Jump to content

Need Some Suggestions


Recommended Posts

In another fourm, I got stuck into a bebate over Free will and god being a sexiest.

 

Right now I'm looking for some good points to counter my friend.

 

My post are in BOLD

 

 

When I said, "What I do know about God makes me want to follow Him.", Vargo responded:

 

 

NOTE: The posts your about to read were taken from a website that accurately explains my stance with god and the bible. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god15.htm

 

You mean this god- 1 Corinthians chapter 14:

 

As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. This seems like a straightforward passage. And God is the one who inspired the Bible.

 

In Isaiah 40:8 God says that the word of the Lord will last forever, and he says the same thing again in 1 Peter 1:24-25. So here we have God, in his eternal and everlasting Word, saying that it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Why would God personally create man and woman in his own image, and then silence the women? What possible reason does an all-loving, all-knowing God have to be sexist?

 

He’s not. When taken in context, it’s not sexism at all. You are trying to do what you accuse Christians of doing: taking snippets of Bible verses out of context to try and prove your point. Here is an explanation of 1 Corinthians 14:

 

(from Greg Herrick Th.M., Ph.D.)

In the context of Paul’s previous discussion about prophecy, women are not to speak in the evaluation of prophecy, though they are allowed to prophesy (11:5). This may seem contradictory at first sight, but giving a prophesy for others to evaluate is less authoritative than standing up and evaluating others'. This would prevent a women from standing in judgment on a man and thus appearing to reverse the order of creation (cf. 11:3).

The discussion about women not evaluating the prophesy of a man allows Paul to continue his argument for order in the church. Apparently women were somehow disrupting the meetings and so he tells them to bring their questions to their husbands at home. This disruption endangered the strengthening and encouragement of the body.

 

quote:

1 Corinthians 11,:

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head--it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head, because of the angels.

 

What, exactly, is God saying there?

 

 

It is a very lengthy analysis, but you can read a great explanation here. Oh, and it has nothing to do with sexism (in case you don’t read it).

 

 

quote:

In Matthew 25:1 Jesus says: "At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom."

 

 

That is only the first line of a parable. It has nothing to do with sexism. Now, for the passage in its entirety:

 

1 "Then the kingdom of heaven shall be compared to ten maidens who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them; 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all slumbered and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, `Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.' 7 Then all those maidens rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, `Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.' 9 But the wise replied, `Perhaps there will not be enough for us and for you; go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.' 10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast; and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other maidens came also, saying, `Lord, lord, open to us.' 12 But he replied, `Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

 

What does it mean? Simple: We don’t know when Christ will return and we better be prepared.

 

 

quote:

In Genesis chapter 3, God punishes Eve, and all women for thousands of years, with greatly increased pain during childbirth. No such pain is inflicted on Adam.

 

No, but in verses 17 – 19, it clearly states what the punishment for man is:

 

“But to Adam he said, “Because you obeyed your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you,‘You must not eat from it,’cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.”

 

 

quote:

In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we find this: "If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives." So, what God is saying is if you are a man, and you rape a girl, she gets to be your wife. Very nice.

 

I was confused by that passage even after I read the entire chapter. When I researched it a bit, I found some interesting information. Basically, the translation from Hebrew to NIV (which, I assume, is where you gathered this verse) has a different literal interpretation. Read the passage below if you really want to know:

 

Explanation (from Dr. Gordon Hugenberger, Park Street Church):

The vast majority of modern English translations support this rendering which makes clear the concern of this law with an instance of premarital sex. Unfortunately, the NIV interprets this law very differently. Its translation implies that the law concerns the rape of an unmarried woman: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

All scholars are agreed that rape is considered in the law which comes immediately before this passage in Deuteronomy 22:25-27. Against the translation of Deuteronomy 22:28 in the NIV, however, it is important to notice that the Hebrew expression in that earlier law, which is correctly interpreted as "rape"(wehecheziq bah ha'ish weshakab `immah, rendered in the NASB as "and the man forces her and lies with her") is not the same expression as is found in Deuteronomy 22:25 (wetephasah weshakab `immah, rendered in the NASB as "and seizes her and lies with her").

Rather than a reference to rape in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, decisive evidence that this law concerns a case of consenting premarital sex, even if that consent is won after the strong initiative of the man, appears in the expression, "and they are discovered." It is widely recognized that the implication of consent attends the same expression, "is discovered," in Deuteronomy 22:22 (rendering this a case of adultery rather than rape). This interpretation finds further support in various ancient Near Eastern laws outside the Bible, where the qualification, "is discovered," appears as a standard legal formula intended to imply the consent of the parties who were acting secretively before their discovery.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word `innah, found in verse 29 and translated "he had his way with her" or "he violated her," as in the NIV, can also be used of a consenting woman, as it is earlier in the same chapter in verse 24. Consequently, the use of this word does not require the assumption of rape, as is sometimes supposed.

Finally, given the likely concern for the well-being of the woman reflected in the denial of the guilty husband's right to divorce in verse 29, the remedy of an enforced marriage to a rapist whom she may have bitterly hated appears contradictory and totally inexplicable. The clearest indication elsewhere regarding the biblical attitude toward the rape of an unbetrothed woman, namely 2 Samuel 13, suggests that although marriage was possible, if the woman was willing, it was certainly not required. The implication of Tamar's scream in verse 19 (cf. Deuteronomy 22:24, 27) and the subsequent narrative in 2 Samuel 13-14 indicates that such a rape merited the death penalty.

 

 

quote:

In Ephesians 5:22-24 we find this: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

 

And if you were to continue, it says, “Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Hmmm. No sexism there.

 

 

quote:

In 1 Peter 3:7 we find: "Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers."

 

This was from the footnote in my Bible: “Husbands who do not respect their wives will have as little success in prayer as those who, according to Paul, have no love: their prayers will be "a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). Consideration for others is shown as a prerequisite for effective prayer also in Matthew 5:23-24; 1 Cor 11:20-22; James 4:3. After all, whatever the social position of women in the world and in the family, they are equal recipients of the gift of God's salvation. Paul is very clear on this point, too (see 1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:28).” Nothing wrong there.

 

 

quote:

In 1 John 2:13, John says, "I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one. I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father." No mention is made of women.

 

That’s because he wasn’t writing to women…

 

 

quote:

In Numbers 31:14-18 we find: "Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Making sex slaves of women apparently is God's will.

 

It says nothing about making sex slaves out of women. Moses was “cleaning house”, so to speak. He had everyone but the virgins killed because of their deceit against Israel.

 

 

quote:

The funny thing is, billions of Christians still worship God and claim that the Bible is the word of God. Women will happily stand up in church and proclaim how much they love God, in complete defiance of God's word.

 

There is not any room for misinterpretation when God says, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission." Nor when God says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." Why would God say that if he did not mean it? And why would Christians allow women to speak in church and teach in our schools given that God specifically forbids it?

 

But it’s not defiance at all. The Bible doesn’t state that women “not talk” in church, so proclaiming the love of God is okay. Again, you’re taking those individual snippets of verses WAY out of context. So, YES, there IS room for misinterpretation! If you wish to point out those specific verses, I’ll be happy to put them back in context and offer up an explanation.

 

 

quote:

I know what your going to say, "God had to 'fit in' with the customs of the time." What does your common sense tell you? If God -- the all-powerful creator of the universe and father of mankind -- wanted women treated equally, all that he had to do was set things in motion when he created Adam.

 

He did.

 

 

quote:

If God wanted men and women to be equal, he would have made it happen.

 

He did. When you read, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” indicates equality. It says “joined” to his wife, not ruling over her. But it has historically been the role of the man to be the leader of the household (see previous scripture in this post).

 

 

quote:

Why didn't God understand how he would look to intelligent human beings in the twenty first century, and get it right when he wrote the Bible?

 

 

He did. It is still as relevant today as it was back then.

 

 

quote:

The fact is that we are forced to completely ignore God when he says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." No one believes that, most especially the 50% of the population who are female.

 

I hope they don’t believe it when it’s blatantly skewed like that. But, now that you have been made aware of the context of the verses you questioned, has your perspective changed in light of the explanations?

 

 

quote:

In my opinon Christians and non-Christians alike. The reason why modern societies (including most Christians living in those societies) completely reject sexism is because we all know that the Bible's God about women is wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when Christians face slavery and animal sacrifice in the Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike reject the Bible's teachings in these areas because God is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the Bible, Chistians will claim that other parts of the Bible are God's word. They seem to be blind to the obvious contradiction.

 

 

Thanks to your questions, I have gained insight as to the true meanings of these passages. I hope other people (both Christians and Non-Christians alike) that were confused (or just didn’t know what to think) about those scriptures will read this and make their own educated observations about who God is based on this newly revealed information.

 

So, what have we learned?

 

1. The Bible remains complete and relevant today.

2. God is not sexist.

3. God is not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utterly annoying, yesterday I read a long internet article that showed how the Bible was both sexist and racist -- since the Hebrews were patriarchal society, and believed as all primitives tribes do, that God holds their race in special regard, and thus they can treat other races by any means they see fit, including slavery. But I've combined my history for the past week FOUR TIMES and can't FIND it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are man and woman equal if the man is always the head of the household?

 

Because the woman is the neck and turns the head in the right directions.

So the woman is controlling the head. Still how is that equal?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are man and woman equal if the man is always the head of the household?

 

Because the woman is the neck and turns the head in the right directions.

So the woman is controlling the head. Still how is that equal?

 

 

Who the fuck cares about equality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic is about sexism. Do sexism and equality not correlate?

Yes, they do not correlate. Equality is the idea that everyone is equal.

I believe the bible limits the opprotunity for equality. I don't believe that everyone is equal but I don't believe a certain group of people should be put in a position where they will never be viewed as equal based on traits such as race, sex, nationality etc. The bible makes all wives lesser beings than husbands simply on the position of sex. Discriminating based on sex is sexism, saying all women are lesser beings than men (not equals or greater) is sexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the bible limits the opprotunity for equality. I don't believe that everyone is equal but I don't believe a certain group of people should be put in a position where they will never be viewed as equal based on traits such as race, sex, nationality etc. The bible makes all wives lesser beings than husbands simply on the position of sex. Discriminating based on sex is sexism, saying all women are lesser beings than men (not equals or greater) is sexist.

 

If God exists and he created men for a specific purpose and women for a specific purpose then it doesn't matter what you think.

 

Besides...where does it say that women are lesser beings than men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God exists and he created men for a specific purpose and women for a specific purpose then it doesn't matter what you think.

I don't care. I'm trying to show his word is sexist. Whether or not he cares what I think is of no relevance to the issue.

 

Besides...where does it say that women are lesser beings than men?

1 Peter 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can always use the angle that it's all man-made and self serving for men in that time. HUMANS are sexist and humans created god and the bible therefore the bible is sexist because humans are.

 

I think a better argument is how god is a horrible parent compared to most human parents. I mean my son could hate me and probably will when he's a teenager but that doesn't mean i'll stop loving him or cast him away or anything. That's something god does, hence he's a shitty parent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the God described in the bible clearly wants the man to be the boss of the woman, and that is sexist.

 

The overwhelming majority of women seem to naturally prefer this dynamic. Indeed it would seem to be the natural state of things. Women who make more money than their husbands are inevitably less satisfied with their marriages than women who's husbands provide the family with the bulk of the income, if not all of it. Woman can tend to be indecisive and all too eager to give up their autonomy for a husband who knows what he wants and how to get it. Very few women feel the need to be competitive about their earning and seem to thrive in an environment where they are free to raise children if they should so desire and are not burdened with making the family's spiritual or financial decisions.

 

Now ladies, don't immediately get mad at me. I did not say all of you are like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are referring to that Forbes article, we've already discussed it.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=212352

 

I would suggest that you not adhere to archaic drivel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my entire post that I submitted to my Moron Friend I have to say I have NOT been in a lot of debates, I'm still learing, so bare with me, thanks.

 

 

 

My Moron friend is in Red

 

 

quote:

Originally posted by Common Sense?:

The discussion about women not evaluating the prophesy of a man allows Paul to continue his argument for order in the church. Apparently women were somehow disrupting the meetings and so he tells them to bring their questions to their husbands at home. This disruption endangered the strengthening and encouragement of the body.

 

Um, well, let's see. There was a meeting. Some women had the audacity to use their minds and actually ask a question. Those stupid women!!!! Send their butts home and tell their husbands to beat them with a large stick, so they can learn to be properly submissive. These week vessels need to learn to shut up when the men are talking. Can you believe the nerve of these chicks?

Isn't that what he is saying, albeit in a bit more vulgar language? Actually, the more vulgar language seems more suitable to the content of the analysis, wouldn't you say?

 

 

Deuteronomy 22:22 (rendering this a case of adultery rather than rape). This interpretation finds further support in various ancient Near Eastern laws outside the Bible, where the qualification, "is discovered," appears as a standard legal formula intended to imply the consent of the parties who were acting secretively before their discovery.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word `innah, found in verse 29 and translated "he had his way with her" or "he violated her," as in the NIV, can also be used of a consenting woman, as it is earlier in the same chapter in verse 24. Consequently, the use of this word does not require the assumption of rape, as is sometimes supposed.

Finally, given the likely concern for the well-being of the woman reflected in the denial of the guilty husband's right to divorce in verse 29, the remedy of an enforced marriage to a rapist whom she may have bitterly hated appears contradictory and totally inexplicable. The clearest indication elsewhere regarding the biblical attitude toward the rape of an unbetrothed woman, namely 2 Samuel 13, suggests that although marriage was possible, if the woman was willing, it was certainly not required. The implication of Tamar's scream in verse 19 (cf. Deuteronomy 22:24, 27) and the subsequent narrative in 2 Samuel 13-14 indicates that such a rape merited the death penalty

 

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is very clearly talking about forcible rape. Some translations try to make this seem like consensual sex which is completely absurd when read in context. Here are two examples. Notice the choice of words in bold. The first translation implies forcible rape while the second translation implies consensual sex.

 

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman's father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (New Revised Standard)

 

"If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl's father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives. (New American Bible)

An unbiased translation supports the forcible rape version. Also the consensual sex interpretation would be contradictory to the verse a few lines before where it says that unchaste girls shall be stoned to death.

 

"But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB) NOTE: Miguel from Evilbible is credit for this passage.

 

quote:

This was from the footnote in my Bible: “Husbands who do not respect their wives will have as little success in prayer as those who, according to Paul, have no love: their prayers will be "a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). Consideration for others is shown as a prerequisite for effective prayer also in Matthew 5:23-24; 1 Cor 11:20-22; James 4:3. After all, whatever the social position of women in the world and in the family, they are equal recipients of the gift of God's salvation. Paul is very clear on this point, too (see 1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:2.” Nothing wrong there

 

No matter how you look at it, In relation to her husband, the wife is "the weaker partner" And don't say because she is physically weak, I know a lot of woman that can kick my butt.

 

 

quote:

That’s because he wasn’t writing to women

 

John writes to the men only. Because Women (mothers?) are not important enough to address.

 

 

quote:

It says nothing about making sex slaves out of women. Moses was “cleaning house”, so to speak. He had everyone but the virgins killed because of their deceit against Israel

 

 

Nor does it say that Moses was "Cleaning house" so you speak. Would it made any differancet if I said they made "Sex Slaves" so to speak.??

 

But wasent' Moses Meek??

 

Numbers 12:3

Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.

 

 

But we see here under God's direction ( God of couse who is all loving and caring), Moses' army defeats the Midianites. They kill all the adult males, but take the women and children captive. When Moses learns that they left some live, he angrily says: "Have you saved all the women alive? Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." So they went back and did as Moses (and presumably loving God) instructed, killing everyone except for the virgins. In this way they got 32,000 virgins -- Wow! (Even God gets some of the booty -- including the virgins.)

 

 

 

quote:

But it’s not defiance at all. The Bible doesn’t state that women “not talk” in church, so proclaiming the love of God is okay

 

You are right it does not say NOT TALK, It says Women should remain silent, That means NO TALKING

 

 

quote:

He did. When you read, “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh” indicates equality. It says “joined” to his wife, not ruling over her. But it has historically been the role of the man to be the leader of the household (see previous scripture in this post).

 

 

3:16 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. God said that man will rule over woman.

 

 

quote:

 

1. The Bible remains complete and relevant today.

 

No not in less we should bring back slavery

 

Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:

 

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation.

 

 

quote:

2. God is not sexist.

 

Yes he is, you said your self that "But it has historically been the role of the man to be the leader of the household", In todays society, women and man share the same burdens of being married. Both pay bills both go shopping, both raise their children both can teach and be bosses of there own jobs. But why would you say that The Bible remains complete and relevant today, When back then Men where the leaders and not women. ?

 

 

quote:

3. God is not wrong.

 

God is cruel, unmerciful, destructive, and ferocious

Jer 13:14/ Deut 7:16/ 1 Sam 15:2,3/ 1 Sam 6:19

God is kind, merciful, and good

James 5:11/ Lam 3:33/ 1 Chron 16:34/ Ezek 18:32/ Ps 145:9/

1 Tim 2:4/ 1 John 4:16/ Ps 25:8

 

Family, friends mourn girl left in day-care van Family, friends mourn girl left in day-care van

Raleigh News and Observer

By Anne Saker

 

WAKE FOREST - They had driven together lots of times, the old man and the little girl. He picked her up every morning and took her to the brick church where she spent her days. In the afternoon, he came to the door of her classroom in the day-care center, and she slipped her hand into his. Then he took her home.

 

It all happened just that way on Monday, for Tim Day and Ranika Clifton, and so it resumed on Tuesday, until about 7:30 a.m., when a tragic forgetfulness seized control.

 

Day, 63, a quiet retiree from Maryland, left Ranika, 2, belted into her car seat in a Ford Econoline van at the Corinth United Church of Christ near Wake Forest. Seven hours passed before anyone realized she was missing. When they found her, still in her car seat, she was dead.

 

 

 

 

Think about this innocent little girl as she suffered and died in the church van which was sitting under God's sun in a church parking lot. She is strapped in her car seat unable to escape. The temperature in the van rises rapidly. She screams and cries but no one hears her.

 

Saving Ranika would have been easy. For example, God could have helped Mr. Day to be less forgetful. God could have caused anyone in the day care center to think about Ranika's absence. God could have brought clouds and rain to keep the van cool. God could have sent an angel to roll down a window in the van. God could have spoken to Ranika's mother and encouraged her to stop by the school for some reason.

 

God had a million options, but God did not do any of these things. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

And this is what I got in return.

 

Um' date=' well, let's see. There was a meeting. Some women had the audacity to use their minds and actually ask a question. Those stupid women!!!! Send their butts home and tell their husbands to beat them with a large stick, so they can learn to be properly submissive. These week vessels need to learn to shut up when the men are talking. Can you believe the nerve of these chicks?

Isn't that what he is saying, albeit in a bit more vulgar language? Actually, the more vulgar language seems more suitable to the content of the analysis, wouldn't you say? [/quote']

 

Nope. He charged that women be silent during that assembly to prevent chaos. The women could express their concerns to their husbands at home and the husbands would represent them in that assembly. And beating them with sticks into submission? Nice editorial. Did you not read the explanation that I offered before?

 

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is very clearly talking about forcible rape.

 

 

Obviously not clear enough for you. You really didn't read the explanation if offered' date=' did you? It goes back to the original Hebrew text and breaks down the entire passage verse by verse. That verse states if the man is forcible (or "forward" or "initiates it himself") and (get this...) CAUGHT IN THE ACT, then they will have to marry, pay $50 to her dad, and not get divorced. Being caught in the act is a lot different than a few verses earlier where it states,

 

25"But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die.

 

26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case.

 

27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.

 

This is rape and its consequences. Moving on... [/color']

 

 

This was from the footnote in my Bible: “Husbands who do not respect their wives will have as little success in prayer as those who' date=' according to Paul, have no love: their prayers will be "a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal" (1 Cor 13:1). Consideration for others is shown as a prerequisite for effective prayer also in Matthew 5:23-24; 1 Cor 11:20-22; James 4:3. After all, whatever the social position of women in the world and in the family, they are equal recipients of the gift of God's salvation. Paul is very clear on this point, too (see 1 Cor 11:11-12; Gal 3:2.” Nothing wrong there [/color']

 

No matter how you look at it, In relation to her husband, the wife is "the weaker partner" And don't say because she is physically weak, I know a lot of woman that can kick my butt.

 

I'm not so trite as to literally take it as "physically weak". And I'm sorry that a lot of women can kick your butt. Does the explanation above not make sense to you? Regardless of the woman's social position, they are equally entitled to salvation, etc.

 

 

 

That’s because he wasn’t writing to women

John writes to the men only. Because Women (mothers?) are not important enough to address.

 

Umm' date=' no. He was writing to a church to warn them.[/color']

 

 

 

 

It says nothing about making sex slaves out of women. Moses was “cleaning house”' date=' so to speak. He had everyone but the virgins killed because of their deceit against Israel [/color']

 

Nor does it say that Moses was "Cleaning house" so you speak. Would it made any differancet if I said they made "Sex Slaves" so to speak.??

 

Yes. Then reader's wouldn't have assumed you meant it literally. "Cleaning House" is a common euphamism. "Sex Slaves" isn't.

 

 

 

But it’s not defiance at all. The Bible doesn’t state that women “not talk” in church' date=' so proclaiming the love of God is okay [/color']

 

You are right it does not say NOT TALK, It says Women should remain silent, That means NO TALKING

 

Yes, a synonym for "not talk" is "be silent". But it has nothing to do with this verse. You've once again taken it out of context. In an effort to keep this from being TOO lengthy, you can view the previously posted explanation here: http://www.bible.ca/f-women-speak-in-church.htm

 

 

1. The Bible remains complete and relevant today.

 

No not in less we should bring back slavery

 

Exodus Chapter 21' date=' verse 1:

Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation

 

Here God describes how to become a slave for life, and shows that it is completely acceptable to separate slaves from their families. God also shows that he completely endorses the branding of slaves through mutilation. [/quote']

 

Well, this is a bit off-topic from "Sexism", but here's the explanation anyhow (from GotQuestions.org):

 

"The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people fail to understand is that slavery in the Biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.

 

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. Black people were considered slaves because of their nationality – many slave owners truly believed black people to be “inferior human beings” to white people. The Bible most definitely does condemn race-based slavery. Consider the slavery the Hebrews experienced when they were in Egypt. The Hebrew were slaves, not by choice, but because they were Hebrews (Exodus 13:14). The plagues God poured out on Egypt demonstrate how God feels about racial slavery (Exodus 7-11). So, yes, the Bible does condemn some forms of slavery. At the same time, the Bible does seem to allow for other forms of slavery. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

 

Another crucial point is that the purpose of the Bible is to point the way to salvation, not to reform society. The Bible often approaches issues from the inside-out. If a person experiences the love, mercy, and grace of God, receiving His salvation – God will reform his soul, changing the way he thinks and acts. A person who has experienced God’s gift of salvation and freedom from the slavery of sin, as God reforms his soul, he will realize that enslaving another human being is wrong. A person who has truly experienced God’s grace will in turn be gracious towards others. That would be the Bible’s prescription for ending slavery."

 

2. God is not sexist.

Yes he is' date=' you said your self that "But it has historically been the role of the man to be the leader of the household", In todays society, women and man share the same burdens of being married. Both pay bills both go shopping, both raise their children both can teach and be bosses of there own jobs. But why would you say that The Bible remains complete and relevant today, When back then Men where the leaders and not women.? [/quote']

 

Yes, HISTORICALLY, it has been the role of the man to be the leader of the household. And society has evolved to where women share the day-in, day-out burdens of living. Let's use this example: I am married. My wife and I are equal. We are both Christians. We agree that we make decisions together. But, SHE has granted me 51% of the vote when it comes to borderline decisions. SHE has empowered me to be the leader of our household even though I have never had to use that 1%. Using the Bible as our framework for how we run our household, we are equal. But we agree that it is my responsibility to head the household. That's why it is still relevant today. Just because YOU don't see the relevance doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

3. God is not wrong.

Family' date=' friends mourn girl left in day-care van Family, friends mourn girl left in day-care van

Raleigh News and Observer

By Anne Saker

 

(article)

 

Think about this innocent little girl as she suffered and died in the church van which was sitting under God's sun in a church parking lot. She is strapped in her car seat unable to escape. The temperature in the van rises rapidly. She screams and cries but no one hears her.

 

Saving Ranika would have been easy. For example, God could have helped Mr. Day to be less forgetful. God could have caused anyone in the day care center to think about Ranika's absence. God could have brought clouds and rain to keep the van cool. God could have sent an angel to roll down a window in the van. God could have spoken to Ranika's mother and encouraged her to stop by the school for some reason.

 

God had a million options, but God did not do any of these things. Why? [/quote']

 

 

Yes, God could have done any of those things. So, why didn't He? Why do infants die when they're one day old? Why do people have cancer? Why do bad things happen to good people? We may never know, but I'm certain that it has something to do with the choices WE make.

 

The girl suffered and died - most certainly a tragedy. Did she die because God killed her? Nope. Did she die because of the absent-mindedness of the man driving the van? Yes. We make decisions that affect those around us all the time. So, why should God be responsible for the decisions WE choose to make?

 

As for the "Sexism in The Bible" debate, I really hoped that you would have read the responses before responding. They clearly explain what you have misunderstood. But, please, feel free to scream some more from the mountain top. Someone's bound to hear. And I'll be right next to them explaining what's wrong with your logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.