Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
82

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]

What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]

I agree with DB.

Why wouldn’t the Bible be written by women?

â??[That little man in black says] woman can’t have as much rights as man because Christ wasn’t a woman. Where did your Christ come from? . . . From God and a woman. Man has nothing to do with him.â??

Sojourner Truth

83

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Fornication is condemned over and over and over in the bible.[/quote]

Yes, it is. But fornication in the OT and NT had a different meaning than it does now. It was involved with idolatry and sex with temple prostitutes in the worship of strange gods. The post Constantine church gradually redefined the meaning of fornication to what we understand now.

Original intent. Remember where I mentioned that before? That’s what ultimately matters.[quote]

If 2 people aren’t in a committed marriage, sex is absolutely condemned. Period. one man cannot be committed to that many wives.[/quote]

Cite scripture.
[/quote]
You haven’t responded to my citations yet.

[quote]

It condemns lust also. Was lust a different meaning back then too?

84

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:
Although the Bible may say in various ways that women are somehow below men, one should not think of the Bible as an entity in and of itself. The Bible simply contains the words of men from a far gone age saying these things about women. Given that, if the Bible were to be written today with contemporary morals in mind, women would most certainly be given an equal status amongst men. The words may even be written by women, some of which may try to imply or outright claim that it is MEN who are inferior in some way. Who knows? The point is that it is imperative to keep in mind who wrote the Bible and in what times it was written before applying the lessons contained within it to life in the 21st century. We must interpret the Bible through contemporary set of lenses.[/quote]

What? You should stop reading into the Bible in such strange demeanor. Anyone that reads the Bible and thinks humans as inferior needs to do a little more reading. We are the fucking bosses of this shit, except for the Lord of course. We are made perfectly, with free will, how better does it get? And no, if the Bible was written today it would not be written by women.[/quote]

First of all, I never said that humans themselves are inferior to anything else (nor are some humans inferior to other humans) or that they may be considered so in some contemporarily-written version of the Bible. My point is that the Bible serves as a guide for how to live our lives in the way God intends (or something to that effect if you believe in God), and as such, we should not view it 100% literally.

In order for it to be relevant in a society that is far, far different from the one in which it was written and the one it describes, we must allow for a viewpoint that is relevant to today’s society in some instances. While it shall always be considered bad to kill, some things (like gender equality issues) may not be forever bad or moral or whatever.

For the most part, in western society women are viewed as the equal of men. There may be material inequalities like physical size or average salary, but as humans ourselves we are considered to be equals. If it says otherwise in the Bible, then so be it; but this standard will necessarily be rejected by virtually all women who have grown up in an environment where they are told from the start that they are not inherently inferior to men. It will also be rejected by men who hold the same views, thus becoming irrelevant to much of today’s society.

If the Bible becomes irrelevant in one area because it must be viewed literally and thru ancient eyes, then it is not a leap to presume that society will continue to see more irrelevancies in the Bible, even some that are incorrectly interpreted as such. The message of the Bible, or any other holy/sacred text, is not intended to exclude or become dated. It is intended to encourage people to live life in the manner that God intended, not drive them from this text and its message because it cannot relate to a growing, changing society. It must remain able to span any and all generations.

As for man being created perfectly, well we may have been, but somewhere along the line we changed to a species that is incapable of true perfection. We are still the dominant species on this planet, but we are far from perfect.

Regarding your claim that women would never write or participate in the writing of such a document today: that’s absolutely comical. There are women in Washington and our state capitals writing and shaping all sorts of documents and so forth that we apply to our lives everyday. It isn’t inconceivable at all, nor is it ridiculous to assume, that women may in fact participate in the writing of the Bible (or a similar such text) were it to be written today instead of two millenia ago.[/quote]

well, sorry that your bible turned out to be such a disappointment for you. Glad mine is still relevant, inspired and applicable to today. Good luck with your outdated bible . . .[/quote]

The Bible and the US Constitution are somewhat analogous, aren’t they? We have our “progressives” hither and yon and e’erywhar in between, it seems.[/quote]

We amend the Constitution, remember?

86

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Here’s the distinction, DD. Having a king was not necessarily inherently immoral or sinful. So God did tolerate a king but He wasn’t tolerating sin and immorality in allowing the Israelites to have one.[quote]

[/quote]

Oh, and yes it was sinful, because it was disobedient to god. He told them no king. They wined and pleaded till they got one.

88

And everyone needs to remember that most people read the Bible with an agenda. They read in it and interpret the passages to mean whatever they want them to mean. Whether that be women subordinate to men or whether that means polygamy is okay by God.

Good mention of David Berg, that is right up there with David Koresh and his interpretations. See, agendas and they make it work for them.

89

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

“But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

“For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own.”
[/quote]

Sorry, but one of the biggest misconceptions about this topic is that lust = sexual attraction. Nope, it aint. If so, every single one of us that is married had our marital foundation rooted in sin. Were you not sexually attracted to your wife, DD and Tirib, before you married her? Is that not one of the reasons you were drawn together? If so, you are a damnable sinner for allowing sin to influence your choice of mates.

No, lust is not sexual attraction. Biblical lust involves covetousness. Wanting to steal. Wanting something that belongs to your neighbor and conspiring to take it from him. The lust is the planning, the forethought. The implementation of the thought process is the actual stealing - adultery.

There is a whole lot to this subject of lust that I have already addressed in several other threads. Don’t really want to go over it all again. But I will if you insist because I respect you and Tirib.[/quote]

The first quote is specifically in reference to desirably eying a woman. Try again.

91

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Jesus in the same passage I mentioned above told the pharisees that God did in fact once permit divorce, but that it was not so from the beginning and then quotes God himself as being the one saying in the 2nd chapter of Genesis that “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his WIFE and the TWO shall be one flesh and they are no longer TWO but ONE” Neither Adam nor Eve had father or mother. This was a declaration made once again by God himself of His definition of marriage from then on. The 3, 4 or 700 cannot become one flesh and be no longer 3,4 or 700, but one. God hates divorce. He says so (Malachi 2:16) Yet he permitted it for a time under the levitical law. It is the same with polygamy.[/quote]

Number 1: we’re not talking about divorce and its morality. We’re talking the morality of sex.

Number 2: none of what you said designates sex with more than one woman as being immoral. It may very well be impractical though. You are subjectively connecting dots and I understand completely how you do it. But ultimately you cannot conclusively point to scripture to make your point. You have to do some speculating.
[/quote]
I gave you another example of God temporarily permitting what He hates for His own purposes which you said he never does.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

To say that there were no consequences to living under the compromised social economy of polygamy…[/quote]

I never said there weren’t consequences. I said it wasn’t immoral. The Bible backs me up.

There are consequences to when I don’t swing my hammer accurately when driving a nail. That doesn’t mean it is immoral to do so.[quote]

is to ignore the tumultuous, indeed sometimes disastrous family histories of everybody that engaged in it. In fact a convincing case could be made that that is one of the reasons why God permitted it. [/quote]

Then you’d better be careful and not cite the cases of successful polygamy. Gideon, Isaac, Jacob.

[/quote]

And Israel was successful with a king. Doesn’t mean having a king was right. God works evil things to good ends all the time.

94

I think this thread proves Push can’t equitable handle 2.

I’m off to the gym. maybe you’ll do a little better 1 on 1.

95

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]drewh wrote:
There is also shit about rape, beating your servant, sacrificing your son etc…[/quote]

wow - a passing knowledge of the content of the Bible . . . now you need to understand two things called context and intent.

The Bible is very open and plain about the failings of man - including men who were supposed to be spiritual leaders. Might be a shock to you, but for the rest of us it is all part and parcel of an inspired text.[/quote]
So you believe in a flawed book what are you trying to say.

97

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Fornication is condemned over and over and over in the bible.[/quote]

Yes, it is. But fornication in the OT and NT had a different meaning than it does now. It was involved with idolatry and sex with temple prostitutes in the worship of strange gods. The post Constantine church gradually redefined the meaning of fornication to what we understand now.

Original intent. Remember where I mentioned that before? That’s what ultimately matters.[quote]

If 2 people aren’t in a committed marriage, sex is absolutely condemned. Period. one man cannot be committed to that many wives.[/quote]

Cite scripture.
[/quote]
You haven’t responded to my citations yet.

[quote]

It condemns lust also. Was lust a different meaning back then too?[/quote]

I agree with Duce here. I can understand that “fornication”'s meaning could have changed somewhat over the centuries but if something or an action causes you to stumble(sin), then there is your answer. If i look at my friend’s wife and think perverted thoughts about her, then thats lust/sin. As far as polygamy, one verse come to me quickly “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one.” Matthew 19:5-6. Now this doesnt directly mention polygamy. But tell me, how can I be one with my wife and be one with another? Romans 7:3 “So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress…”