Should Paul's writings be removed from the Bible and replaced with a more egalitarian message?

Question

This is the 21st century, right? Shouldn't the bible be changed to fit into the modern world's teachings more smoothly? After all, "because the bible said so" has been presented as "the worst argument ever". Perhaps biblical truths should be changed so that people will find them more acceptable. The current truths are way too old, aren't they?

Answer 1

I always hated Paul.

John & Ringo were way cooler!

Answer 2

Wow...lets just change the written form of God's word to suit what we want it to say.  You, in your question, acknowledge that they are biblical truths yet you want to change them...well...if you differ from the truth...it is a lie.  

People do enough of this already, don't they?  There are tons of churches out there that say it is OK to do sin like there is no tomorrow on Friday and Saturday nights as long as you go to church on Sunday and ask for forgiveness.  That is a bunch of c**p!!  

Answer 3

Many churches realize that what Paul said was meant only for the times he lived in.  Men did not respect women, and it made for peace in the churches.

I could do without all of Paul's teachings.  He NEVER knew Christ, and even Peter disliked him.  He is in the Bible because he was a prolific writer, and spread Christianity to non-Jews.

Answer 4

Yeah,  and while you are at it, add back the "heretical" gnostic texts - that would make for more thought provoking reading, wouldn't it?

Answer 5

No.

Answer 6

You can't "remove" anything from the Bible, but you can choose to ignore parts of it.

Answer 7

Before throwing out sections of any literature we should try to understand it in its historical/political/social/cultural context.  After all, you wouldn't want to throw out Shakespeare's "Othello" or Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" because some consider them racist, would you?  Paul was writing at a time when women were considered property - no more.  He was writing into a culture where a woman covered herself completely and the most sensual thing about her was her voice and her eyes.  Therefore she was to not look at or speak to a man that was not her husband.  For the message of early Christianity to be heard, it had to be packaged in a way that would be at least somewhat acceptable to 1st century people in that culture.  He does come off as sexist when he says "a woman shouldn't speak in church," but you have to remember the times.  Actually, Paul was quite liberal for his day - he encouraged the female evangelist Priscilla, he encouraged the Roman church to support the deaconess Phoebe, and he told the Galatians "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female - we are all one in Christ."  That  is the biblical truth that Paul lived out, and is as relevant today as it was in the first century C.E.  

Answer 8

Perhaps we should disregard the Bible in entirety as it was written in a time which isn't applicable to today, by a group of men with motives which we don't know.

Answer 9

The "women should not speak at church" thing is actually directed specifically at the Corinthians.  They had a problem with women who would speak out and disrupt worship services.  While Paul wrote a lot of general truths that are good for all our lives, we have to remember that he was first and foremost writing to a church about their specific problems in Corinth.  

The Bible can't be changed just to fit the times.  Otherwise, it's worthless.  One of the reasons I think much of the Bible is so vague in many places is because it was a book written for people not only in the time period it was written, but also for people for centuries and millenia to come.  

Answer 10

Sure. Every work of fiction needs a good editor.