How to fix the family

vim_n_vigor

I read an article this morning written by a family of the Catholic faith, but I don't believe that this article reflects what Catholics or other Christians believe. Basically, they believe that women should not go to college or work because it is beneath them and that women should stay home, marry, have kids, homeschool and run the house (and that this should be the only option).



Here is the first paragraph of the article and the link:

Probably the most controversial and rejected position we have at Fix the Family is that parents should not send their daughters to college. It is even more vehemently opposed than the submission of wives to their husbands. Both of these positions we have are a threat to the trophies of the feminist agenda, so the rejection we receive is always emotionally charged and ends up insulting, since once explained logically, the opposition runs out of substance and is only left to hurl insults and presume and misconstrue this practical wisdom into some chauvinistic evil. But to distinguish these 2 issues, we are NOT saying that sending a girl to college or women working is a sin. But after looking at the issues we raise, we would challenge anyone to convince us that college for girls is not a near occasion of sin. In order to fore go further discussion (argument) on the issue of college for girls, this article will outline the principal reasons for shunning college for girls.

http://www.fixthefamily.com/blog/6-reasons-to-not-send-your-daughter-to-college?fb_comment_id=fbc_568638923194137_5273730_569301253127904&fb_source=message#f3ee695ec54226

UsedToBeHusky

I don't even know what to say to this.

So women are supposed to go through life assuming that a man will always be around to take care of them?? :noway:

If my husband had took care of me, instead of expecting me to take care of him, I wouldn't be divorced now and I would never have gotten a degree.

I think you are going to be hard-pressed to find anyone to play devil's advocate here and take the position in defense of denying women an education.

vim_n_vigor

I doubt I'd see that either. I think it would be interesting to see how people's views on religion color this one though. I suspect there are some people that would agree with at least small parts of this one.

m_a_b

Sorry, but any anyone who thinks that the Bible says that women are equal to men simply has not read it. e.g. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2).

UsedToBeHusky

Sorry, but any anyone who thinks that the Bible says that women are equal to men simply has not read it. e.g. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2).

Women weren't completely oppressed in the bible. Take a look at the book of Judges.

m_a_b

Sorry, but any anyone who thinks that the Bible says that women are equal to men simply has not read it. e.g. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2).

Women weren't completely oppressed in the bible. Take a look at the book of Judges.

Like Judges 21, for example?

doorki

Wow...I just....wow....uh...delusional?

LuckyLeprechaun

There is a correlation between women's lib and divorce rates. I believe that when women got more education, more choices, more ability to earn a living on her own and provide for herself, at that same time women realized that they were not trapped in marriage anymore.

When women were unable to have a job, their ability to ever support themselves was severely constrained. So divorcing would only lead to total poverty and social stigma.

Once women were more able to be employed, divorce rates rose, because women could survive, financially, on their own.

Now we have swung the pendulum so far on this, there's a huge segment of the population that doesn't even feel an urge to marry anymore, even when they learn they will be having a child. Once, the social pressure would've been nearly insurmountable, but it doesn't even phase us now.


All of this is my theory. I am very interested in alternate ideas and opinions.

castadiva

So...the woman only educated to high-school level is supposed to homeschool her children, male and female? How exactly does this group expect her to effectively prepare the boys for college (I'm presuming they should still attend?), teaching the upper levels of high school curricula, if her own education has been cut short some twenty-odd years earlier? It is generally assumed that the teacher should know more than his or her students, but this system would essentially have the blind - or very near-sighted at least - leading the blind. Heaven help (literally!) the aspiring young medic or engineer, whose mother has had to teach herself enough physics/chemistry/higher maths in order to teach him adequately for him to achieve his desired career by "going to the library"!

The lack of logic in this sort of pronouncement is always quite astonishing.

Lucky, your theory is shared by many sociologists. I'm intrigued to know whether you think this is a good or bad phenomenon, and why? Opinion is rather divided, even among those who study this field.

UsedToBeHusky

So...the woman only educated to high-school level is supposed to homeschool her children, male and female? How exactly does this group expect her to effectively prepare the boys for college (I'm presuming they should still attend?), teaching the upper levels of high school curricula, if her own education has been cut short some twenty-odd years earlier? It is generally assumed that the teacher should know more than his or her students, but this system would essentially have the blind - or very near-sighted at least - leading the blind. Heaven help (literally!) the aspiring young medic or engineer, whose mother has had to teach herself enough physics/chemistry/higher maths in order to teach him adequately for him to achieve his desired career by "going to the library"!

The lack of logic in this sort of pronouncement is always quite astonishing.

Lucky, your theory is shared by many sociologists. I'm intrigued to know whether you think this is a good or bad phenomenon, and why? Opinion is rather divided, even among those who study this field.

I was actually feeling the same way as I read it. I know several (NOT ALL) home-school situations in which mom finished high school and went no further, and the children were quite lacking in their education. Not to mention, these situations led to over-sheltered adults with no real desire to enter the world and become functional.

m_a_b

The lack of logic in this sort of pronouncement is always quite astonishing.

These people believe in the Bible. The Bible teaches that women are subservient to men. So, unfortunately, these people believe that they are being logical.

castadiva

The lack of logic in this sort of pronouncement is always quite astonishing.

These people believe in the Bible. The Bible teaches that women are subservient to men. So, unfortunately, these people believe that they are being logical.

It's a shame their 'logic' doesn't lead them to think through the real-life consequences of their pronouncements (and that their interpretation of scripture is limited to what accords with their own particular mindset, and takes no notice of the context in which many of these texts were written, and sometimes more importantly, translated). On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

UsedToBeHusky

On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

I can agree with this. The bible has been translated over and over, and it was written by men who only received a vision. The books considered to be "biblical" were chosen by a group of men.

I don't take the bible literal. I use it as a guideline. And that's really all it is meant to be.

doorki

On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

I can agree with this. The bible has been translated over and over, and it was written by men who only received a vision. The books considered to be "biblical" were chosen by a group of men.

I don't take the bible literal. I use it as a guideline. And that's really all it is meant to be.

Unfortunately, the prevailing Protestant teachings in the US is now that the Bible was divinely inspired and literally the Word of God.

UsedToBeHusky

On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

I can agree with this. The bible has been translated over and over, and it was written by men who only received a vision. The books considered to be "biblical" were chosen by a group of men.

I don't take the bible literal. I use it as a guideline. And that's really all it is meant to be.

Unfortunately, the prevailing Protestant teachings in the US is now that the Bible was divinely inspired and literally the Word of God.

Yeah, that is what many believe, but that doesn't make it true. As a Christian, I struggle with the common practices and ideologies of the church. It's kept me away from the church more often than not. But at the same time, I can't let others dictate my faith and beliefs and relationship with God. So I try to let others believe what they choose, Christian or otherwise, and just pray that God will open their eyes in his own time.

fbmandy55

On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

I can agree with this. The bible has been translated over and over, and it was written by men who only received a vision. The books considered to be "biblical" were chosen by a group of men.

I don't take the bible literal. I use it as a guideline. And that's really all it is meant to be.

Agreed. And this is the reason I stopped going to church. Got a new pastor who takes the bible literally rather than uses it for our current times.

Oddly enough, there is a local church that makes the news regularly, mostly because they have a large congregation and a nulti-million dollar community center, thanks to local tax beaks. :grumble: My parents attended a wedding there and the whole ceremony was based on how a woman should serve her husband. It was pretty disturbing from what I hear.

A few months later, three 8th grade boys from the school there raped a 7th grade girl in the woods while their parents were in Sunday bible study classes. The judge noted that during their trials, the parents of the boys failed to see how serious the situation was and said they felt the punishment was too harsh. They showed little remorse for the girl. A few weeks ago I found out that the mom of the ringleader works at a daycare across from my son's school and had been bringing her son to work with her! He raped a 12 year old and she thought there was no issue with bringing him to a daycare. That became public when parents found out he was making inappropriate comments to kids.

All a result of taking the bible in a literal sense and those people believing that men have power over women. That is what the parents believe and it shows in their kids behavior.

UsedToBeHusky

On a side note, I always think it's rather odd for Christians to "believe in the Bible", rather than believing in God - the two are not the same thing at all.

I can agree with this. The bible has been translated over and over, and it was written by men who only received a vision. The books considered to be "biblical" were chosen by a group of men.

I don't take the bible literal. I use it as a guideline. And that's really all it is meant to be.

Agreed. And this is the reason I stopped going to church. Got a new pastor who takes the bible literally rather than uses it for our current times.

Oddly enough, there is a local church that makes the news regularly, mostly because they have a large congregation and a nulti-million dollar community center, thanks to local tax beaks. :grumble: My parents attended a wedding there and the whole ceremony was based on how a woman should serve her husband. It was pretty disturbing from what I hear.

A few months later, three 8th grade boys from the school there raped a 7th grade girl in the woods while their parents were in Sunday bible study classes. The judge noted that during their trials, the parents of the boys failed to see how serious the situation was and said they felt the punishment was too harsh. They showed little remorse for the girl. A few weeks ago I found out that the mom of the ringleader works at a daycare across from my son's school and had been bringing her son to work with her! He raped a 12 year old and she thought there was no issue with bringing him to a daycare. That became public when parents found out he was making inappropriate comments to kids.

All a result of taking the bible in a literal sense and those people believing that men have power over women. That is what the parents believe and it shows in their kids behavior.

That is truly scary! :noway:

wewon

I visited the site because something didn't sound right and looked that the "about" page.

I'd like to start out saying that I am not Catholic, nor am I here to defend them or any other religion.

Fix the Family is the flagship program of a lay Catholic teaching Apostolate (Citadel Catholic Media) started in 2010 by 2 Catholic family men. Our marriages andfamilies have been solid, united, and faithful to the Church, but we noticed that many other families around us are not. We recognized that there is a serious problem in that the Catholic moral teaching on marriage and family, as rock-solid and beautiful as it is, has not reached the faithful. When we began looking for material to share with those around us, we found that it was either too academic and complicated or non-existent. In short, there is almost no common man’s material on the true teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage and family.

Fix the family is three year old group formed by two guys.

These two don't represent the Catholic Church and its teachings any more than any other splinter group (or individuals with a blog) represent any other religion, philosophy or organization.

This is two guys that got together and say their interpretation of things.

Its no more fair to slap around religion based on these two, then it is to argue against your core beliefs based on a blog by someone that is in the fringe.

Most of us get pretty pissde off when someone does that.

k8blujay2

Sorry, but any anyone who thinks that the Bible says that women are equal to men simply has not read it. e.g. "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2).

I'm gonna guess you take things at face value, don't you? Not even considering the prevailing culture at the time.

In that time period women and men traditionally worshipped in seperate areas. As a result when the teacher was teaching and the women would have a question they would yell that question across the way to their husbands, instead of saving it for later... thus disturbing the entire service and disrupting everyone, including the teacher... this was Timothy telling the women to save it for later.

Koldnomore

Personally I don't think its a problem if the woman CHOOSES to stay home and raise children. I really feel that in the 'modern' world women (and men) are forced to work because there is no possible way to live on just one average income. I am not advocating forcing a woman to take this route but she should have a choice - as should a man. If they want to 'fix' the family they will need to start with a plan so that the family can function on ONE income. Whichever partner has a better income/skills/desire can work and the other should be able to stay home and be a parent and good partner. I don't care if it's man OR woman.

To force anyone into a position where they no longer have the CHOICE with respect to work or staying home to raise the children is what I disagree with. This is what I find id the largest issue with most religions today..They tend to place people into very specific (and normally gender differentiated) roles. I know at least one man who would make a better stay at home dad than a BIG portion of women make stay at home moms.

I fully believe that if it was actually possible to be able to live comfortably on one average income more people WOULD take the stay at home parent role.

adrian_indy

I think that even the most ardent atheist would show an unbalanced opinion that the bible offers no great teachings, especially the New Testament. However, once you do remove the supernatural element of the Bible and it's rules on things like what are being discussed in this debate, that the writers were given instructions by a divine god like being, then you begin to realize that these were a bronze age group of goat herders, whose primary way off life was either herding or warfare, and their most important survival mechanism was procreation.

The problem that most extremely religious people have with still holding these teachings as true is that the either have to publically deny the rest of the teachings that are insane, sit by quietly and act like they don't exist, or embrace them which only makes them look sane to the insane.

Yes, I think that it is a fairly consistent model from the old T that women should be subservient to men as it does say homosexual behavior is a sin, as are about a hundred other things that modern evangelicals seem to completely ignore in their cherry picking of the rules. Take Leviticus for example, he makes it clear that homosexual behavior is a sin and the extreme evangelicals and the homophobe who really knows nothing else of the bible latch on to it. But Leviticus also teaches that disrespectful teenagers should be stoned to death. Good times and very sophisticated...but you don't see very many evangelicals tuning in to their favorite Cheshire cat-like grinning preacher to watch him beat a 14 year old to death with really big rocks. Why?

I could go on and on about other rules that catholics or evangelicals ignore because they are outdated or barbaric, but it has been done in other previous posts. Instead you must consider why some of the religious are so certain that some rules still apply, while others don't with no more contact to the divine than any other living person. It all comes down to preference. People who was a merciful Christ see one through his merciful acts to the poor while other more militant Christians who embrace fire and brimstone embrace the Jesus who over turned the money tables in the temple, becoming a sword-wielding Christ.

k8blujay2

The reason why the rules exist in the OT was an effort to allow the people to be figuratively and spiritually clean in God's eyes. It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason). BUT the point was that those rules and those sacrifices are no longer needed... not just because they are barbaric but because of the ultimate blood sacrifice of Christ through his barbaric death and ultimate ressurection. What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus), or even that women are supposed to be exactly what is described in Proverbs 31 (tying back to the OP)... following these rules down to the minute details is no longer necessary to follow or have a relationship with God... that was evident by the tearing of the veil as described in scripture (which was torn from top to bottom and it wasn't some flimsy cotton curtian... it was heavy and thick) between the Holy of Holies and the rest of the temple. The fire and brimestone people misunderstand widely as well... Christ was angry at the defiling of the temple because they were essentially commericializing what was supposed to be a reverant place of worship... It would be like if there was a pitchman trying to sell OxyClean or SlapChop in the middle of a worship service, not exactly reverent or respectful. And as far as the throwing of stones, Christ made that one abundantly clear that it shouldn't be done. I think most evangelicals cherry pick in the OT because according to the NT Christ didn't come out and explicitely say "don't judge homosexuals" so they think it's ok... even though Christ did say "let those without sin cast the first stone"... the evangelicals conviently forget that they too have sin in their lives, it just may be easier to hide or it's consider (more) acceptible in today's culture.


I think the problem comes with these ministers that have a narrow view of God and the Bible is they don't take the cultural differences of the day into respect.

adrian_indy

This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.

k8blujay2

This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.

But the thing is, it isn't just about dying so that someone can sin... the sin in essence is an uncleanliness of our spirit and our body... it is something that separates us from God and having a relationship with Him. It's not about the sin per se, but the seperation of us from God. When we sin in any way, we can become filled with so many (often negative) emotions and feelings that hinder our relationship to God and to other people. Jesus died, so we wouldn't have to be encumbered with so many do's and do not's in order to have a relationship with Him (which was the case in the OT). Not so that someone can eat shell fish or have sex with someone of the same gender or even so women can work outside of the home, but to be able to focus on His work that He started.

doorki

This is probably one of the best written Christian answers I have read in a long time. The only critiques I have (not of you, but of the Bible) is that while a strong case is made that now those old sins are forgiven as long as you believe in Christ, it leaves non-believers like me wondering why they were sins in the first place, and actually still sins now. It is wonderful that many Christians are moving to a more non-judgmental practice of their faith (which, as you have written, is probably the most common sense version of the bible, OT and NT by those who aren't just bending scripture to hear what they want to hear), but I still wonder....why would Jesus have to die for someone being gay or getting divorced? That is where the books being divine fall apart for me. I am not debating that people have faith in that believing in Christ absolves them of their sins, I am debating that the rules about those sins were man made in the first place, not divinely.

UsedToBeHusky

It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.

For example:

It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).

I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.

What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),

And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).

So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.

castadiva

It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.

For example:

It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).

I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.

What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),

And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).

So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.

I agree with you re. context, but think you may want to rephrase your sentence "Sodomy is essentially rape" to say that the term Sodomy, as used in the story of Lot, is meant to infer rape. Sorry if that seems persnickety, but Sodomy can be consensual, so I assume you didn't mean that it is always akin to rape, which is how I read that sentence initially.

k8blujay2

I can agree with both... I have started to read the amplified version for the same reason. Context and reference has more to do with what it says than anything else. A recent example of why I started reading that version, as opposed to the NKJV that I typically read, was at the end of the Lord's prayer it states in many versions, "and yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever, Amen." but it doesn't show up in the orginal writings nor in many translations (for that reason).


And that's a good point about the sacrifices. I knew that the priests would eat the offerings... but that makes a good point. But there was still blood that needed to be shed (as barbaric as that sounds) and it ties back to the story of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God and as a result killed a lion in order to "cover their nakedness".

adrian_indy

Realizing the thread was on marriage, I am sorry if we derailed with homosexuality...but I want to add that homosexuality wasn't open at that time in those areas. Other areas on the planet had similar or different takes depending on the culture. As :LuckyLeprechaun stated earlier with her theory on why divorce has risen ( a theory I have shared almost verbatim for some time), I also have a theory about homosexuality. I believe that a small portion of the population is truly homosexual. They have no attraction to the opposite sex and are 100% gay. But if you read any amount of history...homosexual behavior (which is slightly different) rises when a society rises to power, obtains luxury, but more importantly is no longer shackled to procreation as an only means to survival.

Rome, Egypt, Greece, The Nazis, and now America. Think of the girls at college or at spring break who end up kissing other girls or going way farther. They aren't gay, but our society has relaxed it's grip on certain morals making it ok, possible desirable for women to exhibit these behaviors in these situations. I do think that ancient middle eastern hatred of homosexual behavior stems from at least two sources.

First, and easiest to understand....when you need a lot of sons to tend the herd and pick up arms against other aggressive tribes, it is easy to see how the family patriarch would be disturbed if young Jonah isn't making babies with his bride, but fooling around with another dude.

Second, the Jews ( while not saints themselves) were in direct contact with places like Egypt and Rome, who did advocate different forms of slavery. It is a good chance in my opinion that many of the rules against homosexuality weren't really against homosexuality at all, but something they had no word for yet, pedophilia. It is easy to see how the religions of poor people whose sons had a good chance of being raped by a rich, drunken Roman might have an issue with that.

UsedToBeHusky

It's interesting. I think the true problem with Christianity today is mistranslation. I recently started reading the NLT version of the bible. Prior to that, I have only ever read the KJV. The KJV was produced for a completely different time and society than our modern one, and reading the NLT has given me some new insights that I did not have prior to picking it up.

For example:

It's also why they made frequent blood sacrifices with various animals (depending on the reason).

I have realized that what the bible refers to as "sacrifices" was actually just offerings of meat, bread, and wine that was used for a meal provided to the entire congregation. The "sacrifice" was when the animals were butchered at the tabernacle in preparation of the meal, but the reality is that it is referred to as a "sacrifice" not because of the slaughter, but because the individual sacrificed a portion of their property to feed the community. This never occurred to me when I read the KJV.

What people misunderstand (or just ignore) is while homosexuality is a sin (according to Leviticus),

And here, sodomy and homosexuality are not the same thing. Sodomy is essentially rape. During the time the KJV was produced, no one was openly homosexuality. You could say that it was because of the bible, but people were homosexual long before the KJV was translated. Society, as a whole, did not talk about it. When the men of Sodom came to Lot and demanded that he send out the visitors so that they could have sex with them. There intention was to rape, or sodomize, those men (against their will).

So, in short, I think the problem with the bible and the understanding of it, is that society is trying to impose an antiquated version of it on their own modern lives.

I agree with you re. context, but think you may want to rephrase your sentence "Sodomy is essentially rape" to say that the term Sodomy, as used in the story of Lot, is meant to infer rape. Sorry if that seems persnickety, but Sodomy can be consensual, so I assume you didn't mean that it is always akin to rape, which is how I read that sentence initially.

Language has a tendency to evolve over time. What I am saying is that the original Hebrew word for "sodomy" very well could have inferred always to be rape, and because society has seen homosexuality as a taboo, the word has evolved to infer both forcible and consensual. I think its reasonable to make that assumption given that two very different extremes have been lumped into the same category.

UsedToBeHusky

I can agree with both... I have started to read the amplified version for the same reason. Context and reference has more to do with what it says than anything else. A recent example of why I started reading that version, as opposed to the NKJV that I typically read, was at the end of the Lord's prayer it states in many versions, "and yours is the kingdom and the power and glory forever, Amen." but it doesn't show up in the orginal writings nor in many translations (for that reason).


And that's a good point about the sacrifices. I knew that the priests would eat the offerings... but that makes a good point. But there was still blood that needed to be shed (as barbaric as that sounds) and it ties back to the story of Adam and Eve when they disobeyed God and as a result killed a lion in order to "cover their nakedness".

Yes, blood was used ceremonially, but this is also a primitive society that we are speaking of. My point is simply that the way "sacrifice" is used in the old testament is not necessarily how we have interpretted it. And that furthers my point that loose interpretations have distorted the way people have perceived the bible over the centuries.