> You post as if the only argument I made was about the gender of the authors but that’s not the case.
In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.
I got that but you’re being disingenuous to my point by distilling it down to the gender of the author. I’d never suggest one should read or not read a book because of the gender of the author.
My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts. Thus if you were to choose not to read it, it wouldn’t be because the authors were male, it would be because it lacks authenticity. I also gave other examples of how it lacked authenticity too so even that point about authenticity wasn’t just about gender.
So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.
> Then there are issues about how it was written by man, in the literal sense. Female testaments were left out.
> My point was that the sincerity and authenticity of the Nee Testament is comprised because they withheld accounts.
You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.
And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right.. it has to be balanced by someone else's account? Is this a court of law where two people (genders in your case) are fighting for I don't know what and both sides have to present their case to the jury/readers? Is this the test for authenticity.. that a female point of view must be included for it to be real?
> So while you’re free to disagree with me, please at least disagree with the actual argument I’ve made rather than creating these straw man arguments that even I wouldn’t agree with.
You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.
> You spoke only of one withheld account, that of Mary, and you said it was because of her gender.
Yes, and I explained why I did in the post above
> And when you say it lacks authenticity, is it because it's a mans account? Meaning a mans account cannot be authentic in its own right..
Fuck me this is getting repetitive.
Let’s just forget all mention of gender because my points stand up without that context. The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings. And let’s just say, for the context of our discussion, the reasons for that omission is a historical curiosity but mostly irrelevant to this conversation.
Now you can argue whether missing texts affects the authenticity or not. And whether that even matters for a recommendation. At least if we disagree on that, we’re arguing the same topic. :)
> You are still saying the same thing: the bible is fake/"not authentic" because it was written by men.
I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here, I was just adding some background for anyone who might have been interested.
> Let’s just forget all mention of gender because my points stand up without that context.
Good. I rest my case then.
> The points being the Bible lacks the accounts from those closest to Jesus and his teachings.
Moving on, assuming you are talking about Mary here, and have read the gospel of Mary, can you tell us just a few things that it contains that are lacking in the other gospels, written by men who were also very close to Jesus?
> I don’t really know why you’ve got fixated about gender nor why you find it so offensive that was even mentioned in the first place. I wasn’t trying to undermine the feelings of any alpha males on here
For someone who’s advocating we read, you’re having a hard time doing that yourself.
The sad thing is I genuinely would have enjoyed your insights into the Bible but I guess that was too much to ask.
As also mentioned elsewhere, I’m not going to bother replying further because I think you’ve already exhausted all possible iterations of this repetitive argument you’ve got us on.
In an online forum, people will usually only respond to things they strongly agree or disagree with. I just strongly disagreed with the idea that a book should not be read because of the gender of its author.