What does the Bible say about women?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

1. What is a woman's role in the church?

(A woman is never to open her mouth in church. She has nothing valuable to say and should limit her participation to asking her husband to explain things to her)

"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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).


2. What is a woman's role in the educational process?

(Women should never be teachers because they are easily deceived)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14).


3. Is a wife permitted to follow her own conscience?

(A woman must obey her husband in all matters at all times)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:22-24). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18).


4. In God's eyes, who is worth more between women and men?

(God expressly says men are worth more, and actually provides dollar amounts proving this)

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)


5. What is the role of a widow?


(She should be depressed and pray day and night)

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:5-6).


6. How long is a woman unclean after the messy act of childbirth?

(The woman is unclean for seven days if the child is a boy, but she is unclean for twice as long if the child is a girl)

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days . . . But if she bare a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks" (Leviticus 12:1-5).


7. What are the requirements for a woman's physical appearance?


(A woman must dress modestly and refrain from wearing expensive jewelry and a woman should wear her hair long)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:9). "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).


8. Can you trust a woman's promises or guarantees?

(No, because women are deceitful and manipulative and because a woman's promise is null and void if her husband disapproves of it)

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (Ecclesiastes 7:26). "But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her" (Numbers 30:12).


9. Under what circumstances are we to spare the life of a married or engaged woman who has been raped?

(When the woman is raped in the country as opposed to the city or when the woman is a slave girl)

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out onto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city . . . But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die . . . For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free" (Leviticus 19:20).


10. In times of war, what is God's plight for women in the captured areas?

(While the men are to be killed, the women are to be taken as slaves. Pretty women are to become the wives of conquering men who find them attractive. Women in places the Lord gives His chosen people as an inheritance are to be killed along with every other living thing)

"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:13-16). "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

[Amusing Scrotum]

Great thread CDL.

I think an Admin or Mod should sticky this and then everyone can add what all the "holy books" say about women. That would be a great way to find evidence on the "nature" of religion quickly.

[redstar2000]

Done. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[our_mutual_friend]

Good findings.
But you have to realise (whether you believe in God and the Bible or dont) that the person who wrote/translated the Bible wrote it at a different time to today, when women were expected to do whatever their husband told them to and their function was to good little dutiful wives. Well things have changed. And Im sure there are bits in the Bible somewhere about how men should respect their wives and how men should not commit adultery (that even being the Roamn Catholic acceptable term for divorce)
Seeing as the Bible is set in Jerusalem etc there is a different attitude to womens rights there. So it is possible that the Bible was translated literally.

Anyhow - as a Holy Book people can take notice of it if they wish, and can believe in all of it or just some of it.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 01:56 PM
Good findings.
But you have to realise (whether you believe in God and the Bible or dont) that the person who wrote/translated the Bible wrote it at a different time to today, when women were expected to do whatever their husband told them to and their function was to good little dutiful wives. Well things have changed. And Im sure there are bits in the Bible somewhere about how men should respect their wives and how men should not commit adultery (that even being the Roamn Catholic acceptable term for divorce)
Seeing as the Bible is set in Jerusalem etc there is a different attitude to womens rights there. So it is possible that the Bible was translated literally.

Anyhow - as a Holy Book people can take notice of it if they wish, and can believe in all of it or just some of it.
Absolutely. Seeing as it was written in a different era and time there views on gender roles were different. It may not be agreeable on how things were run but keep in mind that it was at a different time then now.

[poster_child]

Even if it was written in a different time, christians still believe every word of the bible, and cherish it. It would be hypocritical for them to not do this.

They believe that God is an all-powerful, all-knowing being. Do they believe that God progresses with the times? That he changes his mind when a civil rights act is passed in the US? No. They don't. Christians still advocate this thinking. Why else do they not allow female preists? Why do they not believe in brith control? For these reasons.

[our_mutual_friend]

You do not appear to realise that there are different branches of Christianity. Technically any person who believes in God is a Christian, as with any person who believes in Allah is a Muslin. It is Roman Catholics who do not believe in contraception as Catholism is more the fouding of Christianity. Branches of this particular faith have moved on with times and many new branches have occurred, it is just that you seem to be stuck looking at Christianity from the perspective of someone viewing Roman Catholics and then saying that Christianity has not progressed. And even that is trying to change now they have a new Pope (and best of luck to them)

If Christianity had not progressed in any way then why aren't we on a crusade at the moment (and dont point out the obvious one of Iraq, as it is only Bush who thinks its his divine right to go and conquer places and he has merely twisted Christianity to suit him on that point and that's not really a Crusade, although it is very comparable)

Am I hypocritical then? I'd say Im a Christian but I dont go to Chruch every Sunday or pray every night before I sleep or follow the Bible to the letter. I dont even really read the Bible - I tried once and got stuck when it got to Exodus. I dont even fit into a group, but I believe in the prescence of something (either that or the Greek/Roman vision of religion) and I believe in the need of hmans to look up to something and (although there are many things greater than we are) see something as being more powerful than we will ever be.

What Chrisitans believe is that God has created our future and we can only live to it. So really - God has created the times.

Eyebrow raising? Yes. But I could believe it.

[redstar2000]

But "times have changed" claim the superstitious.

Not as much as you might think.


Women 'face worst abuse at home'

A new international study of domestic violence says it is the most common form of violence against women.

The study by the World Health Organization surveyed 24,000 women in 10 countries, among them Japan and Brazil, Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

Researcher Lori Heise said it was not clear what was behind the differences between richer and poorer countries, but many of the areas with higher rates were more rural, traditional communities where the problem had remained largely hidden.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/4465916.stm

The words "rural" and "traditional" in this context are often regarded as polite euphemisms for religious.

And we know how all the "holy books" regard women, do we not?

When peasants move to the city, their "faith" begins to erode...and domestic violence rates begin to decline.

Coincidence?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[John Dory]

The Biblical view of women

The God of the Bible decrees that woman must submit to the dominance of man.

"The social and legal position of an Israelite wife was inferior to the position a wife occupied in the great countries round about... all the texts show that Israelites wanted mainly sons to perpetuate the family line and fortune, and to preserve the ancestral inheritance... A husband could divorce his wife; women on the other hand could not ask for divorce... the wife called her husband Ba'al or master; she also called him adon or lord; she addressed him, in fact, as a slave addressed his master or subject, his king. The Decalogue includes a man's wife among his possessions... all her life she remains a minor. The wife does not inherit from her husband, nor daughters from their father, except when there is no male heir. A vow made by a girl or married woman needs, to be valid, the consent of the father or husband and if this consent is withheld, the vow is null and void. A man had a right to sell his daughter. Women were excluded from the succession."

-Roland de Vaux, archaeologist and priest


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Burn The Daughter!
"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

Comment
A priest's daughter, if found to have lost her virginity without marriage, can receive the death penalty, but in the form of incineration.

How many fundamentalist priests who so easily condemn others would carry out the burning of their daughters if they found them "whoring"?

(See also Genesis 38:24)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Cut Off Her Hand!
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

Comment
A wife would naturally wish to come to the aid of her husband in any way she could if he desperately struggled with an opponent, but the Hebrew law specifically forbade a wife to help her husband in distress if that support consisted of her grabbing the enemy's genitals in an effort to stifle his onslaught. The penalty? Amputation of the hand that fondled the genitals!

Only in an overly obsessive male dominated culture could men create such atrocious laws. As such, the penis ranked sacrosanct in the minds of men (as it still stands today). If a male lost his penis for any reason, he would lose the right to enter a congregation of God. (See Deuteronomy 23:1)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Female Births Get Penalty
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean." (Leviticus 12:2)

"But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days." (Leviticus 12:5)

Comment
A woman who gives birth to a child must undergo a purification ritual lest her "uncleanness" contaminate others. This not only entails her isolation, but also payments to priests for the ritual acts. Thus the male dominators had even made birth dirty.

Notice here that if a woman bears a female child, her isolation must last twice as long as that if she gives birth to a male child!

(See also Psalms 51:3-5)

"The Bible and the church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Female Inferiority
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

Comment
The Bible's decree of male supremacy has kept woman inferior to men for centuries. For the religious, it comes as a sad fact that a human must have a penis to receive any respect or power within the Church.

All woman should realize that such phrases in the Bible has justified for many Christian men, not only their supremacy but a reason to sexually abuse women.

(See also I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Jesus Will Kill Children
"Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." (Revelation 2:22-23)

Comment
If anyone thinks Jesus represents only a peaceful loving soul, then think again. For an act of adultery, Jesus would kill innocent children for the adultery of others; hardly fair justice, love, or the concern for human beings.

Some apologists claim that "children" refers to the followers of a cult of Jezebel and not to children birthed from Jezebel. However, if this proved the case, the situation would appear even more horrific, for a cult of believers could number in the dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more. The deaths of these multitude of cult believers (which would include children within its membership) would only make the moralistic problem far more atrocious.

"It's interesting to speculate how it developed that in two of the most anti-feminist institutions, the church and the law court, the men are wearing the dresses."

--Flo Kennedy



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kill The Witches!
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." (Exodus 22:18-20)

Comment
These verses attest to the power of belief as they led to the slaughter of thousands of defenseless people throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Understand that these verses not only authorize the executions but they explicitly command them.

Verse 18 justified the burning of women in Europe judged as witches. In early America, the Salem witch trials resulted in the deaths of women and men.

Verse 19 refers to bestiality, a sin considered worthy of death. Christians used verse 20 to justify religious wars, Crusades and the slaughter of unbelievers throughout Europe. And the condemnation of heretics still goes on.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rape My Daughter
"Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go." (Judges 19:24-25)

Comment
Judges 19 describe a father who offers his virgin daughter to a drunken mob. When the father says "unto this man do not so vile a thing," he makes clear that sexual abuse should never befall a man (meaning him), yet a woman, even his own flesh and blood, or a concubine belonging to a perfect stranger, can receive punishment from men to do what they wish. This attitude against women still persists to this day and we have the Bible, in large part, to thank for this attitude against women.

Verse 25 describes the hours long gang rape of the poor concubine. The Bible gives not one hint of passion or concern for the raped girl. Considering that many people believe that every word in the Bible comes from God, it should not surprise anyone why people still use these verses to justify such atrocities.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Silence The Woman!
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Comment
Another case where the Bible makes it quite clear that women live for man and must submit to them.

"Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female."

--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 1949

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Stone The Woman!
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;" (Deuteronomy 22:22)

"Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 22:24)

Comment
(Read also Deuteronomy 22:13-21)

The discovery of a bride lying with another man can yield disastrous results.

If the wife's parents can produce tokens of the damsel's virginity and spread the cloth before the elders of the city, the husband has to pay the bride's father one hundred silver shekels and he may not send his wife back to her parents as long as she lives. But if the bride's virginity does not satisfy the requirements, the husband can get rid of her by letting the men of the city stone her to death.

From a practical level, these designed laws regulating women's virginity protected economic transactions between men rather than for the sake of morality. (See Virgin's Worth below)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Virgin" Mistranslation
"Therefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)

Comment
Perhaps the most famous mistranslation of the Bible, the word virgin here comes from a mistranslated Greek word for virgin.

The original Hebrew version uses the word "almah" which means "young woman" which may or may not refer to a virgin. Of course the context of the original Hebrew Isaiah does not refer to a virgin at all, as scholars the world over agree, but only refers to a young woman.

Later, the author of Matthew 1:22-23, quoted from the mistranslated Isaiah version, and thus the error turned into a world-wide belief.

Today a few of the modern bibles such as the Revised Standard Version, have corrected this mistranslation and have replaced the word virgin with "young woman." (Isaiah 7:14, RSV)

Apparently either God makes errors or the Bible does not come from god, but rather from fallible men.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Virgin's Worth
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

Comment
The belief some get about the Biblical law leads them to think that it represented a great advancement in morality. However, if we look at this law in the social and economic context, it becomes evident that it did not come from any moral ground, but rather to protect men's property rights of their wives and daughters.

This law says that since an unmarried girl, a non-virgin, no longer serves as an economically valuable asset, her father must receive compensation. As for the legal requirement of the man that caused the economic problem, his marriage in that society gave him practically unlimited power over their wives. Such forced marriage can hardly serve as a concern for the poor girl's welfare.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wives, Submit Yourselves!
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

Comment
These words of Paul describe another instance for the calling of the submission of women to their husbands. Note that the all inclusive "everything" could allow husbands to submit their wives to anything, including rape, beatings, slavery, etc.

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Cor. 14:34-36, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Col. 3:18-19.)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Women Shall Not Speak
"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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)

Comment
If one ever wishes to find an explanation of woman's inferiority to men, one only has to look in the Bible. Paul makes clear and delineates the importance of woman recognizing her place, "ad nauseam."

(See also I Cor. 11:3-12, I Timothy 2:8-15, I Peter 3:1-7, Ephesians 5:22-24, Col. 3:18-19.)

"The bible teaches that women brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire... Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up."

--Elizabeth Cady Stanton



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Women's Sorrow
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3:16)

Comment
Not only does the Woman get blamed for the Fall, but God decides to multiply her sorrow, plus, she must submit to her husband like a slave.

Religionists have used this verse as justification and "reason" for the pain and punishment (sin) of childbirth and the sin of mankind. And to this day many Christians, Jews and Islamics place women lower then men in the ranking of Godly order. If ever there existed a more cruel justification against women, it could not have done as much damage as from belief in Genesis 3:16. Because of the belief in the Fall, countless Christians have branded the entire human race as depraved.

Before the advent of male dominated religions, cultures around the world respected women and worshipped goddesses. The Old Testament records the brutal slaughter of surrounding cultures and slowly throughout the centuries, the goddess religions faded away in place of the belief-system of a jealous, scatological, male war god.

"Christianity teaches that the human race is depraved, fallen, and sinful."
--D. James Kennedy (Why I Believe, World Publishing, 1980)




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Rip Up Pregnant Women
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." (Hosea 13:16)

Comment
Throughout the Bible, God smites those who do not believe in him or those who do not follow his commands. Here we have the grotesque description of infants dashed to pieces and pregnant women ripped up. Whatever rebellious nature an infant's father or mother may have had, it bears no justice to an innocent child or to an unborn fetus who could not possibly have rebelled against God, much less understood him.

Anyone who claims to love such a God, must accept infanticide as one of God's ugly revenges.

(See also Psalms 137:9)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Wicked Woman
"Give me any plague, but the plague of the heart: and any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." (Eccles. 25:13)

"Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." (Eccles. 25:22)

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go." (Eccles. 25: 26)

"The whoredom of a woman may be known in her haughty looks and eyelids. If thy daughter be shameless, keep her in straitly, lest she abuse herself through overmuch liberty." (Eccles. 26:9-10)

"A silent and loving woman is a gift of the Lord: and there is nothing so much worth as a mind well instructed. A shamefaced and faithful woman is a double grace, and her continent mind cannot be valued." (Eccles. 26:14-15)

"A shameless woman shall be counted as a dog; but she that is shamefaced will fear the Lord." (Eccles.26:25)

"For from garments cometh a moth, and from women wickedness. Better is the churlishness of a man than a courteous woman, a woman, I say, which bringeth shame and reproach." (Eccles. 42:13-14)

Comment
Ecclesiasticus of the Apocrypha does not appear in most Bibles. However, in Catholic Bibles, the inferiority of woman still appears in the verses of Ecclesiasticus. These verses give only a sampling from this book that lowers the status of women.

Click here to get to the table of contents of The Dark Bible (http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

The words "rural" and "traditional" in this context are often regarded as polite euphemisms for religious.

And we know how all the "holy books" regard women, do we not?

When peasants move to the city, their "faith" begins to erode...and domestic violence rates begin to decline.

Coincidence?


In one word.. BULLSHIT.

Nothing in the link that you posted, suggests a religious link, or anything close too it. Only your prejudice, leads you to pretend that it does. The realities, in the countries selected for the study.....

poor=***** don't work=beat the crap out of her.

tribal=***** belongs to me=***** is worth less than the camels

rural=nobody here the ***** can complain to=freedom to beat the *****

urban=Beat the ***** anyway=nobody cares

Also noted in your link, is the 23% rate for sweden, which is not noted for being a "religious" country, and the 20% rate for the United States, that you swear is a theocracy.

Seriously redstar, you can do better than this blatant attempt at trolling.

[redstar2000]

CL, the link between religious piety and domestic violence against women and children is as obvious as a turd on the dinner table.

If you cannot see that, there's not much I can tell you. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Sorry... the link to data that you posted, does not support your "theory".

*ding* Try again.......

*cough* *Sweden* *cough* *socialist country* *cough* *atheist* *cough**cough*....

[Amusing Scrotum]

*cough* *Sweden* *cough* *socialist country* *cough* *atheist* *cough**cough*....

How the fuck is Sweden a "Socialist" country?

[Capitalist Lawyer]

So again, explain to me why Sweden's rate of domestic violence is higher than that of the United States?

[STI]

Is it? Do you have any sources for that?

Maybe it's just that, in Sweden, women report abuse more frequently.

My bet is that you just heard it somewhere.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

It's in Redstar's link stupid.



Previous research found abuse rates of about 20% in the US and Canada, and 23% in Sweden.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Correlation is not causation. Sweden's society probably encourages people to report abuse more often. There is obviously an explanation outside of religion. To say that atheists are more likely to abuse women than theists is idiotic. To say the opposite is reasonable.

(From wikipedia) Sweden:

Mothers' index rank: 1st of 119 countries
Women's index rank: 1st of 119 countries

http://www.savethechildren.org/mothers/rep..._2004_final.pdf (http://www.savethechildren.org/mothers/report_2004/images/pdf/SOWM_2004_final.pdf)

[Capitalist Lawyer]

.... and agnostics, and atheists, never beat up on women either...????

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

They do, but at a lesser frequency.

[James]

prove it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

At least when atheists do it, they have no "cosmic excuse" - they are shown to be the worthless shits that they are.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:32 PM
prove it.
It's an axiom. Those who don't realize the this truth will probably never realize it. Religion perpetuates violence; therefore, it is only natural that religious people will be more violent. History confirms this truth.

[James]

wow what an interesting way to answer a challenge to prove a statement.
"Well i don't need to because it is true".
Well i don't know what to say back to that dazling witty and informative answer.


However, i'm afraid you are actually wrong. Christianity, is simply follower of christ. thats what it means. A follower of christ.
The gospels is not full of jesus travling around beating his *****es up. Indeed, he even challenged patriarchy and concepts of "respectability".
For future reference, i'd use the temple on the mount as a basic outline of christianity.




You say that religion is to blame for the action of humans (sort of like saying people don't kill people: its the guns!)

I'd say religion isn't the major factor: but intollerance and extremism.

[James]

i find the hypocracy really interesting though.
"oh but stalin wasn't a real socialist" - when it is about socialism being extreme and intollerant.

Then when it is someone who is not socialist - "oh well this sums up their whole ideology/system of belief".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Both communism and religion have been twisted by followers. Communism, however, is realistic and examines reality for what it is. Religion consists of lies which cause people to disregard problems such as capitalism.

I take your point, but communism has a place in society. Religion does not. Therein lies the difference. Furthermore, christianity has been twisted to promote violence. Communism has been twisted to promote violence, but not against women.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Yep...

Did you ever notice, except for a few jesus freaks on other boards, the only ones who ever quote scripture, in an attempt to win an argument, are the hysterically anti-religion nuts?

It's funny as fuck. They read the bible more than I do, in some lame attempt to prove something.

oh wait... I spoke too soon. Not only is Redstar2000 rabidly anti-religion, he's also a plagarist. Just google his cut-n-paste job. No coherent argument, and he resorts to stealing the work or others....

Yep. You're a tool.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Did you ever notice, except for a few jesus freaks on other boards, the only ones who ever quote scripture, in an attempt to win an argument, are the hysterically anti-religion nuts?

exageration? yes. some of us read parts of the bible but we dont go searching for the shit. somone else has already doen that, search for the skeptics annotated bible.



hey read the bible more than I do

well i guess your not a very good christian, dont let patsy robertson hear about this *points finger*


Not only is Redstar2000 rabidly anti-religion, he's also a plagarist.

whats wrong wiht being rabidly anti religion? and wheres your proof of plagarism?


Just google his cut-n-paste job.

what post of his are you reffering to?


Yep. You're a tool.

i think thats an insult reserved for lawyers :lol:

[James]

Communism, however, is realistic and examines reality for what it is. Religion consists of lies which cause people to disregard problems such as capitalism.


You do not think that this a highly subjective statement?
Indeed, what is communism? It isn't one set ideology. Therein lies part of your problem. In a group of ten communists, its highly likely that most will believe in a different (totalitarian) form.



I take your point, but communism has a place in society. Religion does not. Therein lies the difference.

Again, highly subjective. What do you base it on?



Furthermore, christianity has been twisted to promote violence.

Yes, but in a rather silly manner. All you have to do is look at the gospels. Christianity is following christ.
Christ did not beat up his "*****es", nor did he go around killing people. Quite the opposite in fact.
What you are basically saying, is the equivalent of taking gandhi's teachings, and using them for mass murder. Or taking communism, to establish a class society. It is a contradiction. You may well believe that "because they believe themselves to be one, they are one (christian)": but that is a highly silly position to take. Maybe you should implement it in the justice system

("erm well, we think you are guilty of murder, you have killed 20 people"
"well i'm not. i call myself a pacifist"
"o why didn't you say so! release him; he's a pacifist!")




Communism has been twisted to promote violence, but not against women.

What the hell?
So communism has been twisted to promote violence, but never against women?
hmmmmm

[violencia.Proletariat]

Yes, but in a rather silly manner. All you have to do is look at the gospels. Christianity is following christ.
Christ did not beat up his "*****es", nor did he go around killing people. Quite the opposite in fact.
What you are basically saying, is the equivalent of taking gandhi's teachings, and using them for mass murder. Or taking communism, to establish a class society. It is a contradiction. You may well believe that "because they believe themselves to be one, they are one (christian)": but that is a highly silly position to take. Maybe you should implement it in the justice system

gandhis teachings :lol: what were those being a hypocrite?

christianity is dirived from the teachings of "jesus" which is found in the testaments that make the bible. the bible is filled with BULLSHIT, racism, sexism, violence, mass murder. therfore to trust something from that pile of shit and label it as a good message is crazy. no one knows how to follow christ because no one knows what christ said apart from the bible, which if im not mistaken was written 40 years after his death.

[James]

you seem to have not understood my post.
Taking the gospels and using them for murder/violence/even simple HATE or judgement of others, amounts to a contradiction. It goes against the core foundation of christ's teaching (and thus christianity - which is following him. It is not called biblianity).

I was trying to make an example, so that you could understand (because the above logic you will not embrace, because you are anti christianity... or at least so it seems). Ghandi... it would be like using his teachings, and then going on violent protest.


Its not tricky to see. Unless you have your eyes closed.

[violencia.Proletariat]

you seem to have not understood my post.
Taking the gospels and using them for murder/violence/even simple HATE or judgement of others, amounts to a contradiction. It goes against the core foundation of christ's teaching (and thus christianity - which is following him. It is not called biblianity).


did you not read my post? i question the whole validity of what "jesus" said. give it a once over again.


Ghandi... it would be like using his teachings, and then going on violent protest.

that would not go against gandhi's teachings. he advocated joining the army in ww1. as long as violence will get you more respected then its ok, that sums up his teachings.

[James]

did you not read my post? i question the whole validity of what "jesus" said. give it a once over again.



I think that this could mean two things:
- jesus does promote violence, racism, killing etc
or... and i think this is what you meant:
- who knows what jesus actually tought? Assuming jesus even existed.



Well if the first is the case, i challenge you to provide some proof from the gospels.

If the second is true, then i suggest to you that it doesn't even matter. It doesn't change the fact that a christian still follows christ, christ being this character (real or not real) in the gospels. Whether it is real or not doesn't actually really matter in this subject: as we were discussing whether christians are violent, oppressive, racist. Christ's teachings are clearly laid out in the gospel. You may argue that they are not "valid": but that doesn't change the actual content of the moral teachings.




on ghandi. Well i strongly disagree with your views regarding ghandi.
http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/gandhi-quotes.html for some simple "quotes".

Either way though, the point was that it would be saying that you are a follower and firm believer in pacifism, and then shooting 10 million people.
Get the point?
If you don't, i think you should seek help.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Christ's teachings are clearly laid out in the gospel. You may argue that they are not "valid": but that doesn't change the actual content of the moral teachings.

how do you know "christ" even thought this? im asking you to prove to me that the bible is valid in what this person named jesus said.


as we were discussing whether christians are violent, oppressive, racist.

and history shows they are. im not suprised since their holy text declare these things to be good and fair.


for some simple "quotes".

lots of people have good quotes, doesnt mean they arent hypocrites


Well i strongly disagree with your views regarding ghandi.

i dont care. defend gandhi, why did he tell indians to go to war?


Either way though, the point was that it would be saying that you are a follower and firm believer in pacifism, and then shooting 10 million people.
Get the point?
If you don't, i think you should seek help.

this is essentially what the bible and gandhi did. they talk about all these great things then all the bullshit they say/do/did severly outweighs anything "good" they did.

[James]

how do you know "christ" even thought this? im asking you to prove to me that the bible is valid in what this person named jesus said.



as i said: you are missing the point (i'm not dodging the question here, i'm addressing the earlier question).
Christians are those who follow christ. For most people, Christ is defined as the individual described in the gospels.

Followers of christ are, if you wish to deconstruct it, followers of the gospel message. Actually thats probably a much easier way for you to think about it. They subscribe to that particular document.


and history shows they are. im not suprised since their holy text declare these things to be good and fair.

No... because a christian is essentially a "gospelite". See my point about pascifism.


lots of people have good quotes, doesnt mean they arent hypocrites

what on earth is your point? Do you have a point?
Whether ghandi was a hypocrit or not is not the issue. The issue was that you can't call yourself a believer and follower of a certain set of rules, and then break them. If you do break them, you are no longer following them (by definition).

It is sort of like a contract in that respect.

Of course they may still claim to be followers, but that doesn't change FACT. FACT being that they do not follow, and thus, probably, believe.



this is essentially what the bible and gandhi did. they talk about all these great things then all the bullshit they say/do/did severly outweighs anything "good" they did.

Well you missed the point completely. I explain it quite simply in this post. Please try and get your head around the basic concept.

I'll even make a hypothetical situation, so that you don't get confused.


X is person, Y is system of rules, Z is a specific action


X declares that [s]he subscribes to Y.
Y (a system of rules), forbides the action of Z.
X then does Z.
X is no longer actively following Y: indeed, X has gone explicity against Y.

X may still claim to be a follower of Y.
But in reality, X is not.




Now if you don't tget that, you are really really thick.

[Ownthink]

X declares that [s]he subscribes to Y.
Y (a system of rules), forbides the action of Z.
X then does Z.
X is no longer actively following Y: indeed, X has gone explicity against Y.

X may still claim to be a follower of Y.
But in reality, X is not.

Fuck. I have a headache.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 09:24 PM




as i said: you are missing the point (i'm not dodging the question here, i'm addressing the earlier question).
Christians are those who follow christ. For most people, Christ is defined as the individual described in the gospels.

Followers of christ are, if you wish to deconstruct it, followers of the gospel message. Actually thats probably a much easier way for you to think about it. They subscribe to that particular document.

i understand, but what im asking is how can you follow someone who dose not have a cited "idealogy". are the gospels true? are they what jesus ACTUALLY SAID?


The issue was that you can't call yourself a believer and follower of a certain set of rules, and then break them.

again, i ask if jesus actually believed or said any of the shit in the bible. do you have a source other than the bible?


maybe we are trying to argue two differen things here?

what im saying is that you cant follow what jesus said. because we DONT KNOW what he said if he said anything at all.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist Lawyer
]Not only is Redstar2000 rabidly anti-religion, he's also a plagiarist. Just google his cut-n-paste job. No coherent argument, and he resorts to stealing the work of others....

I'm going to be "nice" and give you a few days to document your charge.

Should you fail to do so, then I will exercise my administrative power to ban your sorry ass.

The material on my site consists of collections of posts that I have made to this and other boards...and no one has ever accused me of "plagiarism" -- either at the time the posts were made or afterwards, when they were collected, edited, and added to my site.

So your ass is "on the line", CL. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[James]

i understand,


you understand?? Hurrah!




but what im asking is how can you follow someone who dose not have a cited "idealogy". are the gospels true? are they what jesus ACTUALLY SAID?

ah well now you are going off onto a different subject. Its not that i don't want to debate this, but we were discussing a completely different question,.


Well i'm glad that you now agree that such actions you listed the other day go against core teachings of any who is a "gospelite".



I'll discuss this other issue with you later if you really want. I have a bit too much work on now though.


again, i ask if jesus actually believed or said any of the shit in the bible. do you have a source other than the bible?


maybe we are trying to argue two differen things here?

what im saying is that you cant follow what jesus said. because we DONT KNOW what he said if he said anything at all.


Fair enough, and that is a point which is not without logic. however, my response was quite simply that jesus, fior such people, is taken to be the character in the gosepl. Hence why i started in the last post or so to call them "gospelites".
It doesn't matter that much whether it is real or not - because there is substance to still follow (i.e. the gospel).

Your question is more about religion and faith in general.
I was simply replying to the earlier statement that characterised christianity as racist and violent (toward women, and in general).
As i hope i have demonstrated, christians may be so, but christianity is not (as it is "gospelism").

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I'm going to be "nice" and give you a few days to document your charge.

My mistake. It was this user CompaneroDeLibertad who started this initial thread. I got mixed up, sorry.

So, why are you guys so rabidly anti and fearful of religion? I'm not very religious myself, the only reason I spout my religious views on this board is for the sake of argument. And it turns out that you're just about as fundamentalist of anti-religion as the fundamentalists are about their religion.

What exactly is the difference between you two classes of nutballs?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 14 2005, 09:43 AM

I'm going to be "nice" and give you a few days to document your charge.

My mistake. It was this user CompaneroDeLibertad who started this initial thread. I got mixed up, sorry.
Apology accepted.

I do hope that you'll remember that plagiarism is one of the most serious charges that you can make against a writer...and will be much more cautious about that in the future.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yes, I have to admit that I gathered the anti-women quotes from the bible from an online source. I didn't write the bible passages myself :blink:

[bombeverything]

Did you ever notice, except for a few jesus freaks on other boards, the only ones who ever quote scripture, in an attempt to win an argument, are the hysterically anti-religion nuts

What is your point exactly? How is presenting a reasoned critique of scripture "lame"? For instance many people study the nature of religion for the sole purpose of education. In other words, they might quote scripture because they actually know what they are talking about. Reading and studying the bible are two different things. You can study the bible without actually believing it.


So, why are you guys so rabidly anti and fearful of religion? I'm not very religious myself, the only reason I spout my religious views on this board is for the sake of argument. And it turns out that you're just about as fundamentalist of anti-religion as the fundamentalists are about their religion.

What exactly is the difference between you two classes of nutballs?

You seem to [wrongly] assume that anyone who has a strong opinion must automatically be a "nutball". What is the difference? Maybe completely opposing ideologies?

[Vallegrande]

I have to believe that Christ urged his followers to surpass him, and not think they were inferior to him. That is a true mentor in my opinion, one who will stand shoulder to shoulder and not above anyone.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Still waiting for a response to my question.


So, why are you guys so rabidly anti and fearful of religion? I'm not very religious myself, the only reason I spout my religious views on this board is for the sake of argument. And it turns out that you're just about as fundamentalist of anti-religion as the fundamentalists are about their religion.

What exactly is the difference between you two classes of nutballs?

[Vallegrande]

Whom are you referring to?

[Andy Bowden]

I&#39;d say the reason were anti-religion is shown in the first post of this thread <_<

[hemybel]

we should respect the rights of women.

:huh:

[chaval]

the only thing i have to say is that elcompanero&#39;s "questions" are potentially the most leading questions i have ever seen. this in an intereting subject but holy crap could they be more leading&#33; in other words, the questions are made to be statements rather than questions and the answers are there for some sort of vague support. i say this because i read the quotes before the questions and when i came to the question i was like wtf?&#33;? make the argument afterwards not before

[Comrade J]

My apologies if this has already been mentioned, but I didn&#39;t spot it.
Take note that St.Peter was initially an ultra-orthodox Jew who despised the early attempts at spreading Christianity, so his beliefs on many issues were in fact a result of his upbringing and early lifestyle. A lot of Christians now realise this, thus the lack of slaves, concubines and silent women in church.

Still, odd how they can choose to follow some bits of the Bible and not others. Eating Shellfish is apparently an abomination, which was only included in the book due to the regularity of deaths because of shellfish, as the traders would take them over the sands in the early morning and sell them throughout the day under the baking hot sun and obviously they had no knowledge of bacteria (oddly, God forgot to mention that bit in his seemingly regular speeches to the world).
Yet homosexuality, which was only ever really heard about in reports from Greece and Rome about Idolatry was always referred to as a disgusting act of male prostitution used in temples to worship idols. Nobody knew that it was in fact possible for 2 men or women to have a loving relationship. Yet oddly enough, unlike shellfish, slavery, concubines and a number of other ridiculous things, a number of Christians have decided to ignore the fact that it is most likely only a rule based on a culture which no longer exists, yet "homosexuality is baaaaad because the Bible says it is"... Go get your slave, hypocrite.

[DVSGuitarist4]

I think that women can do just as much as men can if not more. It&#39;s not right to degrade us just because of what a book say, regardless of what it is. That&#39;s exactly how Muslims run things. The men are allowed up to 4 wives. And do you know that one time a girl was accused of looking at another man so her husband and a bunch of his friends raped her and killed her.. It&#39;s disgusting.

[robob8706]

Quote

Absolutely. Seeing as it was written in a different era and time there views on gender roles were different. It may not be agreeable on how things were run but keep in mind that it was at a different time then now.

End Quote

I think the point is, since it was a "different time" 2000 years ago when the bible was written, therefore why should we agree with the sexist remarks the author wrote, and under this same logic, since it was "different times" 2000 years ago, why should we believe in the Christian God...If we can&#39;t trust the Bible to be the infallibale word of GOD written through man, then how can we trust anything the Bible says.

[patrickbeverley]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 12 2005, 04:37 AM
.... and agnostics, and atheists, never beat up on women either...????
It&#39;s true, they do. They are arseholes. The point is, though, when a man beats up his wife because he is an arsehole who thinks he owns her, he is in the wrong.

When a man beats up his wife because of a holy book that tells him it&#39;s OK, the holy book (and he, of course) is in the wrong.

I don&#39;t suggest that all Christians are wife-beating, woman-oppressing rapists. That&#39;s just silly. But having seen these Bible excerpts, I will confidently say that from now on I will consider anyone who argues the sanctity of the Bible to be an implicit supporter of those that are.

[mzalendo]

the bible is the dirty work of patriachs who dont have no respect for the womans role in society..i mean..look at the whole book n tell me if theres anything positive written about the woman(there might b some but her perceived ills outweigh the positive sentiments) ...shes been given a surbodinate role all around...i think thats why god has no wife

[Eoin Dubh]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 23 2005, 01:37 AM
Great thread CDL.

I think an Admin or Mod should sticky this and then everyone can add what all the "holy books" say about women. That would be a great way to find evidence on the "nature" of religion quickly.
Indeed, great thread CDL.
The only "holy book" mentioned so far is the Bible.
I thought that I would throw down a few passages from the "Glorious Quran" concerning Women:

Men have authority over women. (Koran 2:228)

"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them." (Koran 4:34)

"Mothers shall suckle their children two years completely, for such as desire to fulfill the suckling....But if the couple desire by mutual consent and consultation to wean, then it is no fault in them." (Koran 2:233)

Women who disobey their husband will go to hell. (Koran 66:10).

"Thou mayest decline for the present whom thou wilt of them, and thou mayest take to thy bed her whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou shalt long for of those thou shalt have before neglected; and this shall not be a crime in thee. Thus will it be easier to give them the desire of their eyes... and to satisfy them with what thou shalt accord to each of them." (Koran 33:51)

Women do not have equal right to their inheritance (Koran 4:11-12) Women receive half of the male share for an equivalent degree of kinship.

(Allah tells you to smack the woman around in this one:)

"Good women are obedient.... As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them." (Koran 4:34)
-----------------------
I am not an expert, but it would seem that the Quran also sanctions rape of slave girls taken in war. Surah&#39;s 4.3, 4.24, 23.6, 24.33, 33.50, 70.30

[chaval]

heres some better translations of the following:

Men have authority over women. (Koran 2:228)

"Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them." (Koran 4:34)

"Mothers shall suckle their children two years completely, for such as desire to fulfill the suckling....But if the couple desire by mutual consent and consultation to wean, then it is no fault in them." (Koran 2:233)

Women who disobey their husband will go to hell. (Koran 66:10).

"Thou mayest decline for the present whom thou wilt of them, and thou mayest take to thy bed her whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou shalt long for of those thou shalt have before neglected; and this shall not be a crime in thee. Thus will it be easier to give them the desire of their eyes... and to satisfy them with what thou shalt accord to each of them." (Koran 33:51)



Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (Koran 2:228)


Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband&#39;s) absence what Allah would have them guard (Koran 4:34)

The mothers shall give such to their offspring for two whole years, if the father desires to complete the term. But he shall bear the cost of their food and clothing on equitable terms. No soul shall have a burden laid on it greater than it can bear. No mother shall be Treated unfairly on account of her child. Nor father on account of his child, an heir shall be chargeable in the same way. If they both decide on weaning, by mutual consent, and after due consultation, there is no blame on them. If ye decide on a foster-mother for your offspring, there is no blame on you, provided ye pay (the mother) what ye offered, on equitable terms. But fear Allah and know that Allah sees well what ye do. (Koran 2:233)


Allah sets forth, for an example to the Unbelievers, the wife of Noah and the wife of Lut: they were (respectively) under two of our righteous servants, but they were false to their (husbands), and they profited nothing before Allah on their account, but were told: "Enter ye the Fire along with (others) that enter&#33;" (Koran 66:10).


Thou mayest defer (the turn of) any of them that thou pleasest, and thou mayest receive any thou pleasest: and there is no blame on thee if thou invite one whose (turn) thou hadst set aside. This were nigher to the cooling of their eyes, the prevention of their grief, and their satisfaction - that of all of them - with that which thou hast to give them: and Allah knows (all) that is in your hearts: and Allah is All-Knowing, Most Forbearing. (Koran 33:51)

[Sentinel]

everything said by people other than Jesus must be taken with a grain of salt in my eyes.

Is that so? Funny, because Jesus himself is of a different opinion:


Originally posted by [email protected] Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

[RevMARKSman]

Yes, and the Law and the Prophets are fulfilled by his death and resurrection (if you believe in it) and this statement:


"&#39;Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.&#39; 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: &#39;Love your neighbor as yourself.&#39; 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

[Orange Juche]

So do you think that "checking someone out" and getting divorced are sins by which one must eternally suffer? Cause, thats what Jesus said.

[RevMARKSman]

Yeah, I do. But I also believe that we will all be saved if we only believe in Jesus.


And yes, I&#39;m going to type this again:
This is only my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt as it is worth no more than anyone else&#39;s opinion. You don&#39;t need to rip it to shreds and beat it until it becomes a helpless, shivering lump. :cool:

[Sentinel]

I also believe that we will all be saved if we only believe in Jesus.

So let&#39;s just stay afraid, and submissive. Let&#39;s not live our lives in an as satisfying fashion as possible. The reward shall come in the next life. It will. It will. And if I say this many times enough, it will turn into truth, despite any evidence to back it up.


And yes, I&#39;m going to type this again:
This is only my opinion, so please take it with a grain of salt as it is worth no more than anyone else&#39;s opinion. You don&#39;t need to rip it to shreds and beat it until it becomes a helpless, shivering lump.

This is a the Religion subforum of our discussion board. And as we happen to be communists, and so by default rationalists, we rationally challenge all statements. If you make a statement about religion here, it is going to be challenged, &#39;ripped to sheds&#39;, like you call it.

That is the sole purpose of this forum. If you don&#39;t like that, post in the other parts of the board.

[Cult of Reason]

For most people here, even if there was a Jesus, submitting to him and asking for forgiveness would a waste of time regardless. This is because there is one thing he does not forgive: doubt or denial of the Holy Spirit.

[chaval]

I also believe that we will all be saved if we only believe in Jesus.



So let&#39;s just stay afraid, and submissive. Let&#39;s not live our lives in an as satisfying fashion as possible. The reward shall come in the next life. It will. It will. And if I say this many times enough, it will turn into truth, despite any evidence to back it up.

this is a terrible argument that would not hold for a second in any serious religious debate. first of all i dont see what it has to do with the first quote. MonicaTTMed is expressing the protestant view of justification through faith. so you believe therefore you are saved
what the hell does that have to do with fear? the reward will come in the next life true but you arent rewarded by just sitting on your ass in fear. those who believe means that they believe what jesus said and that he was the son of god. so if i believe what he says that means i have to go out and do good. the overwhelming theme in the new testament is one of rejoicing and celebration; of unity among the people and a common brotherhood. fear has nothing to do with it. you must live your life to the fullest too. imagine jesus judging you at the time of your death. what is more impressive: a person who sat on his ass in "fear" or one who went out and gave it his all?
the abrahamic religions all emphasize that our duties on earth CANNOT be neglected even though the afterlife is what is important. all emphasize taht a true believer must live life to the fullest and with reponsability and accountability.

[RedAnarchist]

When i was a Christian, one of the first things that started to put me off was the inequality between men and women. I didn&#39;t see why half of the world had to exploited by the other due to what they had in their trousers. I wasn&#39;t personally affected by the bible until i began to realise my bisexuality. The Bible has increasingly become more and more alien to my views, and I&#39;m glad of it - the less I have in common with those who believe in the laws of christianity, the better.

[Eleutherios]

The Christians who for some reason think God changed his mind about all that Old Testament crap don&#39;t realize that discrimination against women exists even in the New Testament too. Yep, even the early followers of Jesus were blatant sexists.

For instance, this gay-bashing sexist verse (Romans 1:27) says that the "natural use" of a woman is for sexual pleasure of the man:

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The Greek word for "use" in this passage is chresis, which comes from the verb meaning "to make use of a tool".

Ephesians 5:22-24 tells us:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
That&#39;s about as sexist as you can get. Wives have to submit to their husbands unquestioningly, just as the church has to follow Christ&#39;s word unquestioningly. Don&#39;t you think if Jesus was really fighting patriarchy and genuinely cared about equality, he would have said something along the lines of "women are not inferior to men, so stop acting like they are, guys"? How come it took so many centuries of oppression for Christians to finally invent an interpretation of "Love thy neighbor as thyself" that supports gender equality? You think an omniscient being would be able to forsee such problems and might articulate himself a little more clearly. You think he might be able to see the oppression of women around him and speak out against it.

But nowhere do we see Jesus speak out against patriarchy, or slavery, or homophobia, or anything like that. All he says is "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and then goes on to make the ridiculous lie that "all the law and the prophets" hang on this idea (Matthew 22:40). I wonder if he is including the law that says you cannot touch a menstruating woman until she stops menstruating and kills two turtles or two pigeons for atonement (Leviticus 15:19-30), or the law that says it&#39;s okay to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), or the law that says women who are raped in a city should be killed for not screaming loud enough (Deuteronomy 22:23-24) in the laws that hang on the idea of loving one&#39;s neigbor as oneself.

If you do not believe these to be the holy words of an infinitely wise holy deity told to a holy prophet, then you have to give up Christianity. If Jesus was without sin, then he could not have been lying when he said the laws revealed by those prophets are based upon the idea of loving one&#39;s neighbor as oneself. If your common sense tells you that cannot possibly be the case, then you have to conclude that Jesus&#39; words are false and that Jesus did commit the sin of lying, therefore he cannot possibly be a sinless messiah, and the whole foundation of Christianity crumbles.

[Ferg]

perhaps it isn&#39;t god who hated the women, it&#39;s the men who wrote the bible who did. Perhaps Mr. Corinthian was caught going to a nudey bar with Job, and Exodus and he&#39;s seeking revenge.

[Slippy]

It&#39;s really funny though, because everyone seems to be trying to agree that the religious people are the violent ones but it seems like the this thread draws more than enough verbal fist fights... (Something to think about) Also, if Religion weren&#39;t just religion, but also truth, wouldn&#39;t it be something worth fighting for? Eternal hope, justice, love, and peace... Sounds swell to me&#33; Then a girl starts posting her opinion to the primarily male population of this sight, and every post responding to hers belittles her... Hmmm.... The Bible doesn&#39;t like females? Sounds like the responses here advocate an anti-women mindset.
Also, if you wanna start on the Bible, it does refer to God as a father figure... but in order to be a male you must have genitals, correct? God is a spirit, and the Bible records that God made both male and female in his image correct? So what makes you think God values one more than the other? The price of a person making a vow (in other words a person who takes the vow of a slave)? Of course a man being more able to work is worth more to the purchaser. And to the guy quoting Revelation... it&#39;s all imagery bud... The woman and her children to which you where referring symbolizes evil on the earth and workers of iniquity&#33; Ha ha... The former claims now sound rather silly&#33; Remember, the Bible is a very complex book and more than that even. You must study it as a whole, not line by line. You can make a sentence say anything you want it to say, but the thoughts of a particular person can mean only one thing and have only one intention&#33; :) Good day to everyone&#33;

[Slippy]

Also, in the same passage that you find the "Wives submitt yourselves to your husbands, for this is right" statement, you also find "Husbands love your wives also as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it." (Christ died for the church...) No one seems to be quoting that verse... Hmmm... So if the husband is loving the wife and willing to die for her, and she submitts to his leadership knowing he has her best intentions in mind, where is the problem? Anyone in here willing to die for their wife? Once you can truly say yes, you will have permission to worry about the rest of the passage&#33; :)

[LSD]

Also, if Religion weren&#39;t just religion, but also truth, wouldn&#39;t it be something worth fighting for?

Except religion isn&#39;t truth, it&#39;s religion. And in this case it&#39;s also sexist religion so no, it&#39;s not "worth fighting" in any sense of that phrase.

Christianity is a ludicrous and contradictory "faith" which has long been established to be nothing but superstitious dogma. If you wish to propose that, contrary to every piece of available evidence on the subject, the "Bible" is actually "truth", the onus is on you to prove it.

I&#39;m not holding my breath... :lol:


Hmmm.... The Bible doesn&#39;t like females? Most responses on this thread have shown that that is all of our common thinking&#33;

:blink:

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?


So what makes you think God values one more than the other?

Did you even read this thread?


1. What is a woman&#39;s role in the church?

(A woman is never to open her mouth in church. She has nothing valuable to say and should limit her participation to asking her husband to explain things to her)

"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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

2. What is a woman&#39;s role in the educational process?

(Women should never be teachers because they are easily deceived)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

3. Is a wife permitted to follow her own conscience?

(A woman must obey her husband in all matters at all times)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:22-24). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18). -- http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291976141 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43097&view=findpost&p=1291976141)


So if the husband is loving the wife and willing to die for her, and she submitts to his leadership knowing he has her best intentions in mind, where is the problem?

Um, the problem is her having to "submit"&#33;

The Husband may have to "love" her, but he&#39;s still otherwise free to do as he please. She, however, is obligated to "obey" him in all things. There&#39;s a word for that: slavery. :angry:

And when exactly did all men become so fucking wise that their "leadership" should be followed without question? Seems to me that, statistically speaking, the average wife is just as liable to be right on a any random issue as the random husband. So why should he have the final word?

Oh right, &#39;cause he has a penis... <_<

[Slippy]

So I guess you now determine what is truth and what isn&#39;t by typing it with your keyboard? :)

Yes I read the thread... What do you consider to be legal age for men? 18? Then the Bible says a woman shouldn&#39;t be in a leadership position over a responsible 18 yr old? Why would it say that? Take a psychological evaluation of a woman and compare it to a guy? The female mind and male mind think totally differently. Ever wonder why we don&#39;t have female presidents? How many females do you know that have been a General in and army? How about a sargent or higher? How many men in the same position? The points is that, though capable, female are more emotional and passionate thinkers, whereas men cope better under pressure (for the most part). :) That would probably explain your "woman&#39;s role in the educational process" tangent?
As for the passage of speaking in church, if you read the actual chapter, (look it up the Bible is online) the passage referrs to being orderly in the church. The men as we previously discussed were the leaders of the time, and the women as we even know in modern day examples were known to talk in excessive amounts and in this particular church of Corinth Paul wrote that it was a shame for them to be talking during the teachings. Would you be upset if someone was being disruptive during a ceremony that you considered to be sacred? How about if some ladies were gosipping in the back of the room as someone spoke a eaulogy for a close family member? Get the picture? (Look up the greek definiton of the word "law" there and you will find it is defined as "principle."

As for what I posted earlier, I thought it was funny that everyone saying that the are arguing for women&#39;s rights were arguing against the one women that posted with a different opinion. Ha ha&#33; (Irony?)

[Slippy]

By the way, your defintion of submittion is incorrect according to webster&#39;s dictionary&#33;

Anywhoo, the submission spoken of in that chapter doesn&#39;t infer that the wife is any less free to go and do as she pleases. However when a leader makes a decision, others just follow their lead. That is what is being asked for here... When the president makes a decision, we follow him. We don&#39;t always agree but we follow him anyway. That seems to be the same case here. Keep in mind that if the husband is doing what is required of him, he has everyone&#39;s best interest in mind. (Love her like Christ did the church...)

[Eleutherios]

What? I don&#39;t follow the president when I disagree with him. I don&#39;t care whatever "authority" has been given to him; if he tells me to do something I don&#39;t want to (like pray on a National Day of Prayer) or to not do something I want to do (like smoke marijuana), I&#39;m going to follow my own rules instead of his.

And why is it that the wife has to submit to the husband, and not the other way around? Because she has two X chromosomes, a vagina and breasts? That is blatant sexism.

And yes, the Bible is saying the wife has to obey the husband unquestioningly.


Originally posted by Ephesians 5:22&#045;24
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
That&#39;s about as clear as it gets.

And by the way, the husband can&#39;t always be expected to do "what is required of him" by the totalitarian dictator of the entire universe. Remember, everybody&#39;s an evil sinner until they get on their knees and beg for forgiveness, or else the sky dictator will burn them in the universal gas chamber for all eternity?

[LSD]

So I guess you now determine what is truth and what isn&#39;t by typing it with your keyboard?.

No, science determins what is truth and what isn&#39;t by studying the world.

It has long established that your "holy scriptures" bear absolutely no resemblence to truth. Again though, if you&#39;d care to offer some evidence in support of Christian superstition, I&#39;d be more than willing to consider it.

You can start by explaining that whole "problem of evil" thing. It&#39;s an old one, but I really never get tired of watching apologists twist themselves into nots trying to excuse it away. :lol:


Ever wonder why we don&#39;t have female presidents?

No, because I know the answer: sexism.

Next you&#39;ll be telling me that the reason you&#39;ve never had a black president is because white people are just "naturally superior"&#33; :o

And, by the way, your little country is not the entire fucking world. Lots of countries have had female leaders at one time or another. How does that fit into your little determinist theory of gender relations?

Is chancelor Merkel just "particularly manly"? Or maybe is she just a "sinner" who doesn&#39;t realize that her "natural role" is to stay at home and make babies. <_<

Really, this sexism is starting to get disgusting. :angry:


Take a psychological evaluation of a woman and compare it to a guy? The female mind and male mind think totally differently

Evidence?

&#39;Cause despite all the bullshit nineteenth century garbage out there that men are "natural" leaders, I have yet to see one single objective scientific study back any of it up.

This is the same kind of bullshit that said that Europeans were "totally different" from Africans and so had a "divine right" to "rule them". You know, "white man&#39;s burdern" and all that crap.

Seriously, do you not see that your position is identical to that of white supremecists? Just replace the word "men" with "whites" and "women" with "blacks" and you could practically be a speechwriter for the Klan.


By the way, your defintion of submittion is incorrect according to webster&#39;s dictionary&#33;

Really?

&#39;Cause this dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/submitting) agrees with me: submitting v. 1. To yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another.


Anywhoo, the submission spoken of in that chapter doesn&#39;t infer that the wife is any less free to go and do as she pleases.

:lol:

Of course it does. That&#39;s what "submission" means


However when a leader makes a decision, others just follow their lead. That is what is being asked for here... When the president makes a decision, we follow him. We don&#39;t always agree but we follow him anyway. That seems to be the same case here.

Bla, bla, bla, you have still not answered the simple question of why. Why should women have to "submit" to men and not the other way around. Hell, why should anyone have to submit to anyone else?

Is "Jesus" not familar with the concept of democracy?


Keep in mind that if the husband is doing what is required of him, he has everyone&#39;s best interest in mind.

And who&#39;s to say that he knows what&#39;s in her "best interst". Again, seems just as likely to me that she&#39;d know better than that he would. Maybe the bible should say instead that stupid people submit to smart ones.

That way we can be sure that everyone&#39;s "best interests" are looked after.

Hey&#33; I&#39;ve got a great idea&#33; Why don&#39;t we find the smartest person aroun and he can be in charge of everything&#33; Men, women, whatever. We&#39;ll all "submit" to him and then we don&#39;t have to worry about any more problems.

We can call him the Fuhrer...

[Slippy]

...as you become the opinionation of which you speak...

The Bible has actually been proven time and time over; which is more than can be said for the theories argue against it and against true science. Evolution says that spontaneous generation was at one point true and also disagrees with the LAW of biogenesis, and the LAWs of thermodynamics (if you didn&#39;t realize, these laws are scientifically proven...) The Bible on the other hand has been used by scientist to make some of the earlier scientific break throughs, and is still used as a road map of the ancient world because it&#39;s documentation exceeds the standards of even the most thorough modern day documents. Simple fact. Also, if you think the women was limited in authority, read Proverbs chapter 31. Starting in v.10 and going to the end of the chapter. It is a simple authority structure- when you have good structure, it is fairer for everyone.

Also, you say you follow your own rules, but the public school teacher that taught you the evolutionary theory obviously made an impression, since you choose to believe the disproved theory over the scientifically proven laws which she also taught you in the same semester, right? You are always submitting to someones authority, you may just choose to close a blind eye to it... A supervisor at work? Parents? Authority. It sounds good to say that you&#39;ll never submit, though; and I guess it makes us feel stronger or better to think that we don&#39;t have to listen to anyone. The Bible says that fools despise instruction... You don&#39;t believe that though...

And it also occurs to me that the two posts just respoding to mine have been increasingly beligerent? Dont you wonder why you lose your temper when debating about this particular subject? Or maybe you know why (or don&#39;t admit to it). Remeber this thread attack the Bible, I just posted to state my opinion on it, as it is not good to have a totaly biased and opinionated view on everything that opposes your political party&#33; The Bible certianly doesn&#39;t need my defense or rescuing. Some things that you oppose will be extremely important in the long run even if you don&#39;t realize it for now. The responses to me seem to be just argument starters; like the people responding are trying to act as though they are studious about this matter, when all we are looking at is a twisting of words. I see the clear sensability in the verses which have been misconstrued and I tried to offer a different view but my responses are quoted line at a time and getting twisted just the same as what you do to the scriptures when you take them line by line, and do not read the whole passage. When you do read properly you see the intent of the author and the sense in his words.

In response to the pot-smoker,
I know it seems easier to live a life of pleasure (doing what you want, i.e. smoking "weed"), and it is for now. But we all know that you know that you are breaking the law, and you may never get caught by any earthly authorities. But check out Hebrews 11:24-25, and know that it only lasts for a season. Be prepared when the season ends&#33; :)

[Slippy]

I response to the question "why?" Because a higher authority than you or myself establishes the rules, simply stated. Remember how your parents felt when you asked them "why?" When the Bible says "thou shalt not kill" none asks why... So why question now?

[Eleutherios]

The Bible has actually been proven time and time over;
:lol: Hahaha, good one.

which is more than can be said for the theories argue against it and against true science.
Yeah, that pesky true science with its logic, observation and experimentation. We can get a much better picture of the truth by reading ancient texts written by superstitious agricultural peoples.

Evolution says that spontaneous generation was at one point true and also disagrees with the LAW of biogenesis,
The theory of evolution deals with how species evolve over time (hence the name). The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life itself. That is another matter of study altogether.

What law of biogenesis? Oh, that&#39;s right, the law that you say is a law because it agrees with your preconceived notions about the universe. "I didn&#39;t see it happen, therefore it didn&#39;t."

and the LAWs of thermodynamics (if you didn&#39;t realize, these laws are scientifically proven...)
I thought you were against "true science". :lol:

Stop reading creationist tracts and actually try to educate yourself as to what the laws of thermodynamics mean, would you?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

The Bible on the other hand has been used by scientist to make some of the earlier scientific break throughs,
Oh, like where it says that diseases are caused by demons that need to be exorcised? That demon theory of disease surely revolutionized medical science. It continues to inspire such acclaimed scientists as Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn.

and is still used as a road map of the ancient world because it&#39;s documentation exceeds the standards of even the most thorough modern day documents. Simple fact.
"It&#39;s true because I said it." Compelling argumentation.

I am a rationalist, sir. If you&#39;re going to convince me of an extraordinary claim, you&#39;re going to have to provide some extraordinary evidence.

Also, if you think the women was limited in authority, read Proverbs chapter 31.
All right, let&#39;s see what it says.

31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.
31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
31:12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
31:13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
31:14 She is like the merchants&#39; ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
31:15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
31:16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
31:17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
31:18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
31:19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.
31:20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
31:21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
31:22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.
31:23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
31:24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
31:25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.
31:26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.
31:27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
31:28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.
31:30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
Yeah, those vague metaphors totally disprove the countless proclamations of the inferiority of women throughout the Bible. I guess I&#39;ll totally ignore Genesis 3:16 now&#33; Men had no power over women in Biblical times; God believed in gender equality after all, yet did nothing to the heavily patriarchical societies that existed throughout history until women decided to get together and fight for their rights.

It is a simple authority structure- when you have good structure, it is fairer for everyone.
Sorry, but I don&#39;t consider "do exactly as the invisible dictator of the universe says or he&#39;ll burn you in his gas chamber for eternity" to be a good or fair system.

Also, you say you follow your own rules, but the public school teacher that taught you the evolutionary theory obviously made an impression, since you choose to believe the disproved theory over the scientifically proven laws which she also taught you in the same semester, right? You are always submitting to someones authority, you may just choose to close a blind eye to it.
1) I actually look at the evidence and try to analyze it as best as I can.
2) That is an entirely different form of authority. You do realize the word "authority" has two meanings, don&#39;t you? There&#39;s "I&#39;m going to do as he says because he is my leader" and there&#39;s "the scientific experts are probably right since they know way more about this than I do and they seem to agree overwhelmingly with one another".

Remeber this thread attack the Bible, I just posted to state my opinion on it, as it is not good to have a totaly biased and opinionated view on everything that opposes your political party&#33;
I have a political party? I didn&#39;t know that. Thanks for informing me. I thought I was an anarchist there for a minute. Guess I was wrong. Could you do me a favor and tell me what political party it is that I belong to again?

I am willing to accept any opinion as truth, as long as you&#39;re willing to actually provide evidence for your case. Don&#39;t just say "the Bible is true because I think I found a few problems in the theory of evolution". If you&#39;re going to say stupid things, I&#39;m going to make fun of you. That&#39;s how the world works, and if you don&#39;t like it, do your homework before you open your mouth.

In response to the pot-smoker,
I know it seems easier to live a life of pleasure (doing what you want, i.e. smoking "weed"), and it is for now. But we all know that you know that you are breaking the law, and you may never get caught by any earthly authorities. But check out Hebrews 11:24-25, and know that it only lasts for a season. Be prepared when the season ends&#33; :)

11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh&#39;s daughter;
11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;
Smoking weed isn&#39;t a sin. Not even by biblical terms. If God is so anti-pot, he should have said something about it in the Bible somewhere.

Yeah I know how the Bible says to follow your earthly masters, but fuck that. Are you now going to denounce the abolition of slavery and the destruction of Nazi labor camps because of 1 Peter 2:18?

Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

[LSD]

The Bible has actually been proven time and time over

:lol:

Sure it has, buddy. I don&#39;t suppose you&#39;d care to provide any examples though, would you?

Maybe you "prove" that the world "really is" flat, or that the sun "really does" orbit around it. I know&#33; You could show how all live was "really" only created 6000 years ago in less than a week&#33;


Evolution says that spontaneous generation was at one point true and also disagrees with the LAW of biogenesis, and the LAWs of thermodynamics (if you didn&#39;t realize, these laws are scientifically proven...)

:rolleyes:

Typical creationist garbage.

Don&#39;t you think there might be a reason why virtually every biologist on earth accepts evolution? These are people who understand thermodynamics and biochecmistry far better than you ever could; and yet they also acknowledge that evolution is the best explanation for how complex life developed.

This isn&#39;t an appeal to authority, just an appeal to common sense. "Intelligent design" has been pushed as an alternative to evolution ever since evolution was first proposed; and in all that time it has never managed to convince more than an irrelevent handful of "scientists".

Seriously, doesn&#39;t that tell you something?


It sounds good to say that you&#39;ll never submit, though; and I guess it makes us feel stronger or better to think that we don&#39;t have to listen to anyone.

You&#39;re still avoiding the question.

How is your contention that men are always superior to women any different from a racist&#39;s contention that whites are always superior to blacks?

I&#39;m still waiting for you to defend your ludicrously deterministic explanation for American politics (i.e., the reason that all US presidents have been white men is because they are "natural" leaders).


I response to the question "why?" Because a higher authority than you or myself establishes the rules, simply stated.

That&#39;s not an answer and you know it.

Muslims also claim that there commandments are "divine", as do Hindus, Shintos, Confucianists, Zoroastrians, etc etc etc....

This assertion is meaningless howver unless it is accompanied by some evidence. You need to do more than claim that "God" wrote the Bible, you need to establish that "his" rules are justifiable in and of themselve.

Because if "God&#39;s" laws are unjust or oppressive, it wouldn&#39;t matter where they came from, they&#39;d still be wrong. As human beings, we have the capacity to rational evaluate and we have an obligation to use that ability to ensure that our societies are fairly run.

Forcing women to "submit" to men merely because the latter has a penis dangling between his legs is wrong. It doesn&#39;t matter who claims that it&#39;s "fair" or "nescessary", it is objectively oppressive and so must be opposed.

[James]

i don&#39;t know if this has been addressed earlier in the thread.... but what about having a sticky for all the main religions?

Especially islam as it is far more topical. I understand that &#39;how to combat christian beliefs&#39; is important for many white upper class people, but i&#39;d say a far more "growing threat" (to those who deem religion as a threat, a negative thing. For example dworkin [sp?]) is islam. Arguably more so on the international scale of things.

This isn&#39;t an attack on che lives "only attacking christians", just an observation. It seems to me that many on the left though would shy away from verbally attacking a muslim more than they would a christian. Examples? stop the war coalition, labour party, certain student bodies etc.

btw, this isn&#39;t said on a soap box. I&#39;m rather bored as it won&#39;t stop raining.

[RevMARKSman]

Evolution says that spontaneous generation was at one point true and also disagrees with the LAW of biogenesis, and the LAWs of thermodynamics

By the way, the law you are referring to, "entropy always increases in a closed system," is not applicable here. The earth is not a closed system. It&#39;s powered by the sun, an external force. Therefore, entropy doesn&#39;t have to increase.

[*[email protected]*]

.... but what about having a sticky for all the main religions?

Well, because we live in the West, and in the West we are dominated by Christianity in culture and basic language (goodbye ect) and its always the Church that says &#39;We do not encourage violence or negative treatment towards woman&#39; in the press conference or George Bush to say &#39;We are attacking a nation you have never heard of and stealing their resources because god wants us to." on the
Six o Clock news.


It seems to me that many on the left though would shy away from verbally attacking a muslim more than they would a christian.

Heh ehe, funny story actually.
Oneday we ran onto their land and defiled it, we insulted them and their morals and, true story, we destroyed their citys, their homes and their lives. He he ehe...
so it doesnt seem nessicary to attack them when the Christian masses are just big pricks that need to be taken down from that high horse growing weak from the constant burdens they carry on theyre backs and pressures from intellectials (or as they would call them, Satans minons of evil and rational thought :lol: )

So why not attack the stupid people on our doorstep rather then the ones where killing in places the average shmuk couldnt identify on a map?

[Purple]

I believe that it was somewhere in John that the Bible stated that "the man is the property of the women, and the women is the property of the man(within a marriage). Ill research it a bit better later, but its a good feminist viewpoint.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 07:02 pm
I believe that it was somewhere in John that the Bible stated that "the man is the property of the women, and the women is the property of the man(within a marriage). Ill research it a bit better later, but its a good feminist viewpoint.
How is someone being the property of another a "good femininist viewpoint"?

[Purple]

Originally posted by Red_Anarchist+November 19, 2007 08:05 pm--> (Red_Anarchist @ November 19, 2007 08:05 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 07:02 pm
I believe that it was somewhere in John that the Bible stated that "the man is the property of the women, and the women is the property of the man(within a marriage). Ill research it a bit better later, but its a good feminist viewpoint.
How is someone being the property of another a "good femininist viewpoint"? [/b]
if two partners own 50% of a stock holder company each, is that not equality?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Purple+November 19, 2007 07:10 pm--> (Purple @ November 19, 2007 07:10 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 08:05 pm

[email protected] 19, 2007 07:02 pm
I believe that it was somewhere in John that the Bible stated that "the man is the property of the women, and the women is the property of the man(within a marriage). Ill research it a bit better later, but its a good feminist viewpoint.
How is someone being the property of another a "good femininist viewpoint"?
if two partners own 50% of a stock holder company each, is that not equality? [/b]
Do you mean they own each others property, rather than each other?

[Peacekeeper]

Wow, Christians sure do have a grudge against women.

[Mirage]

This thread should have included other religions as well. It'd have been a field day. In addition to the usual suspects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Hinduism has some strange sort of sexism going on.

[Lost In Translation]

This thread should have included other religions as well. It'd have been a field day. In addition to the usual suspects of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, Hinduism has some strange sort of sexism going on.

Wow...if we included the other religions in this thread, it will turn ugly. I realized that the ancient religions treated women like dirt, but I never thought it would be to this extent.

EDIT: Well, Hinduism has the caste system going on, in addition to sexism, which makes me wonder how a woman in the Brahmin caste compare to a man in the lower caste...

[Socialist18]

From what I've read of the bible (the whole NT and a fair bit of the OT) it seems sexist to me. Women are to be sold and traded among men for the purpose of being house slaves and for breeding. Its the typical "man is king" attitude, theres no equality in it whatsoever.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

"And the scribes and the Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. When Jesus had lifted himself up, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

Also, the entire book of esther contradicts a lot of the stuff written in the OP. It wouldn't have been possible for her to do what she did if she wasn't allowed to speak in church, let alone confront the King.



From what I've read of the bible (the whole NT and a fair bit of the OT) it seems sexist to me. Women are to be sold and traded among men for the purpose of being house slaves and for breeding. Its the typical "man is king" attitude, theres no equality in it whatsoever.


Yeah the Bible was written before 100 BC, and most of the OT was written during the Babylonian captivity around 550 BC.

Now I'm the only one with the balls to say this, and I realize it sound horrible, but back then a woman wasn't worth as much as a man. A woman wouldn't carry on the family line, couldn't fight against intruders, and a daughter was much less valuable to a family than a son. Every society at the time recognized this.

It's horrible (and still exists in many socities which aren't as developed as we are), and the Israelites were certainly no exception. The whole notion of a woman being equal to a man was born during the age of reason.

Please remember that at this time, the fear of being eaten by Lions was something you'd have to deal with.


I realized that the ancient religions treated women like dirt, but I never thought it would be to this extent.

It was Ancient Life that did this.

It should be obvious that most religions have accepted that we're now in a society were a woman can contribute as much as a man, and has given equal rights to men. Judaism is at the forefront of that.

[Chambered Word]

This pretty much goes to show that Christianity and Islam are the same thing, with different people advocating each side.


Good findings.
But you have to realise (whether you believe in God and the Bible or dont) that the person who wrote/translated the Bible wrote it at a different time to today, when women were expected to do whatever their husband told them to and their function was to good little dutiful wives. Well things have changed. And Im sure there are bits in the Bible somewhere about how men should respect their wives and how men should not commit adultery (that even being the Roamn Catholic acceptable term for divorce)
Seeing as the Bible is set in Jerusalem etc there is a different attitude to womens rights there. So it is possible that the Bible was translated literally.

Anyhow - as a Holy Book people can take notice of it if they wish, and can believe in all of it or just some of it.

The whole ideology is rooted in the same ideals. You don't eat a bar of chocolate that's sitting in a pile of dung, it's tainted by what is surrounding it.



It should be obvious that most religions have accepted that we're now in a society were a woman can contribute as much as a man, and has given equal rights to men. Judaism is at the forefront of that.


Tell me how Judaism is at the forefront of this. Judaism is about as bad as all the others, it's just that most actual Jews only practise the traditional holidays etc or are Jewish in appearance etc.

No, most religions have not accepted this. If you include Islam, that is.

[Nulono]

Don't forget that women are also unclean after menstruation, and that birthing a male child is cleaner that birthing a female child!

The Bible disgusts me.

[KarlMarx1989]

Don't forget the core rule about women...
"16To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.""
--Genesis 3:16

That's in New International Version. Here is the King James Version:
"16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
--Genesis 3:16

If you're a christian male, you should believe that you are dominant over women.

This is one major reason that I don't follow the "christianity." In christianism, no one is equal. There is always someone who is dominant over another, some one who is better by birth than another.

Here is one thing I have to offer to christians: If people are born gay and god creates people in his image, than is your god gay or is he a hypocrite just like most religious followers.

[Invincible Summer]

Here is one thing I have to offer to christians: If people are born gay and god creates people in his image, than is your god gay or is he a hypocrite just like most religious followers.

Their argument, generally, is that homosexuals "diverted" from God's plan, using their free will to "sin"

[Zealot]

Sorry to dig up such an old thread but i didn't see it locked. Anyway, according to the Bible women won't be going to heaven.

"No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. 5 No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless" Revelation 14:1-5

Now most Christians probably won't take this passage literally, but Jehovah's Witnesses do. When I confronted a JW about this she was quick to say that the number 144,000 was literal but everything else in the passage was symbolic. This seems to be a big problem among Christians, saying what is symbolic and what isn't, yet they don't seem to know where their criteria comes from apart from their own desire.

[Kamos]

I have a question. Many Bible apologists are saying that it's only the Old Testament that has BS like this, and the new one is all good. So how many of these quotes are from the Old and how many from the New?

[DarkPast]

I have a question. Many Bible apologists are saying that it's only the Old Testament that has BS like this, and the new one is all good. So how many of these quotes are from the Old and how many from the New?

The new testament has less sexism than the old, but it's still there:

Romans 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

(the "natural use" of women is to act as objects of pleasure for men)

Luke 2:23 As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord

(women are ignored)

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

(the touch of a woman would make Jesus "unclean")

Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(women are subordinate to men)

Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

(women must be covered in church)

Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

(men are made in God's image, women are basically "prizes" for men)

Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

(women must submit to men)

Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

(women can be educated, but they must remain subservient to men, and aren't fit for teaching)

[Hit The North]

I guess we need to understand that these scriptures reflect the practices and prejudices of their time and culture and that their claim to be the authoritative word of an imaginary deity is utterly bogus.

[DarkPast]

Indeed, my problem isn't so much with the Bible itself, as the views it preaches weren't particularly reactionary considering the geographic and historical context.

But what I don't understand is why people consider it a good guide for ethics in a modern context. Then again, most Christians haven't read the whole book anyway.

[sattvika]

I'm no Christian (far from it), but why are you guys only focusing on the Bible?

Why not rename the thread to "What do Authoritative Religious Scriptures have to say about Women?" or something like that?

I've read the koran, and if you give me a few days, can pull up FAR worse quotes. Trust me, the Bible (and Christianity) actually looks kind of feminist when compared to fundamental islam as prescribed in the koran and by the muslims (not limited to wahhabi) who follow it.

Christianity isn't the only woman-bashing major religion out there, and far from the worst offender!

[ComradeMan]

In the Old Testament/Tanakh "God's people" are described as the "daughters of Zion "Isiaiah 62: 11; Zechariah 2:10, and in Christianity, Revelations 19:7, the Church is the "bride" of Christ with frequent other references to the Church, i.e. corpus domini as being female.

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference." Romans 3:22

Let's not forget too that in traditional Judaism, the Jewishness passes through the mother, not the father.

We also find
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them"- Colossians 3:19

[Revolution starts with U]

In the Old Testament/Tanakh "God's people" are described as the "daughters of Zion "Isiaiah 62: 11; Zechariah 2:10, and in Christianity, Revelations 19:7, the Church is the "bride" of Christ with frequent other references to the Church, i.e. corpus domini as being female.
Ya, the people and church are subservient to God, just like women are subservient to men. Thank you for reiterating the point ;)


Let's not forget too that in traditional Judaism, the Jewishness passes through the mother, not the father.
I would like to see the reasoning behind this before I make a judgement on whether or not it has anything to do w the empowerment and equalization of women in society. (My spell check just told me to spell judgement as "judgment".... wtf?!)


We also find
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" - Ephesians 5:25
"Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them"- Colossians 3:19
That still in no way contradicts the fundamental biblical principle of women's subservience to men.

[MotherCossack]

dont know where to post this......
here goes.....
btw.... God if you are there and sentient or whatever.......
forgive the heresy i am about to commit.......

yeah.... so... i heard [ i think .... unless it was a very real dream.... cos i still cant quite believe it...]
you know the symbal of the halo.....yeah? you know like angels have...and saints...
well.... is it true that...errr... how to say this .....did that halo shape ...you know the elipse thingy...
well i heard it was originally around the other way.... like ... vertical....yeah... exactly.... the symbal of a vagina....
it kind of makes sense.... i think... a female genital is kind of an entrance... ?????... and it is kind of godly... maybe...????? well....
i heard it on a sensible radio programme... unless it was a dream.... which would be so cool.... ages since i had an interesting one!

[brigadista]

which bible?

[Samwise]

I'm sorry for digging out this rather old threat, but I just have to drop a few comments.

Basically, whenever the bible or any religious text is involved there is a common misconception, which is shared by most atheists and biblicist fundamentalists. Both read the bible basically the same way, which is "at-face-value". However there are different ways of interpretation, or if you will hermeneutics (hermeneutics is the theory of understanding).
Literalism is a certain hermeneutic. And a symbolic reading of the text is another one. However, it is not the case that rigid literalism is the default mode of reading a text. So if you set forth this way of reading, you have to defend why this is the superior/more appropriate way of understanding the text.

And it is absolutely not the case, that the people "back then" where literalists, that took every crap that was written in the holy books as the last word. They also had an elaborate hermeneutic method. And this isn't just the case for the earliest religious communities, this was practiced throughout history. Around 350 BC the churchfather, St. Augustin wrote a pamphlet were he bashed those people who thought that Genesis 1. was a literal account of creation.

So, what I actually want to say, in short is that whatever "the bible" says, a literal interpretation of it is highly inappropriate and for the most part even looked down at. Literalism is a very new invention, and fails to live up to its claim to be the one and only way to understand scripture.

Strawman-arguments based on dumb hermeneutics won't bring the discussion any further, though I admit, that it's incredible fun to turn scripture against those who claim to believe in it.

kay thanks bye

[AntoniotheRevolutionary]

It is true that there are certain New Age and Universalist sects emerging who hope to progress Christianity into adapting to the New, Democratic, Egalitarian order between genders, races, cultures, etc.

However, one cannot deny that Roman Catholicism is not only the first official form of Christianity, but the most popular (estimating half of the world's Christians, i.e. about a billion people). Leaving the diverse Protestant groups (let alone New Age groups) about as big as the Neo Pagans(not that many). ;)1

Knowing this and the sexist, socially authoritarian, ultra conservative, religious bigotry that the Church administration has held to for a thousand years with an iron grip, it is still rather easy to say that Christianity is a right wing force, holding true to century-old tradition and biblical policies for the most-part.

Until another religion or another sect within Christianity out weighs Roman Catholicism, they hold the majority and therefore the biggest voice in Christianity. Why do you think the Pope still exists in this age? Let alone a sovereign theocratic city state in 2013 CE!! for crying out loud! >:/ . It's because people all over the world would not approve of its abolishment or at least modernization.

Nevertheless, This whole thing about Christianity and sexism is not the topic I expected when I read this title. It just says "Religion." As much as I find attacking Christianity as very typical and rude, I can't say I'm one to talk. After all, I'm an agnostic. The closest thing I am to Religion is my belief in metaphysical energies being used to one's advantage, but that's more occultist.

However, if you're a Marxist user on RevLeft, which most are, the statement in this page should be rather simple. All religion in general, is a primitive barrier to societal evolution. It keeps people bound to the current traditional establishment in exchange for an opiate(or should I say, "faith?") in an unproven entity and a promise for a wonderful afterlife. By doing this, religion maintains an ignorance to those under it. After all why should one care? They're gonna die one day and afterwards have a perfect life anyway. :rolleyes:

If you disbelieve these two derogatory and politically incorrect things that I just said, feel free to object. But if you read history, you'll know that religion is what bound the peasants in the Middle ages, the urban workers in the Industrial Ages, and what keeps us to where we are now in this Market age.

Like one asked earlier, Coincidence? :confused:

[agantt0]

Yes, these things are written in the Bible, but the whole other half of the Bible, the New Testament, which is the part we are supposed to obey wiped out much of what the Old Testament said. There was a new understanding between God and humanity and most of the "rules" in the new section are more of opinions than hard set rules. Each sect of Christianity argues over what is fact and what is just opinion. But really, the new half of the text mystified the religion to a great extent and removed many of those set in stone rules and regulations before. God became more libertarian if you will.;)

[KobeB]

Women are beautiful, intelligent , tender , loving and homestead Folks.
Everyman's pure delight and pleasure. Amen. They're so eyecatching

[Carlos-Marcos]

some churches now allow for female priests, so how does that work,must they be married or what?

[Comrade Jacob]

It depends where you look and if you take what is said as objective or subjective to the time and place.

[TIVVYULTRAS]

Why take any notice of the first fiction book ever written.You might as well follow the hichhickers guide to the galaxy

[Lenina]

1. What is a woman&#39;s role in the church?

(A woman is never to open her mouth in church. She has nothing valuable to say and should limit her participation to asking her husband to explain things to her)

"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. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

Thats actually not what that verse means, nice try though... That verse was in reference to how women would then and still do today - try to talk and blab during the services. Paul was basically letting them know when the pastor is preaching they need to be quite. I don't blame him for saying that....


2. What is a woman&#39;s role in the educational process?

(Women should never be teachers because they are easily deceived)

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

Absolutely, women should never usurp a mans authority.


3. Is a wife permitted to follow her own conscience?

(A woman must obey her husband in all matters at all times)

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:22-24). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18).

This is true.


4. In God&#39;s eyes, who is worth more between women and men?

(God expressly says men are worth more, and actually provides dollar amounts proving this)

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

Bologna, pure Bologna.


5. What is the role of a widow?


(She should be depressed and pray day and night)

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:5-6).

This is taken out of context...

6. How long is a woman unclean after the messy act of childbirth?

(The woman is unclean for seven days if the child is a boy, but she is unclean for twice as long if the child is a girl)

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days . . . But if she bare a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks" (Leviticus 12:1-5).

This was the law according to the Jews, it still is the law to some of them to this day. It's not the law of the Christians though.


7. What are the requirements for a woman&#39;s physical appearance?


(A woman must dress modestly and refrain from wearing expensive jewelry and a woman should wear her hair long)

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:9). "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).

And....?


8. Can you trust a woman&#39;s promises or guarantees?

(No, because women are deceitful and manipulative and because a woman&#39;s promise is null and void if her husband disapproves of it)

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her" (Ecclesiastes 7:26). "But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the Lord shall forgive her" (Numbers 30:12).

Another verse ripped out of context, typical.


9. Under what circumstances are we to spare the life of a married or engaged woman who has been raped?

(When the woman is raped in the country as opposed to the city or when the woman is a slave girl)

"If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out onto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city . . . But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die . . . For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her" (Deuteronomy 22:23-27). And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free" (Leviticus 19:20).

If a woman is raped she's spared and cared for, God at that time commanded the man to either marry her or provide for her, the only ones put to death were those who actively participated in the fornication aka they were not actually raped and that was in accordance of Jewish law.


10. In times of war, what is God&#39;s plight for women in the captured areas?

(While the men are to be killed, the women are to be taken as slaves. Pretty women are to become the wives of conquering men who find them attractive. Women in places the Lord gives His chosen people as an inheritance are to be killed along with every other living thing)

"And when the Lord thy God hath delivered [a city] into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones . . . shalt thou take unto thyself . . . But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:13-16). "When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies . . . And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house . . . thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-13).

It's easy to nit pick at Scripture instead of reading the Bible as a whole, if you'd actually read it you'd learn why some things had to be... For one death always happens during a war, and two also you really need to research about the "nephilim"...