₦airaland Forum

According to deutronomy 22: 28-29.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.)
Assuming I meet a hot lady and she refuses to marry me,since the punishment for rape in this situation is marriage without divorce, isn't this a reinforcement for rapists?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
35 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..

So why are there female pastors if they are required to keep quiet?
why do women manage so many positions of power that requires them to speak out in churches today?

The bible and lacuna is like 5 & 6..worst case, when you ask all these, men of God they will go and read one Amos, or Joshua wei no tally with ur question,..

kobosmalls:
According to deutronomy 22: 28-29.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.)
Assuming I meet a hot lady and she refuses to marry me,since the punishment for rape in this situation is marriage without divorce, isn't this a reinforcement for rapists?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
35 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..

So why are there female pastors if they are required to keep quiet?
why do women manage so many positions of power that requires them to speak out in churches today?

The truth is 'we happily ignore all this part of the bible'. I'm a Christian too. However, there's no misdeed in this world that a Christian won't find a 'back-up' for in the bible.

kobosmalls:
According to deutronomy 22: 28-29.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.)
Assuming I meet a hot lady and she refuses to marry me,since the punishment for rape in this situation is marriage without divorce, isn't this a reinforcement for rapists?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
35 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..

So why are there female pastors if they are required to keep quiet?
why do women manage so many positions of power that requires them to speak out in churches today?

phabulux:
The truth is 'we happily ignore all this part of the bible'. I'm a Christian too. However, there's no misdeed in this world that a Christian won't find a 'back-up' for in the bible.

paragon40:
The bible and lacuna is like 5 & 6..worst case, when you ask all these, men of God they will go and read one Amos, or Joshua wei no tally with ur question,..

Is very obvious you guys are not christians, i think you all need slaps to reset your brains to factory setting.

herbie27:
Is very obvious you guys are not christians, i think you all need slaps to reset your brains to factory setting.

Is that your defence?
No wonder you believe in a fairy tale vindictive sky monster who loves violence.

The Bible does not encourage rape. One thing you should do when reading verses is to ponder on the context and try to get background info. The Israelite men under the Mosaic law could easily give their wives a certificate of divorce under many circumstances (Jesus corrected this later though. Adultery should be the only ground). Now for a man who rapes an unengaged girl (if she is engaged, he dies), he has to marry her and cannot divorce her on any ground whatsoever. He was also to pay a fine. How could that possibly be support for rape? Is there any nation with the death sentence for male rapists?

As regards the way the Bible portrays women... Well, the Bible is patriarchal and upholds a leadership structure that flows down from God to Jesus to the congregation to the man to his wife. However, even while strongly advocating gender roles, the Bible does not demean women. A man is to love his wife and never mistreat her. Some women like Deborah performed leadership roles. Some women like the daughters of Philip prophesied.

What the Bible does is that it tell you, look... The man should be the head. Still he has to earn the submission of his wife and is obligated to provide for his family.

Oahray:
The Bible does not encourage rape. One thing you should do when reading verses is to ponder on the context and try to get background info. The Israelite men under the Mosaic law could easily give their wives a certificate of divorce under many circumstances (Jesus corrected this later though. Adultery should be the only ground). Now for a man who rapes an unengaged girl (if she is engaged, he dies), he has to marry her and cannot divorce her on any ground whatsoever. He was also to pay a fine. How could that possibly be support for rape? Is there any nation with the death sentence for male rapists?

As regards the way the Bible portrays women... Well, the Bible is patriarchal and upholds a leadership structure that flows down from God to Jesus to the congregation to the man to his wife. However, even while strongly advocating gender roles, [b]the Bible does not demean women]/b] A man is to love his wife and never mistreat her. Some women like Deborah performed leadership roles. Some women like the daughters of Philip prophesied.

What the Bible does is that it tell you, look... The man should be the head. Still he has to earn the submission of his wife and is obligated to provide for his family.

@Underlined, really? I don't think you've read the Bible in and out.

darkenedrebel:
@Underlined, really? I don't think you've read the Bible in and out.

I have, and I dare say, far more than most readers. What is "demeaning" is subjective. There are those who think that if you tell a lady not to try carrying a bag of cement by herself, you are demeaning her. There's no part of the Bible that portray women as mentally or psychologically inferior. Post examples if you know any.

Oahray:
The Bible does not encourage rape. One thing you should do when reading verses is to ponder on the context and try to get background info. The Israelite men under the Mosaic law could easily give their wives a certificate of divorce under many circumstances (Jesus corrected this later though. Adultery should be the only ground). Now for a man who rapes an unengaged girl (if she is engaged, he dies), he has to marry her and cannot divorce her on any ground whatsoever. He was also to pay a fine. How could that possibly be support for rape? Is there any nation with the death sentence for male rapists?

As regards the way the Bible portrays women... Well, the Bible is patriarchal and upholds a leadership structure that flows down from God to Jesus to the congregation to the man to his wife. However, even while strongly advocating gender roles, the Bible does not demean women. A man is to love his wife and never mistreat her. Some women like Deborah performed leadership roles. Some women like the daughters of Philip prophesied.

What the Bible does is that it tell you, look... The man should be the head. Still he has to earn the submission of his wife and is obligated to provide for his family.

In what context again do I consider this.
Read the analogy I gave.
If I rape your sister because I love her knowing that she does not love me back and raping her would be the ultimate way of marrying her against her will, a law that dictates payment of bride price for rape is encouraging the act of rape.
On the issue of women being told to shut up and that it is a disgrace for them to speak up is clearly telling them that they are not worthy of speaking when men are around.
I don't know how else you want this to be explained before you agree that all religions took women for granted.

Oahray:
I have, and I dare say, far more than most readers. What is "demeaning" is subjective. There are those who think that if you tell a lady not to try carrying a bag of cement by herself, you are demeaning her. There's no part of the Bible that portray women as mentally or psychologically inferior. Post examples if you know any.

The verse I quoted earlier says that they should not speak up but to ask their husbands at home.
Isn't this similar to telling someone that they are not good enough to understand or express themselves unless their husbands explains to them?
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If this(for Adam was formed first then eve,Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived) does not mean psychological weakness to you then I can't help anymore.

kobosmalls:
According to deutronomy 22: 28-29.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.)
Assuming I meet a hot lady and she refuses to marry me,since the punishment for rape in this situation is marriage without divorce, isn't this a reinforcement for rapists?

1 Corinthians 14:34-35New International Version (NIV)

34 Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
35 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..

So why are there female pastors if they are required to keep quiet?
why do women manage so many positions of power that requires them to speak out in churches today?

welcome to 21st century

I guess we'd also have to reserve some of these your questions for the Druids, Annunaki, the Vikings, Loki, Thor and all the Asgardian retinue of mythical and historical figures since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also in the class of historical characters, who lived and died long ago, even though Loki most certainly didn't.

Unclear comparisons like this only lead to sponsored misconceptions in an age when Women Bishops and General Overseers are too numerous to count in one exercise now.

You do need to consider the socio-cultural context before approaching specific portions applying to prevailing practices of eons ago with our present-day 21st century liberality and critical thinking. As per many of those "ceremonial rules & laws", they were set aside by Christ himself; you'll only find some offbase, fringe movements clinging to them for God-knows-what type of validation.

Oahray:
I have, and I dare say, far more than most readers. What is "demeaning" is subjective. There are those who think that if you tell a lady not to try carrying a bag of cement by herself, you are demeaning her. There's no part of the Bible that portray women as mentally or psychologically inferior. Post examples if you know any

@Underlined__how often do you read the bible?

Isaiah 4:1: "A time would come when seven women would beg a man to allow them bear his name without having to provide their needs so their shame can be taken away"

Apparently, this is just another subtler form of slut-shaming—because according to the prophet Isaiah, a woman who is loose is deemed shameless for turning her body which is supposed to be the temple of God into a bowling alley. But do also you notice the conspicuous absence of the males who did the defiling in his pronouncement? Or did the women have sex with themselves?

-In the new testament, we also read the story of how Jesus saved the adulteress when he asked that the man without sin should be the one to cast the first stone.

Did you stop to ask why it was only the woman who was at the receiving end of the mob? Where was the man she was supposedly caught sleeping with, and why was he let off the hook rather than getting stoned to death with the woman as well?

-In the book of Chronicles (I can't recall the exact verse), it was stated that for an accusation in court to be taken as valid, it must require the testimony of one man, or two women, and never one woman—the testimony of one woman was consigned to the dumpers and never to be taken seriously.

-Also, in the Bible it was stated that at least 10 men must be present in a worship session in the Synagogue before it can be said to be valid. So it didn't matter if there were 100 women present, so long as there weren't up to 10 men in the Synagogue, the worship session was deemed inquorate and unfit to commence.

If you as a woman do not consider the above to be demeaning then it really says a lot about your self-worth, and the above is just a tip of the iceberg.

Before you lot base your contentions on the contents of the Bible, you should also understand than while the Bible is a cornucopia of wisdom, and by extension, spiritual relief, it was also written by men(mere earthen ware vessels like you and I) who put down on paper the societal conventions that were prevalent during that era.

Most of these societal móres and gender bias which as we know are born of social conditioning dictated the complexion of the so-called rules that were said to have been inspired by God.

Suffice to say that the Bible is a coalition of God's words and the traditions and customs of the Jews which obviously weren't very friendly towards the womenfolk, for lack of a better word.

Answer this question: do you think the Adam and Eve tale is but a Jewish variation of the creation of the world, or that it actually happened and that women are only bearing the brunt of Eve's pratfall?

kobosmalls:
In what context again do I consider this.
Read the analogy I gave.
If I rape your sister because I love her knowing that she does not love me back and raping her would be the ultimate way of marrying her against her will, a law that dictates payment of bride price for rape is encouraging the act of rape.
On the issue of women being told to shut up and that it is a disgrace for them to speak up is clearly telling them that they are not worthy of speaking when men are around.
I don't know how else you want this to be explained before you agree that all religions took women for granted.

look at how ancient Israel operated. The mosaic law was like their constitution. It was a normal thing to marry a virgin, and premarital sex was frowned upon. Infact the discovery that a bride is not a virgin was a very serious matter. So after you punish the offender, what next? What happens to the victim whose future is probably scarred? It wasn't the 21st century where people are more open minded in matters of sex and she could still go on to live a normal life.

The law that a man had to marry the girl he rapes was to protect the girl from what would be a stigma. It was more focused on the victim than the offender. You forced her, now you have to be with her for life and you dare not mistreat her. Other men would not want to marry her after the rape. So what next? Even in some Nigerian cultures, if a man gets a girl pregnant, her people insist he marries her. Why? To protect her future, considering their societal view on marriage and sex.

I'd address the issue of subjection together with my next post.

kobosmalls:
Is that your defence?
No wonder you believe in a fairy tale vindictive sky monster who loves violence.

Your silly comment isn't worth my respond, all i will tell you is...have the fear of God in you.

Intellectual vegetables just full this romance section. Counter the op with facts or shut da hell up

kobosmalls:
The verse I quoted earlier says that they should not speak up but to ask their husbands at home.
Isn't this similar to telling someone that they are not good enough to understand or express themselves unless their husbands explains to them?
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If this(for Adam was formed first then eve,Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived) does not mean psychological weakness to you then I can't help anymore.

again, consider the background. Even before Jesus birth, it was the duty of the leaders in Israel (starting from Moses) to instruct the people about God's laws. Before Israel had their first king, Judges and priests took the lead. These were persons chosen by God. Their leadership had divine backing. They had to take the lead in worship. There were times men not designated tried to preform certain duties that were not delegated to them, and they displeased God. One such person was king Uzziah. Another was Saul. There was also Korah and some others. The bottom line is, God takes leadership in worship seriously and he delegates authority. How does this relate to Paul's message?

Take note that it was the same Paul who wrote both letters. One to the Christians in Corinth and the other to Timothy.

In the letter to the Corinth which you quoted from earlier was a continuation of a set of instructions aimed at ensuring that their meetings were orderly. The issue of subjection was the focus. That can be seen in the letter to Timothy. Paul was against anything that would amount to challenging those taking the lead.

Take note that 1 Tim 2:11 began with "I do not permit..." This was Paul airing his opinion on subjection.

Now, the idea that a woman should be under leadership isn't demeaning. Apart from God, every other creatures is subject to authority. The Bible shows that men are subject to authority too and even Jesus has a head... His God and father. Infact many times he said he doesn't speak of his own initiative but what God told him. That doesn't make him incapable of conscious thought. Submission doesn't mean a woman is mentally and psychologically incapacitated. Someone has to take the lead.

About Adam and Eve... It was simply an allusion to what happened in Eden. As the head of the first family, it was Adam God gave instructions to. Same way many parents would give instructions to their eldest child when leaving the home. It was Adam's duty to tell his wife. It was in that backdrop that Paul made that statement. Back in Eden, it was the woman that got deceived, carried away by her own emotions. The man was not deceived into thinking it was right to eat it. It was willful; he simply did not care.

In a nutshell Paul was strongly endorsing subjection to male headship, not being confrontational or presuming to take the lead in worship.

darkenedrebel:
@Underlined__how often do you read the bible?

It's inconsequential sir. We'd discuss the Bible, not me.

Isaiah 4:1: "A time would come when seven women would beg a man to allow them bear his name without having to provide their needs so their shame can be taken away"

Apparently, this is just another subtler form of slut-shaming—because according to the prophet Isaiah, a woman who is loose is deemed shameless for turning her body which is supposed to be the temple of God into a bowling alley. But do also you notice the conspicuous absence of the males who did the defiling in his pronouncement? Or did the women have sex with themselves?

bro, these verses had nothing to do with sex or slut-shaming. The book of Isaiah was prophetic, but like most prophecies, terms the listeners would easily understand was often used. In the past, if a woman has reached a certain age and isn't married and no one is coming, or a woman cannot bear children, people look down on them. See an example at Isaiah 54 : 1 - 4. Even in 21st century Nigeria, people still look down on older single ladies. Now it's that shame that is referred to here. It's so much that they would request that a man just let them bear his name. At least they would have a husband. Of course those words are prophetic and the meaning is beyond the scope of this discussion.

-In the new testament, we also read the story of how Jesus saved the adulteress when he asked that the man without sin should be the one to cast the first stone.

Did you stop to ask why it was only the woman who was at the receiving end of the mob? Where was the man she was supposedly caught sleeping with, and why was he let off the hook rather than getting stoned to death with the woman as well?

You got the gist but missed the point. The point is, the society then treated women badly, but Jesus did not share their views and taught his followers to be different. Several times he pointed out certain traditions the Jews has and how they differed from what God wanted. But of course, the Bible contains the good examples and the bad. They both reveal principles that reflect God's personality and his viewpoint on matters. The men were wrong to slut-shame her. Jesus on the other hand, respected women and was not quick to condemn others. Jesus did not support them, and neither do I.

-In the book of Chronicles (I can't recall the exact verse), it was stated that for an accusation in court to be taken as valid, it must require the testimony of one man, or two women, and never one woman—the testimony of one woman was consigned to the dumpers and never to be taken seriously.

em... You aren't correct. Read Deuteronomy 17: 6 where the original law was given. Israelite Judges were forbidden from making decisions based on the testimony of just one witness, male or female. However, two or three witnesses establishes the matter. No mention is made of the gender.

-Also, in the Bible it was stated that at least 10 men must be present in a worship session in the Synagogue before it can be said to be valid. So it didn't matter if there were 100 women present, so long as there weren't up to 10 men in the Synagogue, the worship session was deemed inquorate and unfit to commence.

this is Judaism and has nothing to do with christians. You still have time, quote the part in the Bible that advocates this rule.

If you as a woman do not consider the above to be demeaning then it really says a lot about your self-worth, and the above is just a tip of the iceberg.

Before you lot base your contentions on the contents of the Bible, you should also understand than while the Bible is a cornucopia of wisdom, and by extension, spiritual relief, it was also written by men(mere earthen ware vessels like you and I) who put down on paper the societal conventions that were prevalent during that era.

Most of these societal móres and gender bias which as we know are born of social conditioning dictated the complexion of the so-called rules that were said to have been inspired by God.

Suffice to say that the Bible is a coalition of God's words and the traditions and customs of the Jews which obviously weren't very friendly towards the womenfolk, for lack of a better word.

Answer this question: do you think the Adam and Eve tale is but a Jewish variation of the creation of the world, or that it actually happened and that women are only bearing the brunt of Eve's pratfall?

I am not a woman.

Your question isn't clear, if you are asking if I believe the Bible...Yes I do.

Please rephrase your question if that is not what you meant.

chachanga:
I guess we'd also have to reserve some of these your questions for the Druids, Annunaki, the Vikings, Loki, Thor and all the Asgardian retinue of mythical and historical figures since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also in the class of historical characters, who lived and died long ago, even though Loki most certainly didn't.

Unclear comparisons like this only lead to sponsored misconceptions in an age when Women Bishops and General Overseers are too numerous to count in one exercise now.

You do need to consider the socio-cultural context before approaching specific portions applying to prevailing practices of eons ago with our present-day 21st century liberality and critical thinking. As per many of those "ceremonial rules & laws", they were set aside by Christ himself; you'll only find some offbase, fringe movements clinging to them for God-knows-what type of validation.

This shows that Christians of today do not obey the bible.
Christians now take what they want from the word of their infallible god and discard the rest as if their god can't be taken seriously at all times.
Since you have realised that we are in a time of critical thinking and not I the times of eons ago, why not admit that the bible is entirely outdated and shouldn't be considered useful in our times.

chachanga:
I guess we'd also have to reserve some of these your questions for the Druids, Annunaki, the Vikings, Loki, Thor and all the Asgardian retinue of mythical and historical figures since Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also in the class of historical characters, who lived and died long ago, even though Loki most certainly didn't.

Unclear comparisons like this only lead to sponsored misconceptions in an age when Women Bishops and General Overseers are too numerous to count in one exercise now.

You do need to consider the socio-cultural context before approaching specific portions applying to prevailing practices of eons ago with our present-day 21st century liberality and critical thinking. As per many of those "ceremonial rules & laws", they were set aside by Christ himself; you'll only find some offbase, fringe movements clinging to them for God-knows-what type of validation.

This shows that Christians of today do not obey the bible.
Christians now take what they want from the word of their infallible god and discard the rest as if their god can't be taken seriously at all times.
Since you have realised that we are in a time of critical thinking and not In the times of eons ago, why not admit that the bible is entirely outdated and shouldn't be considered useful in our times.

IamLEGEND1:
let me break this down for you....
Most of the early Christians in Corinth were women,who in turn succeeded in converting their husbands.....but not all.
Converts had to travel from far & wide to the place worship.....
Greco-Roman customs of that time didn't permit women to travel Alone,a male companion must be present.hence the inability of the Christian women to be present at all church gatherings.

The few times they were able to make it to gatherings,they were playing catch up to everyone and as a result asked questions other members considered irrelevant. and for congregation in it's infancy, the epileptic attendance of the women brought teachings to a standstill.
So the church of Corinth became notorious across Asia minor and the Mediterranean for disorderliness and Infighting....hence why Paul sent the letter to address the issue......context matters a lot in interpretation....

Context everytime
Did you even read that portion before writing these things?
That place says that it is a shame for them to talk I'm church, that they should be submissive and learn from their husbands implying that they are lesser than men.
How is this related to what you just wrote?
Don't just copy all these false brainwashing comments that christian apologetics cook up. Read the bible on your own.
If anything your writeup indicates that the bible was written for the Jews and their culture.
So why are you even trying to worship their idol if you won't live by the dictates of their founding fathers.
You should probably form your own 21st century god just like the Jews did.

Oahray:
again, consider the background. Even before Jesus birth, it was the duty of the leaders in Israel (starting from Moses) to instruct the people about God's laws. Before Israel had their first king, Judges and priests took the lead. These were persons chosen by God. Their leadership had divine backing. They had to take the lead in worship. There were times men not designated tried to preform certain duties that were not delegated to them, and they displeased God. One such person was king Uzziah. Another was Saul. There was also Korah and some others. The bottom line is, God takes leadership in worship seriously and he delegates authority. How does this relate to Paul's message?

Take note that it was the same Paul who wrote both letters. One to the Christians in Corinth and the other to Timothy.

In the letter to the Corinth which you quoted from earlier was a continuation of a set of instructions aimed at ensuring that their meetings were orderly. The issue of subjection was the focus. That can be seen in the letter to Timothy. Paul was against anything that would amount to challenging those taking the lead.

Take note that 1 Tim 2:11 began with "I do not permit..." This was Paul airing his opinion on subjection.

Now, the idea that a woman should be under leadership isn't demeaning. Apart from God, every other creatures is subject to authority. The Bible shows that men are subject to authority too and even Jesus has a head... His God and father. Infact many times he said he doesn't speak of his own initiative but what God told him. That doesn't make him incapable of conscious thought. Submission doesn't mean a woman is mentally and psychologically incapacitated. Someone has to take the lead.

About Adam and Eve... It was simply an allusion to what happened in Eden. As the head of the first family, it was Adam God gave instructions to. Same way many parents would give instructions to their eldest child when leaving the home. It was Adam's duty to tell his wife. It was in that backdrop that Paul made that statement. Back in Eden, it was the woman that got deceived, carried away by her own emotions. The man was not deceived into thinking it was right to eat it. It was willful; he simply did not care.

In a nutshell Paul was strongly endorsing subjection to male headship, not being confrontational or presuming to take the lead in worship.

Its no longer gods word,its now pauls word.
Awesome.
My point being that the christian god valued men more than women.
After all Genesis said they were created to be helpers.
All these your long write up no make sense.
My argument is clear.
Whether the background or no background your own argument points more to the fact that ur religion was a mere Jewish customs and traditions.
So since you think they don't matter again,you should do the wise thing and throw away the religion.
What Christians are doing today is similar to what homosexuals are doing. Trying to be Christians and demanding to be accepted by the church even though the bible clearly condemns their life style.
You either follow the bible completely or you dump it entirely.
Dont try and select some and leave others, by so doing, you are showing that the source of your belief is not trustworthy.

Oahray:
look at how ancient Israel operated. The mosaic law was like their constitution. It was a normal thing to marry a virgin, and premarital sex was frowned upon. Infact the discovery that a bride is not a virgin was a very serious matter. So after you punish the offender, what next? What happens to the victim whose future is probably scarred? It wasn't the 21st century where people are more open minded in matters of sex and she could still go on to live a normal life.

The law that a man had to marry the girl he rapes was to protect the girl from what would be a stigma. It was more focused on the victim than the offender. You forced her, now you have to be with her for life and you dare not mistreat her. Other men would not want to marry her after the rape. So what next? Even in some Nigerian cultures, if a man gets a girl pregnant, her people insist he marries her. Why? To protect her future, considering their societal view on marriage and sex.

I'd address the issue of subjection together with my next post.

A female is stoned. To death for not being a virgin and the man doesn't need to be under this same fate because the men made this law themselves.
For your information, the bible claims that these laws were made by ur god and not the customs of the Jews like you claim.
You haven't said anything about rape here.
How can you say they made such laws to protect the victims when you still claim that the bible is the word of god not mans.
Isn't that the whole point of this argument?
If you turn around and start defending the bible with the reasons that it was written in respect to cultural values and norms then we have no reason arguing it because it mounts that you have come to the same conclusion like I have.
If it is the word of a perfect infallible god then all these laws should be practiced by Christians today.
But we all know that the bible like all religious books are full of ignorance and contradictions which are representatives of how the authors thought.
My brother, rape is rape and the bible reinforces it by not spelling out a proper and severe punishment for it.
Telling me to steal and pay less than the amount of money i stole as a fine is the same as telling me to go and steal.

kobosmalls:
Its no longer gods word,its now pauls word.
Awesome.
My point being that the christian god valued men more than women.
After all Genesis said they were created to be helpers.
All these your long write up no make sense.
My argument is clear.
Whether the background or no background your own argument points more to the fact that ur religion was a mere Jewish customs and traditions.
So since you think they don't matter again,you should do the wise thing and throw away the religion.
What Christians are doing today is similar to what homosexuals are doing. Trying to be Christians and demanding to be accepted by the church even though the bible clearly condemns their life style.
You either follow the bible completely or you dump it entirely.
Dont try and select some and leave others, by so doing, you are showing that the source of your belief is not trustworthy.

the Bible isn't just a set of rigid laws and commands for Christians. When you fail to understand that, you would never get the Bible's message. Infact, the commands for Christians are very few. But if you read with an open mind, you'd see that it is full of principles (from Genesis to Revelation) that are neither impractical nor discriminatory. It isn't all laws... It contains descriptions of lives of people and gives us insight into God's view of matters.

No need to get all worked up, sir. You asked questions like you had an open mind, when actually it's locked stiff like a door rusty with disuse. You are not interested in examining answers to your questions because you have a set mind. That's barely different from religious fanatics too, who get upset when someone with a different viewpoint comes along.

Since it makes no difference what anyone says, I shall not bother myself on this issue anymore.

Oahray:
It's inconsequential sir. We'd discuss the Bible, not me.

bro, these verses had nothing to do with sex or slut-shaming. The book of Isaiah was prophetic, but like most prophecies, terms the listeners would easily understand was often used. In the past, if a woman has reached a certain age and isn't married and no one is coming, or a woman cannot bear children, people look down on them. See an example at Isaiah 54 : 1 - 4. Even in 21st century Nigeria, people still look down on older single ladies. Now it's that shame that is referred to here. It's so much that they would request that a man just let them bear his name. At least they would have a husband. Of course those words are prophetic and the meaning is beyond the scope of this discussion.

You got the gist but missed the point. The point is, the society then treated women badly, but Jesus did not share their views and taught his followers to be different. Several times he pointed out certain traditions the Jews has and how they differed from what God wanted. But of course, the Bible contains the good examples and the bad. They both reveal principles that reflect God's personality and his viewpoint on matters. The men were wrong to slut-shame her. Jesus on the other hand, respected women and was not quick to condemn others. Jesus did not support them, and neither do I.

em... You aren't correct. Read Deuteronomy 17: 6 where the original law was given. Israelite Judges were forbidden from making decisions based on the testimony of just one witness, male or female. However, two or three witnesses establishes the matter. No mention is made of the gender.

this is Judaism and has nothing to do with christians. You still have time, quote the part in the Bible that advocates this rule.

I am not a woman.

Your question isn't clear, if you are asking if I believe the Bible...Yes I do.

Please rephrase your question if that is not what you meant.

Isn't it obvious that the whole point you made is referring to cultural background of the Jews?
Does this mean that the bible is not entirely gods word and so shouldn't be taken seriously?
This meme speaks volume of your religion.
A small and racist idol indeed.

kobosmalls:
Isn't it obvious that the whole point you made is referring to cultural background of the Jews?
Does this mean that the bible is not entirely gods word and so shouldn't be taken seriously?
This meme speaks volume of your religion.

are you asking because you are interested in the answer or because you want to prove a point? I no get time to waste for meaningless argument.

No amount of argument would make a goat and a vulture convince each other that their individual diet is appropriate.

Oahray:
the Bible isn't just a set of rigid laws and commands for Christians. When you fail to understand that, you would never get the Bible's message. Infact, the commands for Christians are very few. But if you read with an open mind, you'd see that it is full of principles (from Genesis to Revelation) that are neither impractical nor discriminatory. It isn't all laws... It contains descriptions of lives of people and gives us insight into God's view of matters.

No need to get all worked up, sir. You asked questions like you had an open mind, when actually it's locked stiff like a door rusty with disuse. You are not interested in examining answers to your questions because you have a set mind. That's barely different from religious fanatics too, who get upset when someone with a different viewpoint comes along.

Since it makes no difference what anyone says, I shall not bother myself on this issue anymore.

The bible is a set of rigid laws for Christians contrary to what you said.
Galatians 5:3
I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law
I am open minded.
When you say command for Christians did you mean like when Jesus told his disciples that they shouldn't go to the gentiles but only to the cities of Israel to look for his lost sheep. And also that before they must have gone through all the cities of Israel that he will surely comeback the second time. Mathew 10:5-23.
Once again please explain how the bible is to be taken partially by Christians.
Gods view of matters indeed.
His view like having the power to right all wrongs and cure all diseases yet he chose to manipulate people into killing his son so as to forgive you and save you from what he will do to you.
He will be the punisher and redeemer,he has the power to save you from anything by only uttering a word or even thinking but he chooses to wait for sinners to repent..
You should kill my son so that I will save you from what I will do to you. Hope this is crazy enough for you?
My brother you have nothing to explain. Admit it this bible is full of nonsense.
Luke 9 :27 , mathew 10: 23 mentioned the second coming of Jesus.
◄ Luke 9:27 ►
New International Version
"Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.
False prophecies.
I'm not closed minded I'm just open to the fact that religion is not to be taken seriously.

Oahray:
It's inconsequential sir. We'd discuss the Bible, not me.
Bro, these verses had nothing to do with sex or slut-shaming. The book of Isaiah was prophetic, but like most prophecies, terms the listeners would easily understand was often used. In the past, if a woman has reached a certain age and isn't married and no one is coming, or a woman cannot bear children, people look down on them. See an example at Isaiah 54 : 1 - 4. Even in 21st century Nigeria, people still look down on older single ladies. Now it's that shame that is referred to here. It's so much that they would request that a man just let them bear his name. At least they would have a husband. Of course those words are prophetic and the meaning is beyond the scope of this discussion

That verse had nothing to do with a woman getting looked down upon because she was still unmarried at a time when she should have already been married. You're misinterpreting a very cut-and-dried message.

Go and read the passage in full—it was talking about sexual immortality, and it was another form of slut-shaming because while the man was precluded from blame, exclusive attention was given to the woman, making it seem as though it was entirely her fault that the man slept with her. You don't need to be Einstein to grasp the subtle undertones.

You got the gist but missed the point. The point is, the society then treated women badly, but Jesus did not share their views and taught his followers to be different. Several times he pointed out certain traditions the Jews has and how they differed from what God wanted. But of course, the Bible contains the good examples and the bad. They both reveal principles that reflect God's personality and his viewpoint on matters. The men were wrong to slut-shame her. Jesus on the other hand, respected women and was not quick to condemn others. Jesus did not support them, and neither do I

I never said Christ supported the maltreatment of women, I don't know where you got that idea from.

I only cited the story of Christ saving the adulteres as reference point to the gender bias that was prevalent in that time especially when it bordered on sexual immorality i.e when the man is precluded from blame, shame and punishment while the woman felt the full wrath of the law for her adulterous ways (the same crime the man was guilty of)

em... You aren't correct. Read Deuteronomy 17: 6 where the original law was given. Israelite Judges were forbidden from making decisions based on the testimony of just one witness, male or female. However, two or three witnesses establishes the matter. No mention is made of the gender

this is Judaism and has nothing to do with christians. You still have time, quote the part in the Bible that advocates this rule

But the Bible is made up of the old and the new testament —the old testament pretty much being the customs and traditions of the Jews—if you say Judaism has nothing to do with Christians then why would you still quote Deuteronomy 17 to bolster your argument? (Deuteronomy being a Judaic text)

And the 10-men-in-the-synagogue prerequisite can be found in the old testament. Specifically in Leviticus 22:32. It's called the Minyan

I am not a woman.
Your question isn't clear, if you are asking if I believe the Bible...Yes I do.

Please rephrase your question if that is not what you meant.

My question was as clear as sapphire.

I'm not asking if you believe in the Bible. What I asked was whether you believe the story of Adam and Eve actually happened or if it is just the Judaic variation of the creation story that somehow managed to find its way into the Bible.

[quote author=darkenedrebel post=48405702][/quote]Should I call your boyfriend mark?



OP the Bible is one of the darkest literature arts in human history. I can't believe a group of people cleverly wrote words to brainwash individuals

kobosmalls:
This shows that Christians of today do not obey the bible.
Christians now take what they want from the word of their infallible god and discard the rest as if their god can't be taken seriously at all times.
Since you have realised that we are in a time of critical thinking and not I the times of eons ago, why not admit that the bible is entirely outdated and shouldn't be considered useful in our times.

Ok
What i meant by "critical thinking" though, is our present ability to question institutions, practices and phenomena with the vast resources at our disposal. Not, vaunting our superiority over the past generations despite being a product of an ongoing evolutionary process that's far from over.

Viewing things from this context, we liberally take the spirit of the Word and the Life principles to heart instead of "hair-splitting" and adapting, methodologies which were set aside even by Christ himself for our own use again. It was rightly said in Daniel, and i paraphrase that "in the end of days, knowledge will increase, and men will enjoy high mobility..."! That cuts across all spheres of human endeavors and not merely transportation.

If i may ask then, what will be the intrinsic growth value and survival prospects of a civilization with high mobility of information exchange and resource but yet refuses evolve? Bleak, if i may say . The Word of God recognises the need for us to evolve in our interactions with God, the Word etc, and not remain statuesque "stone-henge" relics in our rapidly advancing generations and there is enough room in there to adapt the life principles to your own specific life scenarios.

The sincerity of the Book even reflects in the life scenarios and mistakes of the characters written therein for us to learn from. Every single word in the Bible may never apply to every single person, that's a given fact! I don't see how I could ever be sold into any slavery now like Joseph, or start having to putting out sheep-fleeces like Gideon in an affirmation-test for God's direction neither can I ever see myself "wifey-ing" 700-babes and "sidechick-ing" 300 others like King Solomon even if I become the South African president or had more money than Bill GAtes but I can learn from and forge Life-empowering principles out of their experiences that will enrichen my journey today!

I don't have questions for Bhudha, Zoroaster, the Wiccans etc though I certainly have got loads for Mohammed (because his book's a bastardized similitude of the Bible narrative); I don't know the Church movements or world-views you've encountered thus far. Mine's being far different and that above's just the way we view things. We don't cram unworkable "absolutes" down your windpipe!

Peace!

darkenedrebel:
That verse had nothing to do with a woman getting looked down upon because she was still unmarried at a time when she should have already been married. You're misinterpreting a very cut-and-dried message.

Go and read the passage in full—it was talking about sexual immortality, and it was another form of slut-shaming because while the man was precluded from blame, exclusive attention was given to the woman, making it seem as though it was entirely her fault that the man slept with her. You don't need to be Einstein to grasp the subtle undertones.

Isaiah 4:1 isn't about slut-shaming jor. Be humble enough to admit when you do not know something. It's the aftermath of the desolate state in which Zion would find herself. Her men would fall by the sword, and women would be desperate bear a man's name (marriage).

I never said Christ supported the maltreatment of women, I don't know where you got that idea from.

I only cited the story of Christ saving the adulteres as reference point to the gender bias that was prevalent in that time especially when it bordered on sexual immorality i.e when the man is precluded from blame, shame and punishment while the woman felt the full wrath of the law for her adulterous ways (the same crime the man was guilty of)

and Jesus condemned it, so why did you cite it as an example of how THE BIBLE demeans women when Jesus in the account does the opposite?

But the Bible is made up of the old and the new testament —the old testament pretty much being the customs and traditions of the Jews—if you say Judaism has nothing to do with Christians then why would you still quote Deuteronomy 17 to bolster your argument? (Deuteronomy being a Judaic text)

don't play smart. You aren't good at it. I talked about Judaism in reference to your spurious claim about 10 men in the synagogue, and not with respect to the testimony claim for which I quoted Deuteronomy. Everything in the Bible is beneficial because it teaches us vital lessons. The mosaic law is not binding on Christians. They are included anyway because one can discern underlying principles behind the laws. I quoted deuteronomy to debunk your cunning attempt at misquoting that law on testifying to support your stance.

And the 10-men-in-the-synagogue prerequisite can be found in the old testament. Specifically in Leviticus 22:32. It's called the Minyan

Lev 22:32 says:
"Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy." (NIV)
Spare yourself the stress looking for proof. It's not in the Bible. There were evidently no synagogues before the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Seriously, you don't have to be dishonest to win an argument.

My question was as clear as sapphire.

I'm not asking if you believe in the Bible. What I asked was whether you believe the story of Adam and Eve actually happened or if it is just the Judaic variation of the creation story that somehow managed to find its way into the Bible.

if I believe the Bible as true and inspired (which I do), common sense should tell you I'd believe the account in Genesis too. You've succeeded in asking the same thing you said you didn't ask. Penny-wise... For the records, yes I believe it happened.