish traditions, and there are Christian traditions. That phrase only started being used with any sort of frequency in the fifties, when people realized that the "America is a Christian country" rhetoric that they'd been using for the past seventy years or so against immigrants didn't really sound so great in a post-Holocaust world, so the word got revised to "Judeo-Christian" without changing the intent at all.
The only Jewish person that I've ever heard use "Judeo-Christian" seriously is Dennis Prager, who, as we remember from the "it doesn't matter whether you're in the mood!" debacle, has plenty of other issues, too.
As someone who is neither Christian nor Jewish, I'm fine with you dictating the terms. I thought Judeo-Christian was alright and made sense given the origins of the two religions, but it also makes sense to separate them, seeing as how they have been separate for almost 2000 years.
So let me revise what I said, both here and further up thread: the Jewish tradition AND the Christian traditions are sexist and homophobic. Violently so.
Right. The weird and contradictory thing is, is that many so-called religious feminists defend such oppressive practices as the burqa, not using contraceptive or other apsects of religion that are sexist as freedom fo religion.
If youre going to do that, then why not just make Misogyny a religion and then protect people's right to 'express' it and undermine what feminism is about? Making Misogyny into a religion would mean we couldnt question it, criticise it or undermine it because its protected by those that want all apsects of religion respected.
Misogyny is already a religion. In fact, it's (at least) three: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Ah, but for all of you who want to be critical of religion, this OP is not for you. Or rather, it's not for you who are calling the Bible infantile and conflating criticism with sweeping generalizations that require the same rigidness that fundamentalism does.
The reason that progressive women and men write books like the one presented in the OP is because we are critical of our own religions. There would be no need to "take back the Bible" if we weren't upset with how it's been interpreted and used. Those of us who are religious who don't accept how the patriarchy uses religion, we're fighting within our own religions for change. Those of us who have studied the history and culture of when the Bible was written, trying to understand which misogynistic things were cultural norms and where Jewish law either kept up the status quo or else actually improved things -- when "critics" come around and say, "Oh, but the Bible says x, y, z, the end, you can't change that," it's really not helpful criticism. We're already hearing that exact same type of analysis from fundamentalists, and we've already rejected it coming from their mouths. It does not sound any more compelling coming from yours, and we will still fight to grow and move beyond it and firmly believe that religion can change.
If someone who is not a member of a religion wants to offer up criticism, there are genuine questions to ask that can foster real introspection (hint: they don't use the word "infantile"). But also, make sure you have your facts straight before asking them - for example, asking a Jew why she's okay with worshiping a male God will not get you anywhere. Those of us who are already grappling with these things, we're pretty good at admitting there are hard questions - otherwise, there'd be no need to grapple.
At the same time, the desire to stay religious and grapple just aligns with the rest of my feminist philosophy. I'm one of those feminists who believes in working within institutions to change them, rather than getting rid of them completely. Those who have left religion because of its misogyny are perfectly valid in their response too, we all decide what our battles are and how we're going to fight them. The thing we all have in common is that we just don't accept the way things have traditionally been.
Wow, thank you for saying what I've been too stuck in specific rebuttals to think of. That captures a lot of how I feel.
Then why are you religious at all?
If you are critical and don't believe/agree with half the things in the bible, then why believe in that particular brand of organized religion at all?
Is it not possible to believe in your own god or goddess, to be spiritual, without supporting such an outdated book?
You are absolutely entitled to believe in whatever you want, feminist or not, however you want, but we can criticize it and say it's anti-feminist as well.
As an atheist, I don't think that religious people are used to opposition, or criticism.
Because that would be saying that the fundamentalists get to define the religion. They don't.
So you're believing for the sake of believing?
Isn't that part of faith? Believing...
Are you arguing against faith or are you arguing against the bible?
I said:
"If you are critical and don't believe/agree with half the things in the bible, then why believe in that particular brand of organized religion at all?"
Ruchama said:
"Because that would be saying that the fundamentalists get to define the religion. They don't."
I was asking why she is only believing so that there are non-fundamentalists and not because she truly believes it.
OK, a better answer than what I had before is that being critical is an essential part of this particular brand of organized religion. Just as a small example, one of the most popular Hebrew school textbooks: http://behrman.powerwebbook.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=6346 The description says, "Your students can now explore the Bible as Jews have done for centuries—by pondering, personalizing, and wrestling with the text." The whole book is filled with questions of "Why do you think this happened?" and "What would you do if you were there?" and prompting kids to write, essentially, "missing scenes" from the Bible. And this is a book for third graders, kids just learning about Judaism. Criticizing and questioning like this IS what Judaism teaches.
The religion that I was brought up with did not believe and did not teach me that the Torah was literally true. Why should I grow up, find out that there are other religions that do believe that, and thus conclude that the religion I was taught must be wrong?
Thank you Ruchana and Punchbuggy Green. I was starting to feel a bit alone here.
And Ruchana, I agree with you completely. Why should I give up my religion when someone uses a book my religion uses to justify things I don't agree with? (Just to make it general enough to apply to all religions)
I haven't been responding through most of today because of Shabbat, but I agree with pretty much everything you've said here.
Ah, I'm not shomer Shabbos, obviously (or else I wouldn't have been posting!). I'm glad there's someone here on Feministing who agrees.
I'm not totally shomer shabbos either -- I use some electricity, and will sometimes get online for things like talking to my family, since I live alone and they live far away -- but I try to avoid comment threads during Shabbos, since arguing "isn't Shabbos talk," as my aunt would say.
I doubt this applies to many people on this forum, but in regard to this question, I always think of when a brilliant African post-colonial feminist theologian named Musa Dube came to speak at my school. One student asked her why, when Christianity is so sexist, racist, and colonialist, she didn't just reject it altogether.
She replied that in her community, where many people are dying from AIDS, and many more are close to others dying from AIDS, rejecting Christianity was not useful. She would rather keep the religion that so many in her community already shared, and then make that religion into a supportive environment that worked to prevent AIDS, care for people with it, and most importantly, end the stigma on those who have it. (This was a couple years ago and my memory is terrible, so I'm probably misquoting her, but this was the general idea to what she said).
I had been wondering the same question of 'why not just reject it?' myself, but that response really drove it home to me. Sometimes one HAS to work within the system.
It's not necessarily helpful to just tell everyone to reject their religion. Sometimes religion is a matter of community and caring for those close to you as well as just a belief system. And in those cases, I think trying to transform the religion is better than doing nothing at all.
Thank You Thank You Thank You!
"Ah, but for all of you who want to be critical of religion, this OP is not for you. "
I know atheists are scary and evil and everything, but we actually have just as much of a right to exist and to engage as you do.
"The reason that progressive women and men write books like the one presented in the OP is because we are critical of our own religions. There would be no need to "take back the Bible" if we weren't upset with how it's been interpreted and used."
Yes, you're so critical of your own religions that you still choose to operate within them.
Questioning and criticism is a major part of my religious tradition. Jacob wrestled with an angel. Rabbi Eliezer argued against G-d, and won, and is celebrated for it. The Talmud can be looked at as essentially a compendium of arguments. Somebody (can't remember who -- I think someone associated with the Reconstructionist movement?) said, "The greatest compliment you can give a Jew is, 'That's a good question.'" You're arguing against Judaism with arguments that are formulated against a certain subset of Christianity.
You're right-- I don't know much about Judaism. I don't even know much about Christianity. And I don't want to learn, because what I HAVE seen is so off-putting that I'd rather disassociate myself from that entirely.
So why are you arguing against something that you admit you don't know much about? A good number of the "arguments" against Judaism in this thread have simply been factually incorrect.
I wasn't originally arguing against it. I'm still not sure how I got sucked into this, but I believe it had something to do with the anti-atheist statements.
I looked, and here's where I got involved:
I'm sorry if people feel targeted here for being of the Judeo-Christian religious tradition (seriously, I am sorry), but you have to realize you are NOT the minority. And I think you need to realize WHY you're being targeted: your holy book is incredibly offensive to a range of minorities. I wish you luck on somehow making it more inclusive, but I'm not going to be super-considerate and hold your hand as you explain to me why your God doesn't REALLY think I should be raped or stoned or beaten or forced to get an abortion.
You had a few earlier posts, and while people disagreed, they didn't cause a huge derail the way this one did, though the one about God being a child rapist is starting to. Your other early post, well, while I disagree, was not anywhere near as offensive as your later ones. Here, I think the part that got me the most upset was the assumption that we (me at this point, as I think I was the only one defending religion at all at the time) wanted you to be super-considerate. All I wanted was a lack of insults and degrading characterizations.
A part of why it escalated was that there seems to have been a reading comprehension failure on both yours and my part. I misread a comment about what members of a religion are responsible for, and you misread my response to it.
I understand that leaving off the second sentence where I say I'm referring to critics who conflate criticism with the same generalizations that fundamentalists make fits your argument more, but it IS dishonest.
And seriously, you're condemning being critical of institutions that we operate within on a feminist website? Really?
alixana:
No, your second sentence was an attempt at justification. If you had really meant that, you wouldn't have said the first sentence.
And, yes, I'm really being critical of you. Really. I'm assuming the applied analogy is that I'm operating within the patriarchy. That's true. Operating outside of the patriarchy, though, requires operating outside of society. Operating outside of your religion just requires giving up the privilege associated with the "Christian" or "Jewish" label.
RoseRose:
Actually, you can change the system by abandoning it. You don't need to abandon it to change it, but it's much more effective. It's also a lot harder, because it requires you give up your privilege.
But it's MY RELIGION. I don't keep it for the privilege, I keep it for what I get out of Judaism. I made a longer response to your other point of this.
And yet, you're arguing against people who are part of that religion, saying that we don't know what we're talking about just because we're privileged. We've told you several times that arguing with the religion is part of it (I haven't said it because it's been said so well by others), and saying that we need to take it as it is, when... well, that's NOT how it works for us.
Things aren't all or nothing. That's a false dichotomy.
Alrighty, when you start telling me what I mean, that's what this is just getting ridiculous.
The question the book in the OP poses is essentially, "How can we reclaim the Bible?"
Fundamentalists will say, "You can't! It says X. That means X is X. You can't change it!"
People like you (some who are atheists, some who are not, and I know atheists who couldn't give a damn either way) say...the same thing!
The thing is, this isn't criticism. This is what we've already rejected. It's not adding to the conversation.
It's an in-the-family sort of thing, "How can we change things? How can we understand this differently?" People poking in going, "That book is just filled with infantile, silly myths!" are really just poking the sleeping bear. Pointing out something you think is sexist and then dismissing our answers about how we understand it in a non-sexist way as twisting words or not reading the Bible right are just going right back to the same things Fundamentalists say. It's not criticism designed to be part of the conversation that the book in the OP is having. And that is why this post wasn't posted for you. We're looking for answers, and we're not interested in hearing, "There is no answer."
Gotcha. I'll stay out of your family gatherings then. You guys keep wondering whether your totally existent lord hates you, and I'll be elsewhere.
Democracy is a misogynistic system. It's only within *very* recent history that women have been allowed to vote at all. So have you abandoned the system of democracy? Should you? Or should you be working to make democracy, as a system, less sexist? And if you get to work within the system of democracy, rather than abandoning it, why do you have any right to call for religious individuals to abandon their religions? Yes, religion has been used to justify and promote misogyny for centuries. But it's also been used to promote equality- are we seriously all unfamiliar with the vast amount of good religious organizations have done for women, for the poor, within African American communities? I'm a pretty rabid atheists, but I'm consistently disappointed by the amount of vitriol leveled at allies for their religion. If someone is working against sexism, against racism, against homophobia, etc., why do we need to push them away by insulting their religious beliefs?
Thank you for clearly articulating exactly what I was thinking in response to all of the 'you must have nothing to do with sexist systems!' type comments.
Not only have state democracies been extremely sexist in terms of voting rights, but I have read some brilliant feminist philosophers that also pose that the state is gendered historically in the way it naturalizes the home and family - which traditionally was the working domain of women - and then bases the state off the patriarchal model of the traditional home. In some ways this has gotten more problematic with time. For instance, today the state is intensely involved in the regulation of labor and reproductive technologies etc. - while poverty has become deeply feminized and many women are dependent on the state.
Wendy Brown in particular has many enlightening thoughts on this subject, and much of the above is paraphrased from her. In an essay by Brown she seeks to answer the question - to what extent should feminist politics be state centered? She comes to the conclusion that feminists should not reject or affirm the state, but rather subvert, exploit, and outmaneuver it.
I prefer to take the last tactic in relating to religion. I can entirely understand why others may prefer life outside of religion. Or life outside the state - though I would love to know how you manage that... But I do think a certain amount of respect for differing experiences and opinions is necessary.
I've read some historically-based writing in that vein, but haven't ever read Wendy Brown's work. I will definitely check her out. Thanks!
I think all of this is the perennial question for any reformist/social movements- Can "the system," whichever system that is, be salvaged or should it be wholly abandoned? And is the latter even possible? That was very much the question of the 1960s and 1970s, with the Black separatist movement and the lesbian separatist movement. And you see it today, in the debate over whether or not same-sex marriage should be the focus of the gay rights movement. It's fairly obvious that, as a society, we've chosen reform over overthrowal in almost every case. I'm not saying that's necessarily the best solution- maybe society would be better off without religion, maybe we'd be better off if Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X had won out, maybe we'd be better if we entirely abandoned marriage as a system. I won't dismiss any of these as possibilities, but I will dismiss them as plausabilities (please excuse the invented word!). It's easier and often more fruitful to reform, rather than overthrow.
And that's especially true in the case of religion. I really don't think it's possible to abolish religion entirely. It's been around for an awful long time and I'm pretty sure it's here to stay. People, generally speaking, feel a need for some type of spirituality. That's not problematic (or delusional, or whatever other terms have been thrown around in this discussion) in and of itself. It's important to separate that from organized religion and be aware of how religion is implemented in society. But I have no problem with spiritual or religious belief, at base. I wouldn't call it a universal human need, but it comes pretty close. As such, it's a little delusional to advocate for a society completely without religion.
In this vein, I would also point out that the tack put forward by people like Dawkins is extremely spiritual- the universe itself and the mechanisms of biology, physics, etc. are imbued with spiritual significance. This is also reformism. It's simple shifting spiritual feeling from the Bible to Darwin, say. It's not erasing spirituality by any means. I fail to see how this is all that different from reforming Catholicism or any other religious denomination.
Sorry for the long post, y'all. I used to be really angry about religion but have become much more accepting over the past year, so posts like this really make me think.
The only way to truly effect change is for people within the system to want to change it. But, there are other things about religion we don't find wrong. I find that my Judaism is an inspiration to me, and often a comfort. To say that to be critical of something you need to reject it, and everything about being associated with it, completely, then, well... that's ignoring that there can be good things in flawed systems.
Awe, I'm disappointed by how this thread turned out. I can't speak to Judaism because I don't know much. And I'm not religious, but I think Christianity can be a beautiful religion sometimes. Episcopalian FTW!
And comparing the story of the virgin birth to God 'raping' Mary is tacky and gross.
So when a man (or an entity) of incredible (ultimate) power insists to a 13-year-old child that she conceive his baby, that's not rape?
Hey wait, it is! Sorry to be the one to bring this to your attention, Christians, but your religion IS based on child rape, which, yeah, IS tacky and gross, huh?
I preemptively apologize for the tone of that response. Please understand my frustration-- you essentially accused me of making up a story about rape just to offend you. Which also deserves an apology.
Also don't forget the reason Jesus had to be born was to allow humanity into heaven. So God's proposal to Mary boils down to "have my baby or everyone you care about goes to Hell!" Holding a gun to her head would have been less coercive.
What would you call it then? If I impregnated a 13 year old girl against her will, who is also my daughter, urm, what is that? Also, do you seriously think that it was God and not Joseph that did it?
Just a comment, after reading this whole thread -- Judaism is NOT just Christianity minus Jesus. If your only experience with religion is with Christianity, then you do not know about Judaism. You cannot generalize from Christianity to religion in general. Yes, both religions do use some of the same texts, but use them in entirely different ways, have different interpretations of them, different views of where they came from and when and why, and have added on totally different things to them. A Christian understanding of the Hebrew Bible gives you very little insight into Judaism.
If you people *actually* don't understand why comparing the story of the virgin birth to God raping Mary is tacky and gross, there is nothing I can do for you.
I love how you don't even bother to defend it; you just keep throwing it back at us for pointing it out. Classic rape apologism-- good job.
I thought you flounced from this thread.
I changed my mind. I love hearing these justifications.
I cannot believe this is happening at Feministing. Are we not supposed to be a community of tolerant people? Basically you are ridiculing something that you don't believe in but other people do. I don't mind if you disagree that is your right and I am so glad it is but you are angry with me because I do believe. Why is that? Because you have had bad experiences with Christians. I went to church today and I went to a United Methodist Women's event yesterday. We talked about what we could do to help the people in world who are suffering from war, from famine, and from oppression. Tell me what is so horrible about this organization that you that you can't just say "Well, I don't believe in that but it isn't my place to tell some one else to believe". Disagree sure but demean and ridicule, NO! Your intolerance and cruelty is disturbing.
I am used to people disagreeing with me actually because I am often the most liberal person talking (I live in Utah)but usually even when I am advocating for gay marriage or reproductive rights and some one doesn't agree with me they are respectful. I am really sorry that this community can't do the same.
Someone doesn't know the definition of ridicule.
Someone doesn't understand the definition of "I'm through with this thread!!!!"
Apparently I'm not allowed to change my mind. I'll keep a note of that.
"bother to defend it"
There is your first fucking problem. No one needs to DEFEND their religious beliefs to you. I'm more than willing to have an actual conversation about religion, but I'm not defending or justifying shit.
Second of all, why are you going to go around calling Mary God's rape victim and not call Noah God's slave. Noah had as much choice in building the arc as Mary had in being the mother of Christ.
Did you not bring that up because such a statement isn't nearly as inflammatory and that's what you were going for?
Or did you not bring it up because your more comfortable erasing the importance the women had in biblical stories than you are erasing the importance of the men? I mean, Mary was the mother of the living incarnation of God for Christ-sake (haha). I am actually offended that you so easily turn her into an unwilling victim rather than the important figure that she is.
But regardless of my offense, taking a story from someone's religion and turning it into a story about rape just to smear that religion is tacky and gross.
You need to check yourself.
Where are you? In a thread arguing the feminist qualities of a religion that is based on the rape of a child. That requires a defense. Don't act like I walked up to you out of the blue and said "Defend your religion."
What are you saying? As applied to any other accusation of rape, your words would be clear and appalling rape apologism. Consider:
Rape apologist trope #1: If you're going to call someone out on rape, why don't you call everyone out on everything?
Because I don't have the time, and Noah isn't essential to the existence of the Christian religion.
Rape apologist trope #2: You're just being inflammatory.
No, rape is what's inflammatory. The reason I call out the rape is that it's (one more time) essential to the existence of the Christian religion.
Rape apologist trope #3: It had to happen.
Only for you to believe in Christianity.
Rape apologist trope #4: YOU'RE the one creating victims.
No, rapists are the one creating victims.
Rape apologist trope #5: You're doing it to smear someone.
No, I'm not calling God a rapist to smear him and your religion. I'm calling him a rapist because he raped someone. I did not make that story up. I did not 'turn' it into anything. I am not trying to 'smear' you.
No, actually, it's a thread discussing a book on Jewish feminist theology, which keeps getting derailed into discussions of Mary. From a quick glance through the thread, it looks like maidensnowflake was the first to mention Christianity, and you and Gopher had the first several posts about Mary.
(I know that I've been guilty of this too, in things like going into a thread about POC and posting something from my own white experience. But it's been pointed out, repeatedly, as a derailing tactic, and I've been trying to pay attention to my own posts to stop doing that.)
Try reading the title of this post again. And find a better tactic than labeling everything you disagree with a 'derail'
The entire post is about an analysis of the Hebrew bible. Mary is not part of the Hebrew bible. There is not a single mention in that post of anything in the Christian bible.
And I don't disagree with you. I don't know enough about the Christian bible to agree or disagree.
Actually, now that I think about it, is this a terminology issue? When the word "bible" is used in a Jewish context, as it is in the OP, it pretty much always means the Hebrew bible, what Jews call the Tanakh and Christians call the Old Testament. (Well, sort of. Same books, different order.)
Not even all the same books. The Catholics have books in their Old Testament that aren't in the Tanakh. The Protestants removed most (or all, I can't recall) of those.
Good point. And wikipedia tells me that the various Orthodox churches have even more books that they include. (This is interesting. The Catholic church has the first two book of Maccabees. The Russian and Greek Orthodox include the third book of Maccabees, and only the Georgian Orthodox includes the fourth book of Maccabees.)
And we're forgetting the PARTS of books, as several sections of Daniel are not found in the Hebrew/Aramaic, but only in the Greek, and thus only used by the Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Exactly. Punchbuggy's defense is THE example of religious/misogyny denial that adherents carry with them torwards their own religion. For all those that are trying to reclaim religion from the fundamentalists, well here's your chance to prove its not all talk and no walk.
Punchbuggy's logic:
Mary is important because she was raped, which means that we can overlook the fact that she was raped. So, if Punchbuggy was forced to be pregnant through unjustified sexual assault, if Stephen Hawking came out of it, it would make the mother important and the whole mess completely worth it? I dont think so. Its wrong to 'other' Mary as if she isnt human. It allows for rape denial to be perpetuated. Mary is forced to be a vessel. This mirrors anti-choice views of women. Also, this perpetuates undermining ideas of what women get public importance for doing. All she had to do was be pregnant and shes important. She didnt have to fight, earn or do to get any recognition. She was only good as a passive, docile receiver of her fathers fetus which because this was her sole importance, who cares how it came about?
HA! Noah DID NOT have as much 'choice' (as Mary had none)as Mary did about being Gods slave. He couldve just died. She was forced to, by HER FATHER (God is considered to be everyone's father) at 13 without even giving her permission. Noah was an old man in which the myth says that he built a ship to save the animals. He wasnt raped and then forced to carry a baby.
"Or did you not bring it up because your more comfortable erasing the importance the women had in biblical stories than you are erasing the importance of the men?"
Classic rape denial. Right, Mary's sooooo important because she was raped. Thats how a woman gets importance in the Bible apparently. Noah builds things and isnt forcibly impregnated through rape as an adolescent by his father at 13. Oh yeah, the women in the Bible sure are empowered! Youre sounding like a religious MRA. The women are either whores or docile, mothers that have been dominated by men in the Christian Bible.
Is your problem just that Jesus was a man? Would you so easily dismiss the importance of Mary giving birth to the living incarnation of God if that living incarnation was a woman?
My problem with God raping Mary is that God raped Mary. Not that the child of that rape was a male. If you think that rape is okay if the resulting child is female, you are absolutely off your rocker.
Dear Eghead, it seems you are beating this point to death. Instead of repeating the same thing over and over, how about elaborating with some knowledge gained from biblical or historical studies? Of course, you might feel better in just dropping the point, which really is just slightly off-track; kind of like beating your head against a wall -- feels better when you stop.
By the way, the concept of virgin birth as well Jesus being the literal son of god is not universally accepted; there is some controversy over this point.
I'd love to stop beating this point to death, but it doesn't seem anyone's getting it, does it?
The point is not at all off-track. It refutes the very idea that the Christian religion can be feminist.
Why in the hell would anyone identify as Christian if they don't believe in Christ?
I do not possess the understanding of Judaism that many of the commenters on here do. However, it is my understanding that the story of Mary and Jesus is not part of the Hebrew bible and that Judaism is not Christianity. That would make this whole issue off track, including my own comments. Perhaps one could start a new thread examining the portrayal of rape in the scriptures? I'm sure that would create much controversy, which seems to be your whole intent on pressing this issue.
I'll do it:
1). Was Mary impregnated at around 13 years of age?
2). Was it by her father, father God?
3). Her permission was never granted
4) Do you seriously believe that it wasn't Joseph? Or that she was raped by another man and preferred to make up lies about what happened than admit the painful truth to herself?
5) why did she need to be a virgin (associated with purity which is completely made up by the hand of humans) and is there such hullaballoo about that?
You dont need much history to know these facts