Support NeoGAF

[Metaphoreus]

What the hell, guys? What the hell?

But where's the part where the woman gets to decide whether her well-being is being furthered?

This is a fair cultural criticism from a modern standpoint, but it doesn't go to a moral issue. So long as her well-being is being furthered--and that's what these protections are meant to ensure--then what is the problem?

It seems you missed the point. Most people think slavery - the ownership of one human being by another - is inherently wrong, even if one form of ownership is crueler than than another.

What does it matter what "most people think"? If morality is determined by what "most people think," then slavery of whatever sort was absolutely moral at whatever time during which it was generally accepted. And if that's the case, then you have no complaint against God, since slavery was perfectly moral.

But on the topic of missing points:

to say "slavery" evokes images of ownership of persons, abuse without recourse, dissolution of families, and similar horrible practices from the recent West. But the "slavery" referred to in the Bible was utterly different, as anyone who bothered to read the article I linked to a couple of weeks ago would have understood.

In the West, slaves were considered property in exclusion to their humanity; there were no legal or ethical demands upon owners as to how to treat their slaves. In the OT, slaves are referred to as their owner's property in Exodus 21:21. The literal translation of the word translated as "property" in that verse is "silver." This is consistent with Israel's notion of property as relating to economic output only (See Lev. 25:14 - 16, 23, 39, 49 - 53.) (In other words, the slaveowner did not own the slave, but his services.)

Since OT slavery did not relate to ownership of persons so much as their labor, it would be disingenuous to try to argue that God supports slavery as ownership of the person on that basis. This difference in conception is key: if I own your person, I can kill you with impunity; if I only own your labor, then you still have rights that can be asserted against me.

the selection nowhere states that the slaves are "property first and foremost." Indeed, as everything I've said above should make clear, that was far from the truth in the OT generally, and far from true here. "Property," in this verse, is translated from the word ksph, which means "silver." The KJV translates it as "money." Considering the compensatory framework of these two verses and their parallel in v. 18 - 19, it's clear that the master does not need to compensate anyone for the lost services of the slave, since the loss is his own.

So what was the point I missed again?

Why do people believe God is good as opposed to bad? Perhaps he has been lying all along.

This is a genuinely amusing question. It's so simple and child-like that I can't help but admire it.

Whatever basis a person has for believing that the Bible is true is obviously a basis for believing that God was telling the truth when He said those things in the Bible that the person accepts as true. Of particular import is the testimony of the Bible's authors as to God's doings. In this way, we benefit from the history presented therein in being able to build up a trust in God, knowing that He has shown Himself trustworthy in the past.

due to midterm exams I can't commit to any proper discussion for a week or so

I completely understand.

nor am I sure if this is a thread I want to spend a lot of time in

I completely understand.

why doesn't God want the people of Israel treated that way? What if an Israeli person wanted to be purchased, as you suggest foreigners could choose?

As JGS pointed out, they could. Contrary to what JGS said, however, they could also sell themselves to foreigners:

If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.

Now, there certainly were differences between a Hebrew slave and a foreigner-slave. These differences were the result of the special place occupied by the Israelites in God's plan; He wanted them to behave differently from the surrounding cultures and to treat each other differently than they treated foreigners to emphasize that unique place.

the Bible is an awful book that should never be used as reference material for anything.

And I disagree.

subservient ownership

Why say subservient ownership? Is there any kind of ownership where the owner is the subservient to the property?* Anyhow, ownership is a concept that means how persons relate to one another with regards to some property. In the case of Western slavery, that property was another person; in the case of OT slavery, that property was the labor of another person. In the modern world, a kind of ownership exists between a husband and wife, since they have (or at least should have, in most cases) exclusive rights to one another's sexual services. Additionally, spouses owe each other a duty of support, so to some extent own the labor of each other. You could also say that parents "own" their children, since they have certain rights with respect to their children that other persons do not have.

Of course, you no doubt noticed when you read the passage to which you are referring that nowhere is the woman called the man's property, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of "ownership" from. This was concubinage, not slavery (and could be a parental relationship, if the purchaser intended the woman for his son.)

Why does it matter what human beings back then thought?

Why does it matter what humans today think?

Slavery is wrong because it violates fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity.

Why does violating fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity make something wrong? Who chose human equality and dignity as the gold standard for morality? Whose concepts of human equality and dignity are we discussing? Why theirs?

I think most people are able to hold both that war is sometimes justifiable but that slavery never is.

Never?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The idea that a man should be superior to a woman is not true.

This is another cultural norm, and not morality. The superiority of men over women was merely one way of many to organize society; women could easily have been considered the authority in a household. Or they could have been considered as having equal authority. Why didn't the Bible do that, though? Specifically, why didn't the Fifth Commandment say

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

And why didn't Paul write

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise--"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."

What a patriarchal old fool!

what are we talking about again?

I've lost track.

[Metaphoreus, I swear I haven't forgotten. I'm working on it.]

Take your time. As though I'd have any right to complain about someone not responding right away!

*Trick question. The answer is yes:

No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

 

[JGS]

Your answer seems a little anachronistic to the time of the bible. Are you sure that you're interpreting it faithfully?

I can't tell if you're really wanting me to reply to this or not.

 

[Ashes]

A few people were speaking quite abstractly and talking about those abstract concepts in very concrete ways, going so far as to treat them like concrete examples.
I thought about posing the question, then posted it, then regreted it, realizing that you would probably find a legimate way to answer the question, thus making it futile...
I suppose I left it on display, principally to point out a criticism, yet not in a questioning way.

Edit: my head is spining from reading my own post.

 

[JGS]

so where did they get this belief

What belief?

Whether god exists or not or if the claims of a religion are true or not is a separate question from if the belief is beneficial or not.

That's not necessarily true.

They believe it, but they don't seem to have evidence or a logical argument supporting this beyond personal experience.

Not true. Again, I haven't given you a personal experience so what exactly are you basing this on? Personal experience?:lol

Whether an idea is personally unsatisfying or not has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

I've agreed with this a few times already. This is saying that the answer is unsatisfying because it is untrue.

Even if the universe didn't come about on its own, does any "creator" automatically imply that it's the god of a specific religion? And even if we generalize the "creator" what makes it immune from the same criticisms they apply to the universe?

This argument was brought up in both this thread and in the evolution thread. I said in both cases that re;ligion does not matter in regards to the likelihood of creation over life by chance which is flat out impossible. I'm not sure I understand what the criticisms of the universe are.

I see plenty of God of the gaps arguments.

Which is your right, just as it is your right to bring them out when you have the time.

If you're interested in whether or not something is true and accurate, I would recommend it.

You're missing the point. If I did not find truth I would not read it. I didn't find the supernatural aspects to be something contradictory to what I learn in science or whatever other issues you think it conflicts with.

The most basic example being that creation does not seem even remotely out of the realm of possibility. One does not have to be a scientist (Especially since scientists can neither disprove my belief or prove theirs) to be satisfied with the supernatural aspects found in Scripture.

You're implying I should research further because you didn't find truth in it which is kind of your problem.

No, though it helps for a productive discussion if you have more evidence than just "I read the bible and believe it based on my personal experiences". Of course, it's fine if you don't have any actual evidence beyond your own personal experience, since I'm not trying to change you. I just find it interesting that pretty much all of your "evidence" for your version of Christianity is based on personal experiences and desirability, yet you deny that that's actually true. *shrug*

There will never be a productive discussion about this. You keep bringing out personal experiences, but that's all you've got. What is the discussion about? Dumb it down for me please.

I'm trying to steer the discussion towards fact-based claims (god created the universe, god has a son named Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is our savior, he died and was resurrected, he actively communicates with people, he has created an afterlife, etc.), not just "opinions". With fact-based claims in normal reality, you can use things like:

That's ot where the discussion should be steered. You should steer it toward proving what you believe rather than trying to force me to convert you to my beliefs. You're not exactly shooting up logic 3 pointers- especially you haven't even explained what your logic is.

Since are fact based claims in more than religious writing that can't be proven, why not start there and work toward the religious beief with the mountain of evidene that must surely be out there.

These tend to be useful when it comes to discussing whether something is true or not. But when it comes to the supernatural, I've been told those things don't apply. So what are the special methods used to sort out the supernatural world and its claims, and determine which ones to take seriously, and which ones to ignore?

I don't know why they wouldn't apply. After all, it's statistically impossible for an explosion to create order, but that doesn't stop it from being a workable scientific theory does it or considered logical despite the inanity of it does it?

I would assume that if one cared about the accuracy of their beliefs, they would want to discuss it and make sure they've reasoned things through correctly.

Agreed, but a waste of time is still a waste of time. There are plenty of people here that are more than happy to share everything with you.

Of course, if don't care about the accuracy of your beliefs, and are only concerned with whether your beliefs benefit JGS personally (nothing necessarily wrong with that), then you're free to ignore my statements.

Never said that...again. I concern myself with lots of folks over many things. I do not concern myself with you critiquing my beliefs- especially since you don't share yours.

The point is that with thousands of other claims, there is a way to resolve it, that completely removes my or your personal feelings from the equation. So if it can't be "resolved" that means that supernatural claims depend on the whims and emotions of whatever the individual happens to believe. If one "opens up to Christianity", it becomes true. If one is just a swine, then the pearl will never be true.

That's deep

There is an easy way to resove it by simply saying agree to disagree. However, we both know that won't happen. Everything needs reconciliation which means marginalizing faith.

The burden of proof is not on the one being asked, it's on the one accusing. I don't have to prove anything to you anymore than you have the ability to prove something to me unless you state it- at least you haven't yet.

 

[JGS]

As JGS pointed out, they could. Contrary to what JGS said, however, they could also sell themselves to foreigners:

Sorry I wasn't aware of this. I didn't find anything on that. I guess foreigners include alien residents (which I tend to think of as Isrealites) which could have slaves under stricter guidelines.

 

[JGS]

Then I'd wonder why he'd also give human beings such as myself a questioning brain.

And of course, how would I know if a god wanted me to have faith, if that god never talked to me in the first place (which would actually negate the need for "faith" since he'd be right there talking to me, lol)

And then if I'm just supposed to pick any god, then that's pretty much Pascal's Wager at that point, and I'd know I was lying to myself.

And if I'm just supposed to make up whatever god sounds good to me and convince myself to "have faith in it", then I'd know I was lying to myself.

Fortunately you can have faith and question without making up anything.

However, the assumption was in belief in a God of some kind which is no longer the case in this day and age. In other words, belief in a God was not the issue as much as wondering why things were done and which god was right. There were no ancient Big Bangers which is really a third unproveable option.

However, ones who are non-believers that shout "Prove it!" all day long ironically gravitate toward that.

 

[jdogmoney]

Why does violating fundamental concepts of human equality and dignity make something wrong?

I know I'm quote mining a bit in this thread, but...damn.

This is another cultural norm, and not morality. The superiority of men over women was merely one way of many to organize society; women could easily have been considered the authority in a household. Or they could have been considered as having equal authority. Why didn't the Bible do that, though? Specifically, why didn't the Fifth Commandment say
And why didn't Paul write

What a patriarchal old fool!

You wanna talk about Paul? We can talk about Paul.

"And as the Church is subject to Christ, so should wives be to their husbands, in everything."

Don't try to say that the Bible espouses* gender equality. The bolded bit is a very good question, one I'd like you to answer.

*heh

 

[JGS]

I know I'm quote mining a bit in this thread, but...damn.




You wanna talk about Paul? We can talk about Paul.



Don't try to say that the Bible espouses* gender equality. The bolded bit is a very good question, one I'd like you to answer.

*heh

The entirety of Ephesians really helps the context of the one quoted although that verse itself helps to see that that both are in relative subjection.

Galations 3:28 also disagrees with your ideas of what it does.does not espouse.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I know I'm quote mining a bit in this thread, but...damn.

It's a fair question. You can't just take for granted that something is wrong just because it allegedly violates someone's conception of some arbitrarily chosen values. This is what you and I were discussing at the top of page 22 (denominated in 100 posts/page pages).

You wanna talk about Paul? We can talk about Paul.

Don't try to say that the Bible espouses gender equality. The bolded bit is a very good question, one I'd like you to answer.

You mean the bit you bolded in my post? I was being sarcastic. The OT law didn't have to arrange the roles of men and women in any particular way. One way was not more moral than the other; they were just different ways of doing it.

EDIT: And, as JGS points out, that chapter in Ephesians imposes some serious duties on husbands:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. . . . Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

 

[jdogmoney]

The entirety of Ephesians really helps the context of the one quoted although that verse itself helps to see that that both are in relative subjection.

Galations 3:28 also disagrees with your ideas of what it does.does not espouse.

Dude. Seriously. The Bible is many things. Gender-equal is not one of them at all. I bet I can find more verses backing me up than you can.

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

Or, hell, I'll let this guy make my argument for me:

http://www.eliyah.com/family/wives.html

I oppose the Bible on a few grounds; the misogyny is one of them.

EDIT:

It's a fair question. You can't just take for granted that something is wrong just because it allegedly violates someone's conception of some arbitrarily chosen values. This is what you and I were discussing at the top of page 22 (denominated in 100 posts/page pages).

You mean the bit you bolded in my post? I was being sarcastic. The OT law didn't have to arrange the roles of men and women in any particular way. One way was not more moral than the other; they were just different ways of doing it.

EDIT: And, as JGS points out, that chapter in Ephesians imposes some serious duties on husbands:

HERETIC

As for the non-bolded bits...

It is immoral for a woman (or a man or a black person or a Jew or a homosexual or a anybody) to be treated unequally.

 

[soul creator]

What belief?

The belief that there is a God, and that God created the universe we live in.

That's not necessarily true.

Er...what does the true/false existence of something have anything to do with if it benefits human beings?

Example?

Not true. Again, I haven't given you a personal experience so what exactly are you basing this on? Personal experience?

Um, I know you haven't given specific personal experiences, but you seemed to indicate earlier that you ascribe something special to The Bible based on your personal experiences and feelings.

Like I said, I'm not getting into the supernatural aspects. However, the way spirituality works from the Bible's teaching is in harmony with what I experienced (& expect).

However, I can compare religions (& no religion) from a practical standpoint and weed out the ones that are undesireable to me. That's not hard at all.

the gist is that from the book I happen to ascribe to, I derive happiness from what I read in it

Do these statements not imply that your feelings play a big role in accepting Biblical claims over other claims?

This argument was brought up in both this thread and in the evolution thread. I said in both cases that re;ligion does not matter in regards to the likelihood of creation over life by chance which is flat out impossible. I'm not sure I understand what the criticisms of the universe are.

So it's completely impossible to you for life to be created without any divine force and there must be some explanation for it...

...but it's completely acceptable that a divine force with the ability to create life needs no explanation whatsoever?

Which is your right, just as it is your right to bring them out when you have the time.

?

You're missing the point. If I did not find truth I would not read it. I didn't find the supernatural aspects to be something contradictory to what I learn in science or whatever other issues you think it conflicts with

The most basic example being that creation does not seem even remotely out of the realm of possibility. One does not have to be a scientist (Especially since scientists can neither disprove my belief or prove theirs) to be satisfied with the supernatural aspects found in Scripture.

You're implying I should research further because you didn't find truth in it which is kind of your problem..

Dead people who are actually gods coming back to life after crucifixion and ascending to heaven is about as unscientific as you can get.

And of course no one can "disprove" your beliefs to you...they exist entirely in JGS' head and aren't coherent at all when matching things up with the outside world that we all share.

If we accept "the universe we both live in" as what to measure things by (which seems like a neutral stance to take since most people do in fact acknowledge the regular old natural world when discussing things), then your beliefs don't hold up. Unless you have some special supernatural sense that you were blessed with that allows you to see a different reality from the one we both live in. The reality where invisible gods can make universes, and also make their sons resurrect themselves, and also telepathically communicate with people.

That's ot where the discussion should be steered. You should steer it toward proving what you believe rather than trying to force me to convert you to my beliefs. You're not exactly shooting up logic 3 pointers- especially you haven't even explained what your logic is.

I'm not trying to "force" you to do anything. I'm merely asking questions about what method you use to determine your supernatural claims to be true compared to other claims.

Every time you've come close to answering the question it's pretty much amounts to "I believe the bible because I believe the bible". Which if that works for you, great. It's just pretty meaningless to everyone else on this message board besides JGS

Also, I'm not making supernatural claims so why do I need to "prove what I believe"? I "believe" that human beings exist in a place we refer to as the universe. That's a pretty uncontroversial stance that doesn't require any special unique beliefs or holy books. Religious believers are the ones that go and add all of these extra deities and prophecies and miracles to the equation.

Since are fact based claims in more than religious writing that can't be proven, why not start there and work toward the religious beief with the mountain of evidene that must surely be out there.

?

I don't know why they wouldn't apply. After all, it's statistically impossible for an explosion to create order, but that doesn't stop it from being a workable scientific theory does it or considered logical despite the inanity of it does it?

Are you referring to the big bang? The big bang is "inane" if you disregard physics/chemistry/math/etc. If you accept physics/chemistry/math/etc. (if you don't, then that raises all sorts of other issues), things don't seem so inane.

There will never be a productive discussion about this. You keep bringing out personal experiences, but that's all you've got. What is the discussion about? Dumb it down for me please.

I'm not sure how simple I can make this.

Beyond JGS' personal experiences and feelings, how did you come to determine that your version of Christianity supernatural claims are true, as opposed to other Christian sects, and other religions?

There is an easy way to resove it by simply saying agree to disagree. However, we both know that won't happen. Everything needs reconciliation which means marginalizing faith.

The burden of proof is not on the one being asked, it's on the one accusing. I don't have to prove anything to you anymore than you have the ability to prove something to me unless you state it- at least you haven't yet.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim. You assert that a god created the universe, and that god is the god of Christianity. More specifically, it's the god you've described in this thread (since obviously, that's the one you believe in). No, you may not have specifically said the phrase "I assert that the Christian God created the universe!", but I would say the fact that you're participating in this message board discussion and describing your god means you have "asserted" it.

I was just asking how you came up with that belief, without resorting to personal experiences or personal feelings. It's pretty straightforward.

I have no idea what started the universe or even if it "needed" a start. You do, apparently. I have no idea how the very first life form started. You do, apparently.

Obviously, you don't have to answer anything. I'm just wondering why it seems so difficult to give a straightforward answer.

Person A says: "I think the Christian God created the universe"
Person B says : "I think Pangu created the universe"

How is this resolved?

 

[Metaphoreus]

It is immoral for a woman (or a man or a black person or a Jew or a homosexual or a anybody) to be treated unequally.

On what basis?

 

[soul creator]

On what basis?

I would hope yours!

 

[jdogmoney]

On what basis?

Empathy.

 

[JGS]

The belief that there is a God, and that God created the universe we live in.

The two are linked. As I said before, the supernatural is believed but the practical is what is the most beneficial part. We can certainly appreciate being created, learn from miracles described in Scripture, see validation of prophecy fulfilled over the centuries the bible was written, and look forward to promises held out in the Bible for ours or future generations. However, none of those things mean anything if we don't learn how to be a worshipper of God or a follower of his son. Therefore, people become religious based on the standards set forth that they can follow pretty easily if the want to and with no miracles needed.

I'm not sure you answered my question though about why you were not convinced by miracles seen in out modern day. Is there a reason you discount them?

Er...what does the true/false existence of something have anything to do with if it benefits human beings?

It may not. That's why I said not necessarily true.

However, the existence of God does bring benefits. You just discount them all.

Um, I know you haven't given specific personal experiences, but you seemed to indicate earlier that you ascribe something special to The Bible based on your personal experiences and feelings.

Then quit making specific personal experiences the basis for your discussion. Also, I didn't do this. I said from the beginning that I gain benefit from the truths found in the Bible. I don't recall anything in recent conversations where I said that this was based on personal experience unless observation is included in that. This would be odd since observation is need for any truth correct?

Do these statements not imply that your feelings play a big role in accepting Biblical claims over other claims?

Nope. They say that based on what I learned I am happy. It's not a case of being happy and then shoehorning my beliefs into it. In fact, I would not describe my religious choice as a happy experience at all until I understood some things.

however, I do admit that both the right and left side of my brain fnction accordingly and together- meaning I'm not a emotional eunich and use my feelings daily in just about all of my activities. You should try it sometime.

So it's completely impossible to you for life to be created without any divine force and there must be some explanation for it...

...but it's completely acceptable that a divine force with the ability to create life needs no explanation whatsoever?

It is completely impossible for life spring up out of nowhere. All one has to do is folllow the procedures you linked to.

Second, I never said anything about God not being explained. He's pretty easy to understand. I said there is no reason for God to lie based on what I've read in Scripture and the fact that no one has proven that outside of scripture.

?

That was a put up or shut up challenge. It's very easy to talk off the top of your head. You should really have siomething substantial to say - especially since you're requiring proof from me.

And of course no one can "disprove" your beliefs to you...they exist entirely in JGS' head and aren't coherent at all when matching things up with the outside world that we all share.

I created a religious faith? Wow.

If we accept "the universe we both live in" as what to measure things by (which seems like a neutral stance to take since most people do in fact acknowledge the regular old natural world when discussing things), then your beliefs don't hold up. Unless you have some special supernatural sense that you were blessed with that allows you to see a different reality from the one we both live in. The reality where invisible gods can make universes, and also make their sons resurrect themselves, and also telepathically communicate with people.

Proof?
Besides you have no ability whatsoever to see what created the universe beyond the science fiction that is taught to you. So you have very little time to waste questioning my fairy tales. You need to get to work on your own.

I'm not trying to "force" you to do anything. I'm merely asking questions about what method you use to determine your supernatural claims to be true compared to other claims.

And I've already stated that I'm not wasting my time jumping through the hoops to entertain you. You are not worth it.

Every time you've come close to answering the question it's pretty much amounts to "I believe the bible because I believe the bible". Which if that works for you, great. It's just pretty meaningless to everyone else on this message board besides JGS

OK, and...?

Maybe you would have a more meaningful life if you focused on things that were meaningful to you. Are you happy?

Also, I'm not making supernatural claims so why do I need to "prove what I believe"? I "believe" that human beings exist in a place we refer to as the universe. That's a pretty uncontroversial stance that doesn't require any special unique beliefs or holy books. Religious believers are the ones that go and add all of these extra deities and prophecies and miracles to the equation.

I'm not making supernatural claims either. The Bible is. So your beef is with a book.:lol

Disprove it if it bugs you so much.



?



Are you referring to the big bang? The big bang is "inane" if you disregard physics/chemistry/math/etc. If you accept physics/chemistry/math/etc. (if you don't, then that raises all sorts of other issues), things don't seem so inane.

I'm not sure how simple I can make this.

Beyond JGS' personal experiences and feelings, how did you come to determine that your version of Christianity supernatural claims are true, as opposed to other Christian sects, and other religions?

I've answered this before.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting a claim. You assert that a god created the universe, and that god is the god of Christianity. More specifically, it's the god you've described in this thread (since obviously, that's the one you believe in). No, you may not have specifically said the phrase "I assert that the Christian God created the universe!", but I would say the fact that you're participating in this message board discussion and describing your god means you have "asserted" it.

I was asked a question and then challenged on it. I didn't accept the challenege. I don't have todo anything. in fact, I made the ground rules pretty clear from the beginning, but you're a persistent little booger!

I was just asking how you came up with that belief, without resorting to personal experiences or personal feelings. It's pretty straightforward.

The answer was pretty straightforward too, but you're not grasping it.

 

[JGS]

Dude. Seriously. The Bible is many things. Gender-equal is not one of them at all. I bet I can find more verses backing me up than you can.

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

You left out the verse next to it that said the husband needs to smack his wife around.

There is no misogny in the Bible. This is the classic case of being bent out of shape.

I'll check the site that is almost certain to be verse cherry picking.

EDIT: Checked it out. So a whacky guy on a blog site has more weight than what I say? My feelings are hurt!:lol

 

[JGS]

Equality is a right of all humans regardless of orientation or gender or race. This is why regardess of what you are, the opportunity to worship God is open everyone. However, the religion itself is pretty discriminatory.

In other words, there's no reason to accept everyone that does not agree with it's teachings. Further they can kick out ones who change their mind. For example, if a woman does not wish to go by the headship arrangement, she does not have to. If she disagrees with that, she might as well disagree with it all.

Those are the religious terms and a particular religion's practices don't have to answer to anyone (Including government and bent out of shape individuals) if no harm is caused.

There is no harm caused by the Scriptural headship arrangement regardless of our personal outrage over it. I'm sure there are plenty of religions that don't have conditions or ones can go to the club of atheism/agnosticism.

At the same time, everyone who does agree to the "terms" (For lack of a better word), and there definitely are terms as there should be, gets the exact same rewards/benefits/promises of everyone else. For women particularly, the Bibe mentions a time when some will be heirs (rulers) to a Kingdom along with Jews, Gentiles, & other races.

Now secularly, there is no question the laws put in place that everyone is treated equal in an absolute sense even if there are obvious differences between the genders. Further, there is harm, particularly financial, when all people are not treated equal from a headship standpoint.

However, within secular organizational arrangements, headship is still a mandatory function of any societal group of more than one. That does not mean that their decision is necessarily unilateral or dictatorial (Which is generally not the case in Biblical headship arrangements either although I'm sure there are exceptions), it means they speak on behalf of the group and if needed make the final decision.

This works quite naturally in a marriage even if you are completely opposed to the verses.
Scripturally, though, it works very well as read since a man that really loves his wife would never do anything without considering her feelings on the matter. Since he is supposed to love his wife as much as himself, that would mean that he would never do anything to hurt her. Further he is supposed to imitate Jesus who gave his life for all mankind so it would make sense that a husband who loves his wife would also die for her. Those romantic concepts are mandated for a husband to have. Those are the parts of headship that always get blotted out.

The relationship is already 50/50 since both are fulfilling their obligations in a marriage. As I said earlier, if a woman does not like this arrangement, she doesn't have to accept it and there would be no real reason to love someone that agreed with it and she did not would there?

 

[Metaphoreus]

I would hope yours!

But he doesn't hold to my morality, so how is that relevant?

Empathy.

What does empathy have to do with morality? And why should anyone accept your empathy as the basis for their morality? And if you don't think they should accept it, then what's the point in discussing it? You're acting as though there's an objective morality that people--and God--should subscribe to, and yet you base it on your subjective feelings.

 

[jdogmoney]

You left out the verse next to it that said the husband needs to smack his wife around.

There is no misogny in the Bible. This is the classic case of being bent out of shape.

I'll check the site that is almost certain to be verse cherry picking.

EDIT: Checked it out. So a whacky guy on a blog site has more weight than what I say? My feelings are hurt!:lol

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

No misogyny in the Bible.

That was a good one. :lol

People have written entire books about the misogyny in the Bible.

I linked to that guy because that's a good explanation of what the Bible says about wives. It sounds ridiculous because the Bible is ridiculous when it comes to the arrangement of marriage.

If she disagrees with that, she may as well disagree with it all.

Nice. So if a woman wants to think for herself, talk in church, or make her own decisions, she can go to hell? Literally?

There is no harm caused by the Scriptural headship arrangement

Yeah. In fact, the fact that they can vote now, as opposed to the hundreds of years where the Bible was used to justify sexism, is kind of a drag.

Scripturally, though, it works very well as read since a man that really loves his wife would never do anything without considering her feelings on the matter. Since he is supposed to love his wife as much as himself, that would mean that he would never do anything to hurt her. Further he is supposed to imitate Jesus who gave his life for all mankind so it would make sense that a husband who loves his wife would also die for her. Those romantic concepts are mandated for a husband to have. Those are the parts of headship that always get blotted out.

Isn't that romantic? "Honey, I don't think you should have a career of your own. You see, we're a Biblical family, and so I get the final say, but it's okay that I'm keeping you from something you might find fulfilling. You see, the Bible says I love you."

it means they speak on behalf of the group and if needed make the final decision.

I've heard this "final decision" argument before. I still don't see how people think it's a good argument, or, you know, a good thing. If you can't agree with your wife, or at least talk through something with her, so that a mutual decision can be reached, that says something about the marriage.

What does empathy have to do with morality? And why should anyone accept your empathy as the basis for their morality? And if you don't think they should accept it, then what's the point in discussing it? You're acting as though there's an objective morality that people--and God--should subscribe to, and yet you base it on your subjective feelings.

I didn't say anything about an objective morality. That phrase doesn't seem to mean anything. A universal morality, maybe, but objective? Not so much.

It isn't my empathy. It's the concept of empathy. You would call it the Golden Rule. The Buddha said "Have compassion for all beings." A secular humanist would have similar views.

If I were to extrapolate to everyone (which I didn't), I would suggest that everyone should act according to a sense of understanding and acceptance of people's differences, and we should allow others to live in peace. A simple concept, but one that seems to be brushed aside.

Himuro: Man, I don't even know. I brought up slavery in an off-hand comment, and then JGS was all, "Slavery is okay!", and then Hitler was and wasn't a Christian, and then I changed the subject to the gender inequality in the Bible, and here we are.

 

[ronito]

there is no misogyny in the bible?

What's next? No Israelis in the bible?

 

[Slightly Live]

People have written entire books about the misogyny in the Bible.

I think JGS is being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the obvious misogyny in the Bible. He excused the attitude towards slavery in the Bible because slavery was acceptable to the majority of people back then but you can't excuse the Bible's attitude towards women in the same way and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away either.

I dare anyone to to say the following doesn't constitute misogyny.

A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. She is to bring two doves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.

Misogynist bullshit.

When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days...

More misogynist bullshit.

Man born of woman. Who can bring what is pure from the impure? No one!

More misogynist bullshit? I'm shocked.

Women's bodies were not their own but the property of fathers and husbands. Virginity and chastity were mandatory for women and any woman breaking the double standard moral code was put to death. Under Mosaic Law men were permitted many wives while women were permitted only one and were subject to a test for unfaithfulness Numbers 5:11-31

Men could divorce their wives on a whim - Deuteronomy 24:1-4

If however the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death

Sickening.

women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission

More of the same.

I don't have time to go through each thing the Bible says but here's a list if you are inclined,

GENESIS
2:22 Eve created from Adam's rib.
3:16 Cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
4:17 Cain marries sister?
4:19 Man marries two wives.
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk. (So much for "family values"!)
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife - again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

EXODUS
20:17 Wife as property.
21:4 Wife and children belong to master.
21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex.
Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set "free" without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.

LEVITICUS
12:1 Childbirth a sin, Women unclean after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
21:9 Burn daughters.
21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not "used" woman.

NUMBERS
1:2 Census lists only men - women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman's vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
CH 12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim's father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman's hand for touching foe's penis.
24:1-5 Man can "send" wife from HIS house. Man must not marry "used" woman.
28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed - eclectic "pro-life" verse!

JUDGES
5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

RUTH
Ruth shags Boaz.

1 SAMUEL
15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.

2 SAMUEL
5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines.
6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

1 KINGS
11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 KINGS
9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

2 CHRONICLES
15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

ESTHER
CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting "bad" example to all other women.

PSALMS
51:5 Sinful since conception.
127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
137:9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

PROVERBS
CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

ISAIAH
3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

EZEKIEL
9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity...
CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters - reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren't told this story at Sunday school!

HOSEA
13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another "pro-life" verse!)

NAHUM
3:4... wanton lust of a harlot... prostitution... witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13... Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

MATTHEW
5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

LUKE
2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

I CORINTHIANS
11:2-10... Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

EPHESIANS
5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

COLOSSIANS
3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

I TIMOTHY
2:11-15 Woman must not have authority…she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints' feet.

1 PETER
2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

REVELATION
CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4...they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

 

[JGS]

Good, you were flunking at starting this argument, I had to jump start it.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

No misogyny in the Bible.

That was a good one. :lol

People have written entire books about the misogyny in the Bible.

I linked to that guy because that's a good explanation of what the Bible says about wives. It sounds ridiculous because the Bible is ridiculous when it comes to the arrangement of marriage.[/quote
Which people. That kind of matters. After all, you seem to be the type that could write a book about it, but...

Nice. So if a woman wants to think for herself, talk in church, or make her own decisions, she can go to hell? Literally?

A woman always makes her own decisions...unless she's a slave. Then she has the same ability as the man who is a slave.

Yeah. In fact, the fact that they can vote now, as opposed to the hundreds of years where the Bible was used to justify sexism, is kind of a drag.

Just because something is used to justify it doesn't mean a hill of beans. You should know that.

Isn't that romantic? "Honey, I don't think you should have a career of your own. You see, we're a Biblical family, and so I get the final say, but it's okay that I'm keeping you from something you might find fulfilling. You see, the Bible says I love you."

Wait, are you honestly implying that
a. That verse says that women can't work? Hmm...

b. That I said it was romantic? I said it was a requirement. Culture has made it a romantic function.

In any event, there is nothing to suggests that the Bible condemns women working, but it does kind of find a guy that doesn't work to be a litle on the wussey side.

I've heard this "final decision" argument before. I still don't see how people think it's a good argument, or, you know, a good thing. If you can't agree with your wife, or at least talk through something with her, so that a mutual decision can be reached, that says something about the marriage.

First, your argument is wrong in the context of what I said. You are basically agreeing with me, but are too upset about the whole headship thing to see it.

Second, you missed the point. A woman who does not wish to submit to anyone should not be married to a husband that exercises it it or worship a God that requires it. She would be single and free since she would never fall in love with such a misogonistic cretin in the first place!

Thrd, you did not even address how it is not a good argument for secular matters so I'm assuming you have no problem with looking at it that way. However, family is just the most basic unit of a civilization, so why would it be run differently?

Submission has nothing to do with agreement/disagreements. It is simply an arrangement in place to handle matters orderly. This is why there is clear instructions in the Bible detailing what to do when arguments arise because they do. It also gives women the same freedoms to work, minister, marry, & divorce. Bottom line is there is very little evidence in the Bible that marriage and agreement between the couple didn't go hand in hand. This is why you are emotionally upset but have offer scant traces to prove what makes you upset.

Himuro: Man, I don't even know. I brought up slavery in an off-hand comment, and then JGS was all, "Slavery is okay!", and then Hitler was and wasn't a Christian, and then I changed the subject to the gender inequality in the Bible, and here we are.

Shame on you! That's so dishonest from such a free thinker. Tsk, tsk. If you can't win arguments by telling the truth, that means you lost them already.

 

[JGS]

Dani's back with more quotes!!!

I think JGS is being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the obvious misogyny in the Bible. He excused the attitude towards slavery in the Bible because slavery was acceptable to the majority of people back then but you can't excuse the Bible's attitude towards women in the same way and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away either.

The bolded is the problem. I'm not doubting books are written on any number of subjects negative of the Bible. So what?:lol

I dare anyone to to say the following doesn't constitute misogyny.

I accept!:lol

It really would help your cause more if you could shoot down my apologist ranting ahead of time. That way, I would at least think you actually read the scriptures you're denouncing rather than pulling them off of a skeptic blog.

Misogynist bullshit.

Leviticus is a book that discusses any number of uncleanneses including many for the guys. There is even uncleanness for having sex too many times on the same night.
Leviticus Chapter 15 tells us what happens when a man has a discharge problem.Surprise, he's unlclean.
Baiscally if there is a leaking of bodily fluid, there some kind of uncleanness associated with it. Now it may be immoral in your eyes to have so many rules and regulations, but both genders have to deal with it

More misogynist bullshit.

Seriously talk about intellectual dishonesty. I have never seen someone deconstruct a verse to prove a point in as horrible a way as this! There is no way you can deduce from that verse that it's saying anything other than man is imperfect. Misogny. Baloney!

Women's bodies were not their own but the property of fathers and husbands. Virginity and chastity were mandatory for women and any woman breaking the double standard moral code was put to death. Under Mosaic Law men were permitted many wives while women were permitted only one and were subject to a test for unfaithfulness Numbers 5:11-31

Yes, they died because of adultery. They broke the rules. Being able to marryigng more than one woman was not the same thing as committing adultery. Other laws in the Covenant (Which as a Christian I'm not under anyway, but it's Biblical so...) with Israel addressed what would happen if a man committed fornication with a woman not his wife but you should already know that from the chapters you quoted. Right? Right?

Arranged marriages were the norm especially for nation building. It was not cruel and unusual punishment on the woman's part to be able to bear children back then. Thus they accepted the practice although it had it's problems for sure.

Men could divorce their wives on a whim - Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Did you not quote this because that's not what it says?

Sickening.

You reference the verses but highlight one verse. Why not simply quote the one verse?:lol
That's the second time you've done that. The accusation are based on immorality and fornication- both of which are punishable by death which you would have known if you had read verse 22.

More of the same.

I don't have time to go through each thing the Bible says but here's a list if you are inclined,

Frimn these truly lame examples now, it is clear that you do not know what misogny is. Firther, you also seem to think that if there is a bad thing mentioned about women, that is a clear sign that women are hated ad despised - the meaning of misogny by the way. So far nothing has shown that so I satand by my statement. For fun though:

GENESIS

2:22 Eve created from Adam's rib.

And?

3:16 Cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.

And?

4:17 Cain marries sister?

And? Should he have married Seth?

4:19 Man marries two wives

And? For the record, marrying more than one woman is not misogny. If anything it shows you love women too much!:lol Polygamy was a common practice because it spread your seed around - very evolutionary actually.

12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.

Not true

19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.

You mean you would have picked otherwise? Now maybe the angels could have dne something...Oh wait, they did!

19:26 Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.

Lot would have been a salt lick too if he had turned around. Remeber they saved the whole family. Wouldn't it have been easirer to simply not carry Lot's wife away in the 1st place? I mean seriously...

19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk. (So much for "family values"!)

No one uses Lot's family as examples to be followed. They were a bunch of materialistic greedy, lazy, people that were only helped because of their ties to Abraham.
Secndly Lot's daughters are the ones that initiated it with their own whacky ideas, so it was far from th rape scenario you're implying.

20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife - again.

25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

Not true again

EXODUS

20:17 Wife as property.

*groan* I.don't.even.

21:4 Wife and children belong to master.

Slavery - different topic

21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex.
Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set "free" without payment of money.

Answered and concubines aren't sex slaves.

22:18 Kill witches.

Anyone practicing sorcery was killed

LEVITICUS

12:1 Childbirth a sin, Women unclean after childbirth.

Explained

15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.

Explained

20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.

Yep

21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.

Seems fair

21:9 Burn daughters.

Look up what the phrase means, but anyway this is the daughter of a priest who becomes a prostitute. A true Jerry Spring event

21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not "used" woman.

Thems the rules

Again none of this shows misogyny for women. If anything you're starting to hone in on the idea that the grosser a person's actions were or the higher the position of authority a person had, the greater risk and reward they took on regardless of gender. You just happen to be picking out gender specific verses.

I'll finish the rest of it later. However, the pattern here is that you are intellectually dishonest in reference to what the verse say and explain. Actually, it may be that you have never read a lick of the Bible. Maybe you could provide the link to your source!:lol

 

[NegativeZero]

I think JGS is being intellectually dishonest by ignoring the obvious misogyny in the Bible. He excused the attitude towards slavery in the Bible because slavery was acceptable to the majority of people back then but you can't excuse the Bible's attitude towards women in the same way and pretending it doesn't exist isn't going to make it go away either.

I dare anyone to to say the following doesn't constitute misogyny.

Misogynist bullshit.

More misogynist bullshit.

More misogynist bullshit? I'm shocked.

Women's bodies were not their own but the property of fathers and husbands. Virginity and chastity were mandatory for women and any woman breaking the double standard moral code was put to death. Under Mosaic Law men were permitted many wives while women were permitted only one and were subject to a test for unfaithfulness Numbers 5:11-31

Men could divorce their wives on a whim - Deuteronomy 24:1-4

Sickening.

More of the same.

I don't have time to go through each thing the Bible says but here's a list if you are inclined,

GENESIS
2:22 Eve created from Adam's rib.
3:16 Cursed with painful childbirth and domination by husband.
4:17 Cain marries sister?
4:19 Man marries two wives.
12:13-19 Abraham prostitutes wife.
19:1-8 Rape virgin daughters instead of male angels.
19:26 Lot's wife turned into pillar of salt for disobeying god.
19:30-38 Lot impregnates his two daughters while drunk. (So much for "family values"!)
20:2-12 Abraham prostitutes wife - again.
25:1-6 Keeping many concubines is OK.

EXODUS
20:17 Wife as property.
21:4 Wife and children belong to master.
21:7-11 OK to sell daughters. Female slaves can be used for sex.
Polygamy permitted. Unwanted female slaves can be set "free" without payment of money.
22:18 Kill witches.

LEVITICUS
12:1 Childbirth a sin, Women unclean after childbirth.
15:19-32 Menstruating women are unclean.
20:10-16 Death penalty for homosexuality and various sexual transgressions.
21:7 Priests must not marry prostitutes or divorcees.
21:9 Burn daughters.
21:13-14 Priest must marry virgin, not "used" woman.

NUMBERS
1:2 Census lists only men - women do not count.
5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.
30:1-16 Woman's vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.
31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.
CH 12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.
22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.
22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.
22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim's father compensated for depreciation of his property.
25:11-12 Cut woman's hand for touching foe's penis.
24:1-5 Man can "send" wife from HIS house. Man must not marry "used" woman.
28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed - eclectic "pro-life" verse!

JUDGES
5:30 Women are spoils of war.
14:20 Samson gives wife to another man.
16:1 Samson visits prostitute.
CH 19 Concubine pack-raped and butchered.
21:10-12 Slaughtered all inc. women and children. Saved virgins for wives.
21:21 Abducted girls for wives.

RUTH
Ruth shags Boaz.

1 SAMUEL
15:2-3 Attack Amalekites, kill men, women, children and livestock.
22:19 Kill all inc. infants and livestock.
21:4-5 Men avoid defilement with women.

2 SAMUEL
5:13 David took many wives and concubines.
CH 13 Ammon rapes his own sister.
16:21-22 Absalom sleeps with his father's concubines.
6:20-23 Mischal punished with bareness.

1 KINGS
11:3 Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

2 KINGS
9:30-37 Brutal murder of Jezebel.

2 CHRONICLES
15:13 Put to death unbelievers.
11:21 Hoards of wives and concubines.

ESTHER
CH 1-2 Queen Vashti dethroned for disobedience; setting "bad" example to all other women.

PSALMS
51:5 Sinful since conception.
127:3 Sons are heritage from god.
137:9 Seizes infants and dashes them against rocks.

PROVERBS
CH 5 Beware of wicked women!
CH 7 More of the above.
6:24 As above.
31:3 Do not waste strength on women.

ISAIAH
3:16-26 Lord punishes haughty women.
4:4 Filthy women.
13:16 Ravish wives, dash infants.
19:16 Will be like women! (insult to Egyptians)

EZEKIEL
9:6-7 Slaughter all including children.
CH 16 Prostitutes, stoning, promiscuity...
CH 23 Tale of two adulterous sisters - reads like the script of a pornographic film. I bet you weren't told this story at Sunday school!

HOSEA
13:16 Rip pregnant women, dash little ones. (Another "pro-life" verse!)

NAHUM
3:4... wanton lust of a harlot... prostitution... witchcraft.
3:5 I will lift your skirts over your face!
3:13... Your troops are all women. (insult to Nineveh)

MATTHEW
5:32 Husband can divorce wife for adultery. Can wife divorce husband for the same?
CH 25 Sexist tale of ten virgins.

LUKE
2:22 Mary must be purified after birth of Jesus.
2:49 Jesus rebukes his mother.

I CORINTHIANS
11:2-10... Woman created for man.
14:34 Women must be silent in churches.

EPHESIANS
5:22-24 Wives must submit to husbands in everything.

COLOSSIANS
3:18 Wives submit to husbands.
3:22 Slaves must obey masters in everything.

I TIMOTHY
2:11-15 Woman must not have authority…she must be silent. Women can be saved with childbearing.
5:9-10 Widows should be faithful to husband and must wash saints' feet.

1 PETER
2:18 Slaves submit to masters, even masters who are harsh.
3:1 Wives submit.
3:5-6 Sarah calls husband master.

REVELATION
CH 17 Destroy great prostitute.
14:4...they did not DEFILE themselves with women but kept themselves pure.

The very definition of "misogyny" is, quite simply, "hatred of women."

Precisely how does each example constitute misogyny?

 

[kevm3]

I just keep my faith simple. Love Jesus, love God, attempt to improve my morality, etc. These scriptural debates have been going on and on and on and will continue to go on and on and on. I don't know if anything has ever really came of them.

 

[Buckethead]

Women are the weaker sex according to The Bible.

It all comes down to if you agree with that fact or not. Pretty much the summation of the entire book. Viewpoint.

If you agree with it, chances you'll see thing "God's way" and your viewpoint will be that both men and women
have different strengths and flaws and that such statements are be deemed just. If not, you'll probably view it as unequal and seek to rectify those inequalities. Two sides of a coin.

Really just comes down to "viewpoint" which goes back to the legit greek definition of the word we've come to know as repentance.

I just keep my faith simple. Love Jesus, love God, attempt to improve my morality, etc. These scriptural debates have been going on and on and on and will continue to go on and on and on. I don't know if anything has ever really came of them.

The Pharisees loved scriptural debates. Makes God lol.

 

[jdogmoney]

The very definition of "misogyny" is, quite simply, "hatred of women."

Precisely how does each example constitute misogyny?

How does it not? I'm shocked that this is the kind of thing that has to be explained. I'll just do a couple of them, because, frankly, if you don't see how any of that is misogynist, I doubt we're going to get very far in a meaningful discussion.


Adam was created first, because men are just so perfect, and women are just a weaker, inferior version of that godly standard.

For the exact same crime, Eve and every woman was cursed with painful childbirth for eternity, while Adam had to work in a field.


Cain marries his sister, who, like most of the women in the Bible, doesn't merit a name. (188 named women (counting words like "whore" and "witch" and names of "X's wife") in the Bible, vs. 1181 named men.)


Um, let's see.


Newborn girls are twice as "unclean" as newborn boys.


Dude, I don't really have the time to detail why it's wrong to stone a rape victim to death.

 

[jdogmoney]

Shame on you! That's so dishonest from such a free thinker. Tsk, tsk. If you can't win arguments by telling the truth, that means you lost them already.

Tell me, right now, that slavery is immoral.

Sorry for the double post; I missed this earlier.

 

[Vizion28]

Hello everybody. Sorry if I derailed any discussions but I wanted to post something that I believe is pertinent. I have posted this elsewhere on Gaf.

The whole VMA 2009 awards was one big Satanic ritual.

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAvoyUBzVdk&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgk0yJ676WQ&feature=related If you are skeptical please explain the words in the background at 5:28?

Many music videos are heavy with Satanic symbolism. The following are just a few examples (there are many, many more):

Michael Jackson music video explained http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71F5oc5SAxM

Rihanna's Umbrella video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBZiAk5A1JY

Jay Z http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7XqKuP6GR0&feature=related

In fact, the spirit behind most secular music is Satanic. Many artists have admitted to selling their souls to Satan for fame and fortune. Many artists have admitted to channeling evil spirits to create their music.

John Lennon is believed to sold his soul, in fact he said it himself. There is even a book about it called The Lennon Prophecy. The Beatles channeled evil spirits http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00W93kE-ZE0

Kurt Kobain channeled evil spirits to create music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LspYPyNydTg&feature=related

The Eagles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYjkV1iWlQU&feature=related

The so called father of Rock and Roll Robert Johnson believed to sold his soul for guitar playing abilities and fame http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ku4zOtYd-Is

Jimi Hendrex believed he was possessed by demonic spirits. His girlfriend admitted it as well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruTnkMVx5jU&feature=related

Michael Jackson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=811AQTeHI7c&feature=related

Black Sabbath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT4Hm9u_RaU&feature=related

Prince admitted he had another person [evil spirit] living inside him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWD-j94txSc&feature=PlayList&p= 0A419B3E0058F3B8&index=27&playnext=3 @2:54

Elvis Presley is believed to have been demonic possessed Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e10Wv373uKA&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MftkmYWpqKU&feature=related

Bob Dylan implied he sold his soul to Satanhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqvvOD4bdRs

Katy Perry admitted she sold her soul http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8MTaltXEuQ&feature=related

Eminem said he sold his soul in his rap song "Goodbye Hollywood"

"What about math, how come I wasn't ever good at that
It's like the boy in the bubble, who never could adapt, i'm trapped
If I could go back, I never woulda rapped
I sold my soul to the devil, i'll never get it back
I just wanna leave this game with level head intact"

Also in his song "My Darling http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONxUje4EJgU&feature=related

In his autobiography "The Doggfather", Snoop Dogg says the devil came
to him to make a deal that he would be rich and famous in exchange for
his soul. Snoop accepted the devil's offer (by his own words) and identifies that the point at which Calvin Broadus dies Snoop Dog was born.

FROM THE SONG "LET ME FLY". In this song, DMX explains that he sold his soul to the devil and exactly why he did it etc.

"I sold my soul to the devil, and the price was cheap. A yo it's cold on this level cause it's twice as deep. But you don't hear me, ignorance is blisning and so on Sometimes it's better to be taught dumb. Shall I go on. You don't want no real, what the deal is a mystery. How is it I can live and make history If you don't see it then it, wasn't ment for you to see
If you wasn't born wit' it then, it wasn't ment for you to be But you can't blame me for not wantin' to be hound lock down in a cell wit' a soul gettin' dwelled This is hell, go get the devil and get me the key but can't be worst than the curse that was given ta me It's what I live for, you take away that and I'm gone "

Apparently, it turns out Satan was not happy that Heavy Metal was not reaching Black people. So he created that Hip Hop to reach 'brothers' and cross all kinds of ethnic & cultural barriers.

Pastor Craig Lewis speaks about it here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMGhLjlzI58&feature=related

Watch this wonderful testimony of a rapper who was close to selling his soul for a money but chose to walk with Christ. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM1CkXxwf0Y&feature=player_embedded

Heavy metal band leader said he sold his soul to Satan but God stepped in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dpGWYZMDc&feature=player_embedded

A former Satan worshiper, John Todd, explains how record companies conjure up evil spirits and use witchcraft to brainwash people through Rock and Roll. Mind you this was taped around 40 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otti-82jEAc

Jesus said "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

The Bible is clear that Satan has control of the world until Christ returns. Satan even offered Jesus the kingdoms of the world if Jesus worshiped him.

Satan tried to make the same deal with Jesus Christ when Jesus was
tempted in the wilderness. The bible reads "Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; Matthew 4:9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve"

Satan certainly has musical abilities. In Ezekiel 28:13 - "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: THE WORKMANSHIP OF THY TIMBRELS AND OF THY PIPES WAS PREPARED IN THE DAY THAT THOU WAST CREATED."

Isaiah14:11-12 "Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols [stringed instruments]: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

We only have to look around us at the music industry and its "Rock, rap and Pop stars" to see how much of an influence Satan has on music and its corruption, it is most certainly one of the devils strongest tools to corrupt the Word of God and influence the lost away from Godliness and to place strongholds on them via music.

Spiritual warfare is certainly going on: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." -- Ephesians 6:12

Jesus said "And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul?" (Mark 8:36)

Jesus wants all to come to him ""Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

Edited to fix links. I hope it works now.

 

[jdogmoney]

Vizion28, I'm just going to say that most of those links don't work. They have an ellipses in the middle.

Also, I doubt this is the right thread for that, but if you're sure...

 

[soul creator]

wat

 

[Balya]

A former Satan worshiper, John Todd, explains how record companies conjure up evil spirits and use witchcraft to brainwash people through Rock and Roll. Mind you this was taped around 40 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otti-82jEAc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFr8dziim5w

 

[Buckethead]

wat

.

 

[Kinitari]

This is awesome.

Kind of sucks that he's already banned, we don't get a lot of religious crazies here - a few apologists here and there (no Misogony in the Bible? Really? Women must remain quiet in Church but men can talk is just to keep things organized and neat? REALLY?). Still, I guess arguing with someone like him would have gone down a bad road.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Regarding misogyny, Jesus says some pretty mean stuff to his mom.

 

[Buckethead]

Women must remain quiet in Church

Not preach to men =/= remain quiet
Goes back to the whole part of agreeing with the "women are weaker sex" thing.

If you dig, you dig, if not you don't. But ye' be twisting that one a bit.

 

[soul creator]

funny thing is, I find the whole "shady secret organization of people control major industries" viewpoint to be far more plausible than the supernatural claims of most major religions

Sure, there's still plenty of bad reasoning to be found in it, but at least it's bad reasoning based in this universe!

 

[jdogmoney]

This is awesome.

Kind of sucks that he's already banned, we don't get a lot of religious crazies here - a few apologists here and there (no Misogony in the Bible? Really? Women must remain quiet in Church but men can talk is just to keep things organized and neat? REALLY?). Still, I guess arguing with someone like him would have gone down a bad road.

He didn't even get to fix the links...

 

[jdogmoney]

Not preach to men =/= remain quiet
Goes back to the whole part of agreeing with the "women are weaker sex" thing.

If you dig, you dig, if not you don't. But ye' be twisting that one a bit.

As in all the churches of God's holy people, women are to remain quiet in the assemblies, since they have no permission to speak: theirs is a subordinate part.

Also, how is what you said better?

 

[LCGeek]

funny thing is, I find the whole "shady secret organization of people control major industries" viewpoint to be far more plausible than the supernatural claims of most major religions

Sure, there's still plenty of bad reasoning to be found in it, but at least it's bad reasoning based in this universe!

There is nothing about secret about the accused people of the shadow governments. The only thing shady is the premise I like incompetence and cronism over bulllshit neocon plots to turn the country in to a rich fascist playland.

 

[Buckethead]

Also, how is what you said better?

Yeah.... subordinate, "be in submission" as another translation says.

I'm not making a judgment. I'm just saying there's more context than that one verse, which is definitely the harshest part.

 

[NegativeZero]

How does it not? I'm shocked that this is the kind of thing that has to be explained. I'll just do a couple of them, because, frankly, if you don't see how any of that is misogynist, I doubt we're going to get very far in a meaningful discussion.

Adam was created first, because men are just so perfect, and women are just a weaker, inferior version of that godly standard.

For the exact same crime, Eve and every woman was cursed with painful childbirth for eternity, while Adam had to work in a field.

Cain marries his sister, who, like most of the women in the Bible, doesn't merit a name. (188 named women (counting words like "whore" and "witch" and names of "X's wife") in the Bible, vs. 1181 named men.)

Um, let's see.

Newborn girls are twice as "unclean" as newborn boys.

Dude, I don't really have the time to detail why it's wrong to stone a rape victim to death.

But, you see, you are giving examples of what the Bible says and merely asserting that they are misogynistic; you are not arguing that they are misogynistic. In order to do the latter, you will have to show that the author of each respective passage was a misogynist whose misogyny is not only clearly evident in said passages, but intended.

You say,

Adam was created first, because men are just so perfect, and women are just a weaker, inferior version of that godly standard.

yet you have no way of proving that the author said that Adam was created first because he (the author) wanted to convey that "men are just so perfect, and women are just a weaker, inferior version of that godly standard." You approach the text with the assumption of misogyny and you let that assumption dictate your interpretation of it, which, of course, is that it is misogynistic.

In essence, all you are really doing (as well as the individual in this thread who first claimed the Bible is misogynistic) is begging the question: the Bible is misogynistic because the Bible denigrates women.

 

[NegativeZero]

This is awesome.

Kind of sucks that he's already banned, we don't get a lot of religious crazies here - a few apologists here and there (no Misogony in the Bible? Really? Women must remain quiet in Church but men can talk is just to keep things organized and neat? REALLY?). Still, I guess arguing with someone like him would have gone down a bad road.

Was he banned for posting that same stuff in other threads? Surely he wasn't banned for posting all of that in this thread, which I suppose was the best place for it since this is "The Official Religion Thread."

 

[jdogmoney]

But, you see, you are giving examples of what the Bible says and merely asserting that they are misogynistic; you are not arguing that they are misogynistic. In order to do the latter, you will have to show that the author of each respective passage was a misogynist whose misogyny is not only clearly evident in said passages, but intended.

That's...that's not true. To argue that something is misogynistic, I have to

a.) call attention to something

and

b.) explain how that thing is misogynistic.

It's impossible to know for certain author intent, since the author(s) of the Bible are a bunch of dudes who all lived and died a long time ago. Trying to make me prove something that's impossible to prove merely takes away from the discussion, and obscures the point at hand.

Now, the burden of proof is on me. I'm not going to say "Prove they aren't misogynistic!" because, one, you can't really prove a negative, and two, it's my claim, so I need to be able to back it up.

Luckily, however, I can back it up, thanks to the power of the Bible's misogyny!

[I'm trying not to be too condescending, but I think some of it slipped through regardless. My b.]

By the way, that's not what "begging the question" means. Begging the question is "the Bible is infallible, because the Bible says it can't be wrong". If I say:

The Bible has a bunch of stuff that puts men ahead of and above women.
Putting men ahead of and before women is misogynistic
Therefore, the Bible is misogynistic.

That's a sound argument.

You can argue it's invalid based on the premises, but the internal logic of it is sound.

 

[Nocebo]

I can see what causes pain and suffering and it is not the finger of God.

Where's the proof? Didn't god create diseases and the like? Aside from disease God has been known to create calamities as well (floods anyone?)

Most religions also seem to be designed to cause conflicts. If there was only one true God there should only be one book. The fact that God went around being dishonest to incite conflict can be substantiated by the existence of the Koran.

Nope, but I can prove the times he's telling the truth. Since there's no correspnding mess-ups poving he lies, I tend toward the truth telling. I have no reason to automatically distrust someone that I am not aware is harming me and is in fact make my life happier.

Further, I don't have much problem with people trying to prove he's lying, it just won't amount to anything.

Can you prove he's telling the truth about: the creation of the universe, the creation of man and the animals, the global flood, heaven, hell?

It is good enough for you if you're not aware of the harm and it makes you superficially happy? A drug addict and a drunkard are perfectly fine in their addictions then I suppose?

The mind can easily be tricked into thinking you're happy about a current situation that is ultimately detrimental to you. Ever heard of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome ? Though not exact of course, a lot of paralels can be drawn.

The hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.

Threats of going to hell etc.

 

[kinoki]

I met my very first creationist yesterday. A living breathing swedish creationist. We sat down and had a very long discussion about all things religious. It was so sureal, I didn't know they actually existed. The thing we did however agree upon was that God will, if he existed, some day be fully explained in science, to believe otherwise would be to misunderstand the word "science."

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/07/22/super-heroes-vs-the-westboro-baptist-church/

I just wanted to post this somewhere. this seemed best.

 

[Arthrus]

*List of Bible quotes about treatment of women*

To explain why I said the Bible is awful and should never be used as a reference, I meant in accordance to how we go about our lives. That big list of quotes about how women should behave/be treated is a good example of where following what the book says is a bad idea. I believe that cherry-picking Bible passages is not a suitable way to determine how we should live our lives, and therefore take an all-or-nothing approach to the matter. The book does have value for other reasons (that JGS listed a few pages back in response to what I said).

 

[JGS]

More stuff from the cherry picking garbage.

NUMBERS

1:2 Census lists only men - women do not count.

Per Numbers 1, the census' purpose was to count men to serve in the military, temple service, etc.. There was not a need to count women for these position as they didn't fight. Imagine they hated women so much they didn't count them dying in war. Animals!:lol

5:11-31 Fidelity test for women only.

Spending a little time on this one.

The reason for the fidelity test is because the woman is the one that gets pregnant, not the man. The fidelity test was in connection to a punishment (Sterility) given to a lying, adulterous woman. It's beats death which is what the man gets for laying down with another man's wife.

The interesting thing about this one is that I hope you notice that the jealous husband can't just say his wife is guilty of adultery. He first has to have 2 witnesses to the act, putting his wife (A woman OMG!) on the same footing as any man accused of something. He has to pay if the test fails for puting his wife through it, & only if the woman is indeed a lying conniveing, adulterous woman is there a punishment that didn't involve the death penalty which is the normal sentence.

30:1-16 Woman's vow invalid unless approved by her father or husband.

Well, the headship arrangement is in place so this would make sense. However, a widow or divorced woman coulc make vows as much as they want.

31:17-18 Kill all except virgins. Keep virgins for yourselves.

War is Hell. Virgins were undefiled and so the Israellite were allowed to marry them instead of killing them like the rest of the people.

CH 12 Miriam punished for rebuking Moses.

7 days of leprosy isn't that bad considering the accusations. She was not "rebuking" Moseslol ) Miriam was the instigator and was out of line. Aaron has shown himself to be sort of sheepish and a follower although a good priest. In short, he was likely listening to his sister more than his brother.

DEUTERONOMY

20:14 Take women, livestock as plunder.

This is a good thing. The only other option would be to kill them since this was describing what to do in battle.

22:13-21 Stone non-virgin bride.

Yes, this coincides with taking only the virgins.

22:23-24 Stone rapist and rape victim.

You either didn't read this one or was on crack at the time.

22:28 Rape victim must marry rapist; rape victim's father compensated for depreciation of his property.

This one does suck, but it also sadly makes sense. Most men want their wives to be virgins back then as should be evident by all the verses. The marriage ensured that the woman was not going to be unmarried all of her days because of the actions of someone else.
Again, the circumstances suck, but the law is sound given the times.

25:11-12 Cut woman's hand for touching foe's penis.

It was more than a touch! Ouch!:lol
It's a castration move meant to stop a fight she had no business being in. How many times do you think that happened btw?

24:1-5 Man can "send" wife from HIS house. Man must not marry "used" woman.

Discussed

28:18 The FRUIT of your womb will be cursed - eclectic "pro-life" verse!

This is another one of those grasping for straws.

First this was a warning. Second, he is simply stating that they will become just like other nations who do not have his protection.

I'm officially bored and have to take my kids to the dentist now. I can either leave the rest of them alone or I'll continue making it clear that your lame verses have no conncection whatsoever to misogyny in the most classic or modern sense. I'll repeat what I said in the last post:

The pattern here is that you are intellectually dishonest in reference to what the verse say and explain. Actually, it may be that you have never read a lick of the Bible.

 

[NegativeZero]

That's...that's not true. To argue that something is misogynistic, I have to

a.) call attention to something

and

b.) explain how that thing is misogynistic.

It's impossible to know for certain author intent, since the author(s) of the Bible are a bunch of dudes who all lived and died a long time ago. Trying to make me prove something that's impossible to prove merely takes away from the discussion, and obscures the point at hand.

Now, the burden of proof is on me. I'm not going to say "Prove they aren't misogynistic!" because, one, you can't really prove a negative, and two, it's my claim, so I need to be able to back it up.

Luckily, however, I can back it up, thanks to the power of the Bible's misogyny!

[I'm trying not to be too condescending, but I think some of it slipped through regardless. My b.]

Authorial intent regarding misogyny is important because otherwise what you are telling me is that these misogynistic passages in the Bible are accidentally misogynistic. If misogyny is "hatred of women," then the passages in question must, by default, be written with the intent of suppressing women. Otherwise, why write them at all? My answer to that question is that the point of the passages is not misogynistic at all, but if you are correct, then your only option is to claim that the point is misogyny. If you disagree and say that the point of the passages is not misogyny, then please inform me as to what you think the point is.

By the way, that's not what "begging the question" means. Begging the question is "the Bible is infallible, because the Bible says it can't be wrong". If I say:

The Bible has a bunch of stuff that puts men ahead of and above women.
Putting men ahead of and before women is misogynistic
Therefore, the Bible is misogynistic.

That's a sound argument.

You can argue it's invalid based on the premises, but the internal logic of it is sound.

The argument you just quoted is indeed sound, but the argument you were previously making was "The Bible is misogynistic because the Bible denigrates women," which is, in fact, begging the question because the conclusion you are reaching is assumed in the premise. Thank you for the specificity of the second argument.

And yes, I would claim that it's invalid based on the premises because I would claim that you must prove your initial premise, i.e., "The Bible has a bunch of stuff that puts men ahead of and above women." But of course, that puts us right back where we were before.