Talk:Feminist Bible

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) at 00:10, 5 March 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Overflow from entry

Feminists don't like words which imply that there are innate differences between the sexes. This is odd, in light of Genesis 1:27 which says that men and women are made in the image of God. They are probably confused about human value and so have decided to slap the label equal on the sexes without making a distinction between "having just as much value" and "being exactly the same in character and ability".
Likewise, feminists along with other liberals have a problem with the child-adult dichotomy: think Doonesbury comics, where the little girl in the daycare center celebrates a birth by saying, "It's a baby woman!" Children are just as valuable as adults, and to the parents who love them often more so. The real hope for ending the battle of the sexes is the cry heard on a sinking ship, "Women and children first!" Men will sacrifice their lives for those they love even more than their own selves. (As the Bible say, "Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for ...")
If we love our children, even in the womb, then they have the same value as regular, air-breathing out-of-the-womb people who have been born already. The demand for a "right of abortion", right up to the last possible legally-allowed moment betrays an utter lack of love. Who would say, "I'm thinking of having an abortion" one day and "I love this baby with all my heart" the next? It's a sheer impossibility. People are not pets or "specimens of living tissue". Forget about the 'rights' aspect; think rather about Who loves us.
Thus, feminism is anti-family. At its core is simply "me first, by myself" (with apologies to Carly Simon). If I get pregnant, oops, we can take a morning-after pill or get an abortion. After all, it's not a human life, just alien tissue growth (a foreign body). The problem with this approach is it makes it hard to answer the question, "When do I start loving my baby?" If it's only a fetus and not a boy until some arbitrary (legal) moment, then what is the basis for developing a parental heart towards my son? Do you start loving the baby when it's born, or when the umbilical cord is cut? How can you love a lump of tissue which, while composed of human cells, is nonetheless non-human?
It really comes down to love. And we can love other people because God loves us first.

These translations are contrary to the different roles of men and women set forth in the Bible, as in the Book of Genesis and the letters of Paul.

  • diluting recognition of the unborn child in the womb, in order to promote or defend abortion
  • diluting passages, particularly by Paul, concerning the wife's duties in marriage
  • promoting equal, indistinguishable roles for men and women in Christian ministry [1]

Bimbo, Floozy?

What 'conservative' Bible do you propose we read that uses these terms?

Harlot, whore, prostitute, temptress, all fine, but 'bimbo'? I personally prefer a more elevated tone in a Bible translation. 'Bimbo' sounds like something out of The Message. --Lordofthemarsh 14:13, 2 March 2011 (EST)

Luke 5:20

Suggest you delete the one about Luke 5:20. Anthropos (sorry, can't do Greek letters) means person (of either sex), not man specifically. HFlashman 18:25, 4 March 2011 (EST)

As explained in the table, ἄνθρωπος is the masculine form. Also, the prior verses clearly state that the person is a man.--Andy Schlafly 00:10, 5 March 2011 (EST)
  1. Complementarians support the traditional complementary roles for men and women, and oppose the insistence on equal, indistinguishable roles.