Does God Ordain Machismo?

Burgosmario7

Seriously?

Burgosmario7
If you read the bible 4x you must of did it with your eyes close... evolve.. what are you taking about?? GOD is the same yesterday and today and tomarrow. I guess you missed that?

I have read the Bible four times, The Q'ran once and I agree that all three Abrahamic religions descriminate agains women. our problem is not the missinterpretation of the sacred texts, the problem are the texts itselfs. I believe in God but the children of Abraham do not want to evolve, if they want to survive our scientific era they will have to evolve. There are no other choices.

I have read the Bible four times, The Q'ran once and I agree that all three Abrahamic religions descriminate agains women. our problem is not the missinterpretation of the sacred texts, the problem are the texts itselfs. I believe in God but the children of Abraham do not want to evolve, if they want to survive our scientific era they will have to evolve. There are no other choices.

The assumption that the dominant interpretation of the three major monotheistic religions of the West - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, leads to subjugation of woman, I believe (in the most general sense) is true. Most of the text's used by the faiths aforementioned were most likely written (and interpreted) by men. This paternalistic view transcended the older maternalistic view of faith and the world; dominated during Pagan times and tradition where the idea of the mother-goddess molded well w/the early agrarian societies and their pantheon of the supernatural. However, the single theist movement that ultimately would dominate our world, was a God of War - almost exclusively dominated by males, so it would be a logical progression that from that paradigm it would relegate woman to the back-burner. However, and for that reason alone the religious texts used by these dominant faiths should be treated in the most scholastic sense - they are a window into the times of our historical past and not a literal translation from the word of a God. Faith unities us in a cultural identity that can transcend barriers, such as language and can and has led to some of the most enlightening and positive aspects for both men and woman. All of the faiths must move beyond the paternalistic traditions that has promoted these gender biases; otherwise, it becomes an elitist and exclusive order and not worthy of assimilation.

Samuel Rodriguez is correct and I applaud his article. It demonstrates one of the flaws of the patristic interpretation of scriptures when it comes to the role of women in the Church.

One of the big complaint against nascent Pentecostalism was the fact that women were allowed leadership roles in the Church. The problem, I think, is the confusion between natural order and role. Because God's natural order is the man ahead of the woman, it does not preclude the woman from being the leader of a congregation while she acknowledges that her husband is the head of their household.

In addition, God never made the woman to be subservient, but complementary; it is just that the man was made first.

Does anyone here actually know what the Bible says let alone understand it? For that matter, do you even understand what you are talking about?

Well, here is one thing the Bible says: It is foolish to answer any matter without first knowing what it is all about.

It seems to me that there are a lot of foolish things being said in these posts; people throwing out quotes as if it validates their points even when it is obvious that they are just covering their ignorance.

How about some perspective here? Nihil novum sub sole.

"I have no color preferences, nor creed preferences, nor caste preferences. All I care to know is that a man is a human being, and that is enough for me. He can't be any worse." --Mark Twain

(bon chance...)

Or "Cheers!" as Kurt Vonnegut might say...

Want to see genius? Want to feel humility?
Top this...

"If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." -- Mark Twain

We wait...

Khote14,

I don't know where you are getting your facts. I don't think astronauts can just do anything they wish without the approval of engineers on the ground.

I also don't know who are the people you call as "scientists". For me, speculators are not scientists.

Stupidity will destroy mankind coz stupidity is self destructive. Doomsday is the result of lots of idiots fading away due to their own stupidity.

You can make your own survey and visit engineering schools. See for yourselves how many of these folks believe in God.

You've been duped to believe that biology is pure science. It's not. It's is a combination of science and lots of speculations. The idiots concentrate on the speculation part.

few of the scientists who put those astronauts on the moon were christians. I'm sure you noticed that spidey, only 7% of scientists today claim to believe this crock you believe in.

The astronauts were pilots, they did not put themselves on the moon.

Obviously you have a problem with logic. Who cares if the wright brothers were christians? 75% of America are christians, as well as 75% of the prison population. Your argument by association is retarded.

And besides, they were only a little over 100 years ago. I wrote "200" years ago.

200 years from now we're going to know all sorts of things we don't currently know. That's science, spidey, it always grows.

That is, if we can keep you religious fanatics from starting this armageddon you all seem to want so desperately

khote14 wrote "200 years ago people like you were saying man would never fly. Duh."

How is this possible when the Wright brothers were Christians and the crews at Apollo 8 read scriptures in space?

Not only are atheists scientific idiots, they too are dumb about history.

Khote14 wrote "It's a stupid design. We've already done better than that, our machines can handle spinning and then progress without falling down due to the after affects."

We should observe how a humanoid walks and compare it to humans. Then let the audience decide which is a stupid design. I forgot to state that humans can swim and climb trees too while humanoids will ... wait a minute.. they still need to reprogram that. I hope that can solve that using "natural selection".

6000 years ago, a believer was able to build a multi-storey ship while the idiots all drowned coz they thought log rafts are fine.

The reason why humans are not capable of spinning and then walk is because it's a stupid maneuver. That's part of the design. Only idiots spin.

It's essays like this and many of the comments that follow that reinforce my faith that religion is a really good thing to avoid. Religiously. It was the male of our species that 'invented' religion for the care and feeding of his fellow males. Thus, females are, at best, 2nd-class creatures subject to sub-human treatment at the hands of their male 'superiors'. Religious writings, including 'The Bible', were spawned by the minds of males to, once again, reinforce male dominance. Not only is religion not an aid to finding 'spiritual' truth, it is an impediment. Religions demand a closed mind, especially the extreme fundamentalists. Only with an open mind can our species ever hope to gain any understanding of the fundamental forces that brought our universe into being and discover what our place is in the cosmic mysteries. Religious fairy tales and myths add nothing to gaining understanding of the mysteries of existence. Religions are a specious vestige of our historical ignorance and superstitions. Religions play to our easily-manipulated emotions, not our more constant reason. And it is our brains that have gotten us this far, and it is our brains that will save us from mutual self-destruction. Amen to that.

"The earth has no brain so how in the world can man walk and run with perfect balance? "

Rotate spidey, you know how to do that. Spin around real fast and then try to walk with that "perfect balance."

It's a stupid design. We've already done better than that, our machines can handle spinning and then progress without falling down due to the after affects.

Just because you lack the intelligence to answer these questions does not mean others haven't already answered them.

200 years ago people like you were saying man would never fly. Duh.

You do not understand natural selection. You've absorbed what you think you do know from anti-science christian fanatics ... you know, people just like you.

khote14 wrote "He does recognize that most who come here as atheists far surpass him in intelligence. "

This is a joke, isn't it? Upto now, inspite of man's accumulated science, he has not been able to create a humanoid which can mimick how man walks. Humanoids still walk like idiots.

The earth has no brain so how in the world can man walk and run with perfect balance? Intelligent people know there's an invisible brain out there. Idiots can't discern this fact.

"Natural selection" which the idiots always use as their defense for human existence, has not thought about the algorithm of man's walking ability. There are millions of algorithms out there that's present in nature but as usual the atheist idiots have not come to the realization that these things don't come naturally. These things happen by DESIGN.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law." (1 Cor. 14:34)

From what I've observed, churches who don't follow this verse, also don't follow many verses in the Bible. Maybe Apostle Paul has a point. Sure he does.

spidey, your typical christian? Perhaps ...

These kind of self-loathing posers obsess about that which they hate most in themselves.
Choosing it as an example of something that *should* be hated and despised they call anybody they don't like by that name.

Spidermean2 obviously hates himself for his widespread stupidity. He does recognize that most who come here as atheists far surpass him in intelligence. He responds with belligerent condemnation of their intelligence.

How could someone so much smarter than he fail to belief in the christian BS? It must simply be that they are not in fact more intelligent. He's stupid enough to believe these myths, how much trouble would it be for him to believe in his own intelligence?

Karmicquickdraw, you should read the news. Almost all who are involved in any kind of massacres think exactly the same as you do. Atheist, liberal leftist and evolutionist.

The worst terrorist in America, Tim Mc Veigh said that "science is my religion". What kind of science? The science of stupidity.

Actually true Christians don't need guns. But they need it to protect themselves from the likes of you. Stupid people roaming around free but dangerous.

Who in the history of the universe has been more macho than YHWH?

How do you know ?

Well, here's one for ya: I was walking to my car in the grocery store parking lot when I noticed the bumper sticker on the car next to mine. It read: "Hold onto your guns and religion". Now I expected that some fat stupid redneck man would be driving. I shouldn't have been surprised that a late middle-aged woman was. So domestic terrorists are advertising now and they're women! What egalitarianism.

At first I thought it must be a born again Christian. You know the type. Always p*ss*d off about something. Then again, I thought, maybe it's a fundamentalist Muslim. The fundie "Churchians" and the fundie "Mooslims" sound so much alike, it's hard to tell them apart by their bumperstickers.

Regardless, this woman is one step away from a burkha and dynamite strapped to her chest as she goes about her afternoon shopping for her precious little famliiy. "Attention Safeway shoppers, explosion in aisle three! Pickles everywhere!"

Just because you're a woman doesn't mean that you're not machismo. You can be an old woman and still be a jerk. Women Penecostals/Evangelicals and all sort of reactionary types still dish out the same old crap that their slicked down men do.

Who cares if they get ordained? I'm worried that one of their frowsy colleagues in ministry will take us all out with their religious guns. However, I'm glad they're advertising who they are with their bumper stickers. More easily avoided. Maybe we can get 'em to wear a badge like the gay Mormon boys and their boyfriends who pedal around the neighborhood. That way we can tell who they are even when they're not driving.
What's more they'll be easier to round up.

Yeah, that's all we need: more freaky christian snake handlers hate peddlers who happen to be women. Whoopie!

Personally, I hope Mr. Rodriquez is proven correct - that an evolving Pentecostal church can break down barriers to women, both as pertaining to religion, and more broadly, in how women are treated by their husbands, boyfriends, brothers and the male gender in general.

Perhaps one day, such an event can be compared to the role that African American churches played in the the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s - faith infused with activism.

Christianity was in a state of chaotic flux from the very beginning. The very meaning of Christ was hotly contested. Was he flesh and blood only, was he both flesh and blood AND divine, was he a holy spirit masquerading as flesh and blood, was resurrection the point, or were his teachings the path to salvation, with resurrection a misreading of his purpose?

And that folks, was only the beginning. The early orthodox church was either literal or figurative in its' interpretations of the old testament, depending upon the theological advantage that could be gained over what it considered heretical competitors (some of those competitors refused to even accept the Old Testament, considering it brutal and inferior to the new word represented by Christ).

Judging by some of the pror comments, that debate continues - with a vengeance.

God isn't a macho man?
Has anyone ever met god? As far as I know, it could be a bat in a tutu, if it exists.

Look Monty and Garoth, if ya'll want to beat off to yer Holy Books and aren't hurting anyone in the process, fine by me. Go to it. Masturbation, mental or otherwise, is one of the most harmless activities there is.

But to pretend that your hermetic little clique represents Christianity - or even "faith" in general - is misleading to an almost malicious extent. It's an attempt to put a gentile and oh, so civilized face on a barbaric activity that is really a technique of mass social control and a lever of political power.

Christianity in America today is the foundation of pro-war, pro-torture, anti-gay, anti-woman thinking. The vast majority of those who hold these opinions (and who wish to force the rest of us to live by them) call themselves Christians and think of their politics as Christian. Your hermeneutics do much about that, do they?

Organized religion elsewhere is little different. From Saudi Arabia to Israel to India, religion creates large groups of people united under a banner of cruel superstition. They beat, kill, rob and torture in the name of their superstition. But their god is always Good, ain't he?

And not a single facet of any of these superstitions has a single basis in reality. Religion is beyond the realm of reality, of proof and disproof, of argument or logic. It preys on the mentally and emotionally vulnerable, trapping them in a web of vicious fiction calling itself Absolute Truth.

So have fun with your faiths in the privacy of your own homes. You have a right to your brand of BS, whatever it is. You just don't have the right to any respect for that BS or your devotion to it.

It's always about America, Isn't it? These quasi-theological commentators always have to comment about America, and now we have this dude talking about "American faith" becoming more "Hispanic". In other words, these politicos masquerading as people of faith, while always loudly proclaiming "Separation of Church and State!" cannot talk about "faith" without talking in political terms (the 'American' polity and the equality of women) or racial terms (white America; Hispanic America).
Whatever it is this fellow really believes, perhaps he should emigrate to Mexico, or better yet Iran, and promote Pentecostalism. But then, he has a really good life here in America, him and Sally and Jon.

"What is this mumbo jumbo and why is it in my newspaper?"

YOUR newspaper?

But didn't God tell Bush to go to war in Iraq and liberate people?

Oh God didn't say that?

How do you know?

After all, God has been known to say things like this, correct?

No?

Remember the Amalekites?

What, "in the proper context"?

What's the proper context to view the orders of God, one who is omnipotent and all-loving, when genocide was the only way out for him?

I applaud the content of the post, but how can you ignore the vast misogyny in both the Old and New Testaments?

Are these tomes the word of God or not?

Bigbrother1:

You might be interested to know that "hermeneutics" includes biblical archeology, and use of the scientific method to understand what the writers of the Bible were talking about in those verses. As a believer and Christian leader I use, and have benefited from the "hermeneutics" process in hopes of keeping my own prejudice from blocking what God is trying to say.

The Bible is basically a 'how to get along with' book. Unfortunately some use it for their own purposes. Don't blame all those of faith for the minority who use the Holy Scriptures as a weapon.

montyk

p.s: right on garoth

Garoth: As you show ably demonstrate, "hermeneutics" is mostly just a fancy word for a whole lot of BS. And acting like there's a science to hermeneutics is a good way to get yourself laughed at.

Sure, everyone who cares about it interprets their scripture to prove what they want. But why are they interpreting a scripture? Why not a poem, or some other story? Because as long as people believe it, the scripture is POWER. And the interpretation, as power focused and clarified, is even more power. Sort of like 12-year single malt snake-oil. You can sell that stuff to a lot of rubes.

Take away the belief, and hermeneutics is BS about BS. Can you imagine a bigger waste of time?

Concerning the application of hermeneutics to the Bible - who, among the responders to this column, would jump a writer because of appropriate scientific termonology? Why is it, then, that when a writer uses appropriate theological terminology, he gets jumped on? What is being said in this sentence is simply that all scripture has to be placed in its proper context. Even so-called "literalists" do so, even if they do not acknowlege it. The scriptures, in and of themselves, can be made to say almost anything. The various authors who have contributed to it over the centuries, each has haad their own "take" on faith and what it means. Hermeneutics is simply taking varous passages and putting them into an appropriate theological context. If, for example, you are big on "Holy War" theology, that might provide the hermeneutical lens through which you see the rest of scripture. Both Paul and Jesus applied their own hermeneutics to the scriptures, accepting some and not accepting others. To Paul, the chief evidence of the resurrection was the removal of barriers between cultures, genders and classes. Although some Christians take a few scriptures as evidence that this is not the case, the whole of Paul's theology argues against this limited understanding of God's inclusive grace. Jesus also argues along the same lines, if the Gospels are to believed as reflecting his thought. In most of the stories (pick any Gospel), those who were normally marginales, are included by him, and their faith is seen as the new norm for the kingdom of God. Jesus also opposes Jewish teachings that relegate women to second-class status (eg. the question of the woman and the seven sons).

To some of the others on this blog who criticize religion in general, I would like to note that everyone has faith of some kind. Religion is about what we hold as an ultimate value in life. To not have any religion, is to not hold any values as ultimate. Because many have abused religion is not a sufficient argument against it. Many who are irreligious have done great damage as well. The question is "what values will we hold as ultimate?" and "what is the foundation of those values?" Relgion is a way of looking at those values in a wholistic way. The great value of the Bible is that it is an on-going argument concerning those values, one that invites the input of each generation.

The God I believe in does not value men over women.
The God I believe in does not value one race, sexual preference or nation over another, belong to a political party or have any such other biases.
God is far to deep, too wise, too loving to indulge in any such pettiness.
If someone else wishes to believe otherwise, fine. That's his/her problem -- all I ask if they not shove their beliefs down my throat or have undue influence in government, science or other public policy spheres.

Bottom line: The "Bible" was written, copied and rewritten hundreds of times by MEN.
It is Men who decided which writings are scripture, not GOD.
It is men who conveyed sainthood on other men and women, not God.

NO MAN CAN SPEAK FOR GOD BECAUSE NO MAN KNOWS WHO OR WHAT OR IF "GOD" is...and that is the truth!

"Christian teaching instructs us of an equalizing force far greater than any political or legislative attempt towards equality.."

(except, uh, er, for gays of course and people of darker skin as is the tradition in Rodriguez's Latino heritage and culture/

Women were Prophets and Judges (Deborah) throughout the Bible.

And at the End Times we are specifically told women will have a large rolke in the Church:

Acts 2:16-18 (New International Version)

16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:

17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.

Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.

18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.

Peter was quoting Joel 2:28, written at a time when women had severely curtailed public rights.

Under the ages-old heading of "your god can be anything you want him/her/it to be", we get yet another interpretation of what it means to be a Christian; of what Jesus was really like; of what his teachings were REALLY about.
How does Rodriguez know while the priest down the block knows nothing?
All I an atheist since birth knows is what I have read. And what I've read in both the new and old testaments reads like a horror flick for the justifications of mass killings, adultery, rape and child molestation.
How can those passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy be taken out of context? How can they be interpreted as allegory or symbolism? This is what this author needs to address, not give us yet another construct of bible mumbo jumbo.
Since every St. Tom, Dick or Harry can and will apply their own "hermeneutical" explanation, there is no other way to explain what one reads in the bible except from the viewpoint of a basic understanding of the King's English.
If one agrees, then either relegate the bible and the koran to the dustbin of history or start killing adulterers, homosexuals, liars and thieves as these "holy texts" demand. Only then can one claim to be a "true" Christian or Muslim.

Without question, religion has been used throughout history to justify the subjugation and oppression of women. It's one of the many black marks on religion.

I don’t thing God has anything to do with this. To get the right answer, one must ask the right question: What are the advantages to a society to limit the rights of their women?

The disadvantages are clear. As far as I know, there is no advanced technological society that firmly limits the rights of their women, so the advantages must be associated with low technology societies.

Now it gets interesting. Advanced technological societies are a very recent thing, having evolved within the last few hundred years.

Advanced technology societies have a decisive advantage over low technology societies. I predict that societies that limit the rights of their women will change or die. This will take some time, but it will happen. This includes religions.

But then, I could be wrong.

There is no doubt that when it comes to the subject of religion men and women are equal -- equally stupid.

TQWoods: Jesus only had to be "born of a virgin" if a woman who had sex is seen as less "pure" than one who hasn't. And if that isn't woman oppressing (and flipping insane to boot) I don't know what is.

Face it, your chosen mythology (Semitic sky-god with an optional Neo-Platonic element) is what it is.

If you choose to do decent things with your myths and see only the kindness and love in the stories that means you are a decent and loving person, so more power to you. But yours is the minority view in Christianity. Look at what most Christians really do, really strive for, and you'll see nothing of the basically decent and loving guy called Jesus of Nazareth. Nothing at all.

Commentators should start to link topics like this with the endless battle of religion vs. science and modernity. Religion is a mythology-based belief system which in most cases is based on imaginary people, creatures that go bump in the night, old texts with loads of unfortunate statements in them, and many, many practices that make little sense in 2009: e.g., dont eat (fill in the blank), keep the women separate and/or wrapped in black clothes, wear knives, etc. The texts and the practices are starting to run up against the modern world, such as contraception, abortion and the willingness of the modern person to not really care if the neighbor is gay and/or a Baptist. So, religion faces a few choices, e.g., try to be everything like the Episcopalians and satisfy no one; reject modernity and continue to actively seek to kill the non-believers; re-invent yourself and face up to it that the book from 5000 years ago isnt as relevant as it seemed once; or pretend none of this is happening. The mythology-believer needs to either suck it up and believe what the instructions say on the box, or move on. Moving on is the right choice.

"The most common of all follies," wrote H.L.Mencken, "is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

In his book "How The Mind Works" Steven Pinker, the Harvard professor of Brain and Cognitive Sciences - "wonders how religion fits into a mind that one might have thought was designed to reject the palpably not true?"

The answer seems to be that childrens' minds are totally vulnerable to the installation of religious programs, and once installed can be impossible to uninstall. Get them when they are young enough - and they can be made to believe anything, no matter how unlikely or how irrational.If the local community groupthink accords with the program - then the child becomes a man who believes the palpably not true - for ever. (And sometimes even when the groupthink is different).

This explains how Muslims become Muslim, Mormons become Mormons, Catholics become Catholics, and Evangelicals become Evangelicals.

In a perfect world we would allow our children to grow and develop without religious programs, and we would stop lying to them about gods and other things of which we have no knowledge.

Uhm.... If people are having problems understanding and interpreting a sentence or two from a Washington Post article in modern English, what does that say about our chances of interpreting correctly, let alone agreeing on, Biblical passages?

Actually, I'm relieved to see someone writing to say that women are people and that to treat them badly is to go against God and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I always thought so. But people who like to harm others and who get a kick out of being bullies and control freaks, whether they target women or minorities, tend to misquote whatever authorities they think will help them bamboozle others into helping them get away with oppression and atrocity.

The psychology of oppressors in all cultures is probably very similar. They just go by different clique names and quote different sources to justify themselves.

But we demean our own faith and demean the real Jesus if we believe the lies of the bullies. If Jesus had meant to help justify any kind of oppression, He wouldn't have been born of a virgin and laid in a manger.

Every Pentecostal I've known was completely consumed with hatred for homosexuals. Not exactly what I'd call "liberating."

People who worship machismo will worship a macho god, natch. Latino, white, black, whatever - Americans tend to worship a murderous, hateful, jealous, and sick-hearted deity. There's some lovey-motherly stuff for sweetener, but the raging CEO/alcoholic-daddy/prison-guard is the one in charge, and he gets the final say on Judgment Day.

Male interpretation of goat herders stories about a fictional space daddy have been and are used to subjugate people (not just women) for millenia. Idiotic 'rules' that go against all natural laws, acceptance and even encouragement of slavery, rape and animal slaughter, genocide and incest, stoning of disobedient children and gays, all this and more in the "good book", the alleged words of an imaginary deity who drowned all life on Earth because he loves us sooo much!
Please, can we all move into the 21st century? Superstitious cults should be a thing of the past for the uninformed and ignorant.

"Truth be told, there are passages in the biblical narrative that if taken out of text without applying appropriate hermeneutical application"
What is this mumbo jumbo and why is it in my newspaper?
---------------

Thank you... This is just another illustreation of white supremacy, which authored the "bible".

As long as we're quoting scripture and biblical morality when it comes to women...

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

How could you take this quote at anything other than face value? There's no inference to be had here.

"Truth be told, there are passages in the biblical narrative that if taken out of text without applying appropriate hermeneutical application seem to reinforce the notion of God ordained Machismo or secondary status of women."

Aw, did the big scary sentence wif its big words fwighten you? Let me dumb it down to your level:

"There's some stuff in the Bible that if you take it out of context can be read to sound as though God approves of putting women down."

There, all better now?

Well, I disagree: I talk to God all the time
--He comes to my house weekdays and I
sometimes go to His Sundays. And the topic
God likes to talk most about is bar-hopping
and jumping broads--He once confided to me
that if this wasn't what interested Him most
He would have put together a model of an
18th Century sailing ship (instead of Eve).
Furthermore, He says He treats "His women"
rough (and then He makes barking noises like
a dog). Lawd! Now, God plays a mean game
of canasta, but I thoroughly dislike going out
to civilized places with the deity. Satan, on
the other hand is always a gentleman, you
know: like your average car salesman...

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com

"In the 21st-century church many spiritual sons and daughters of all stripes will be grateful to Hispanic Christians ... "

Let me see if I understand this. Catholics and Baptists and other more white-oriented christianity are guilty of macho-izing the god in question, but thanks to hispanic christianity we're all going to be freed of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutical

"Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation theory"

So without the correct interpretation - something many rabid christians claim is apostasy, christianity can be seen as promoting the oppression, suppression, and repression of women.

Is it any wonder the non-believers see this whole thing as a crock?

I have to agree with onehandclapping. That is the worst sentence I have ever seen in the Washington Post. Is this another Sokol-style hoax article?

"Truth be told, there are passages in the biblical narrative that if taken out of text without applying appropriate hermeneutical application"

What is this mumbo jumbo and why is it in my newspaper?