If a human can choose how to interpret holy text however they want and there isn't an immediate response from a diety for interpreting them wrong, the texts must not really matter.
maybe there is no “wrong” way to interpret the text
If the intended interpretation of a text is "respect women" and you instead interpret the text as "you can own women", then you have interpreted the text incorrectly.
how is judaism abusive and manipulative? attending regular services brings me a sense of inner peace, aligns my actions with my beliefs, and connects me with my community
All religions, no exceptions. To kick things off with the lowest of low hanging fruit: your religion practices male genital mutilation.
But the abuse, manipulations and control go all the way through from patriarchal hierarchies to an "exacting regimen requiring absolute obedience and humility; strong social pressures and rewards for cooperation;"
Which is to say cult brainwashing techniques used by any religion from Judaism to Mormonism to Hinduism. From the Branch Davidians to the Sumerian high priesthood: humans have never ceased using the 0-days of the human mind to exploit and manipulate their fellow man.
Does that mean religions can only do evil? Of course not. I'm glad you get a sense of connection and peace from it.
But that connection and peace serves to perpetuate the primeval toxic hierarchy. You'll raise your kids on it. Make sure they believe it from a young age. After all - "Train a child according to his way; even when he grows old, he will not turn away from it." (Proverbs 22:6) You gotta get em young or they'll never believe when they're old.
Just dropping in to note that I have read about some really cool feminist and women centered interpretations of many major religions over the years. Women are actively combating this sort of thing from within every religious community and there's a long, uplifting history of it going back to the beginning. Gives me happy feelings to know.
Religious people, and women in particular, seem to really love participating in their own oppression. Hell, look at the amount of shit Catholics have to ignore in order to keep attending services and paying money to those bastards every Sunday in good conscience.
In apocryphal gospels, Mary Magdalene was an apostle, and one of the most important ones. In order to believe that the gospels which were compiled to become the bible were "divinely inspired" and not selected (and edited) by the fucking Romans for political reasons, you have to be either dangerously naive or have an agenda.
Yeah but if you're already at that point, chances are you're just going to go a step further and not care about what books were included or not because it's all bullshit.
Not all of it is BS. There’s some good stuff in there, like the golden rule.
It also warns about hypocrites like Trump and MAGA. People who loudly proclaim to be christian, but are the exact opposite through their actions, especially of treating people like dirt (putting it mildly). And of people being led astray by them.
It’s ironic that these folks who claim to love the Bible are often called out by the Bible. Makes me wonder if they even read it…
Edit: Posting my response to their response here because I don’t know if it went through:
My god? Where did I ever say that I believed in a god? If anything, I’m most likely apatheist.
All I said was that there is some good stuff in the Bible. (And therefore, not “all BS” as you claim.)
Unless you’re trying to argue that it’s BS to have morals such as trying to be nice to people, which is irrelevant towards there being a god or not. In which case…k? That’s like, you’re opinion, man.
While Jesus himself is overwhelmingly sympathetic to women, the bible's later chapters (specifically those written by Paul) are pretty clear on how women ought to be treated. So while you could technically interpret it as exalting women, any religious leader turning to the bible with a specific question of how to behave will be more likely to find those later chapters with direct answers more appealing.
Religious texts are a choose your own adventure book, even for the fundamentalists that endorse the parts like that. All believers intentionally leave room for whatever they like.
There are in fact at least two alternative explanations on this: (1) Paul is issuing a general decree that in absolute terms means women must never have authority in any situation ever at any time; (2) this is a local issue specific to Israel at the time because Jews believed women shouldn't have authority, and the Church allowing them to would bring it into disrepute, so this was fitting in with the local society. The second interpretation also ties in with Paul's "all things to all people" teaching. Also Paul in other places specifically notes the difference between "I, not the Lord...", and "The Lord, not I...", and this line states "--I-- do not permit...", suggesting this is from Paul rather than an ultimate directive from above.
some christians discount old testament for anything but historical purposes and consider jesus a new covenant. So the interpretation of that is it does not apply to the modern world.
I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter, but I just can't agree here. There is no way to read the Bible and not see the out-and-out misogyny in both testaments.
Women are clearly considered property. Paul says he does not permit women to speak in church.
We was surprised that Hezbollah used pagers, a thing so outdated that only some select professions still use it, but we choose to navigate our lives following a 2k years old scripture.
I think it's not accurate to call pagers outdated. There's a reason those professions still use them and it's not just because old habits die hard or something.