I'm a member of more than one online group that discusses feminist theology and spirituality, and I'm always amazed at (a) how intelligent my online friends are and (b) how little they know. After almost ten years of getting into discussion after discussion with people who approach the Bible as if it were written yesterday (or in King James English in 1604), I've found that there are some questions that I've answered over and over again.
In the fullness of time, there will be a whole bunch of documents here. But right now today, I want to
get Rheophilia up and running as fast as I can. So please be patient!
I wrote, "I DO believe that Jesus died so that Godde could prove, once and for all, that if Godde truly exists, THERE IS NO DEATH."
Sandy replied, "I'm so intrigued by this statement, Mary! Please say some more about
what you mean. Are we talking metaphysics? I'm right with you on the whole issue — just want to know
more."
During an online discussion, I wrote, "The 'Godde gave his only son to die for our sins'" theology is in a very real sense
Manicheism, not Christianity."
Patti replied, "So, are you saying then, that before St. Augustine,
Christianity did not embrace that Jesus was Godde's son, that he died for our sins, or both?"
Carol wrote:
I have always had trouble with this line of thought, which came up on another list
today: the first sin (rebellion, disobedience) arose from Eve's "own selfish reasons" for eating the forbidden
fruit. Maybe God in this story reminds me too much of my dad: "Don't ask me why; just take my word
for it, and don't do (whatever). Don't even think of trying it." Don't think. Don't inquire. Don't
try.
That's the message (however wrongly) I take from Genesis: curiosity is a bad thing.
The first paragraph of my reply:
That is the traditional interpretation. But you have to ask yourself, did the Yahwist (the
person who set the ancient myth into writing) agree with St. Augustine’s interpretation of
“Original Sin”?
(No.) Did ANY of the other authors of the Hebrew Bible? (No.) Why does NO ONE in
the Bible, not even Paul (not even pseudo-Paul!), offer the twisted, I think sick
interpretation of "Original Sin" that little Augie the (partially reformed) Manichee came up
with in ca. 400 C.E.?
Barbara wrote:
I of course liked your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 much
more than the picture I get by just reading the verses literally. Unfortunately, many people do not have the
education in theology that you do (myself included) so it would be helpful for me in sharing this
interpretation with others to know how you came to this conclusion of its meaning.
The first paragraph of my reply:
These 14 verses are among the most difficult to follow in the Bible, particularly since the
world has changed so dramatically. In the explanation that follows, I am largely paraphrasing
Christopher Bryan, who is a New Testament professor at the divinity school of the
University of the South at Sewanee; the Bible Background Commentary; and What
Paul REALLY Said About Women, by John Temple Bristow.
I'm a big fan of The Center for Progressive Christianity. Here's a page containing more information about it.