Religious Controversies: Man/Woman Equality

[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]

Number 1: The morality of sex can only be right in marriage correct? If not, then wouldnt you say thats adultery?

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt 5:28

If that is the case then think about this: lets say right now you are married to one woman. How can you marry and have sex with one tomorrow if you look at her, once you see her, with lust or even sexual attraction?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I agree it is very clear.

“You shall not commit adultery”

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

For the five thousandth time, adultery is stealing another man’s wife. Lust is the planning of the theft.

If you study Scripture carefully and not just rely on your Webster’s Dictionary you will find this is a valid conclusion.[/quote]

So you dont think adultery is a married man haveing sex with an unmarried woman?

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So you argument is that even though he couldn’t have even known all the women, he could have had committed relationships with them? weak.

[/quote]
No, you must’ve misunderstood me. He didn’t have committed relationships with all of them. But sex with them obviously was not immoral. If it was please cite references.[/quote]
It was permitted. Just like divorce, but was not God’s ideal as evinced by His own declaration at creation and the rest of Bible teaching taken in harmony. You have an iron grip on one period of history because you think it gives you God’s blessing to whore around. The SoS argument is far from unassailable and the examples you give of Roman doctrine are not in any way the same thing.

In any case, as I suspected your mind is made up and I promise you mine is as well. You are in the clutches of a flawed method for approaching scripture that is every bit as deceptive and deadly as the one afflicting our Jehovah’s Witness friends in the other threads. For now at least I’m bowing out. You can take that as surrender for lack of ammunition if you wish, but this isn’t going to go anywhere any more than it does with them. I don’t mean that with even the slightest degree of hostility. Sincerely.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:

[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?

[/quote]
I didn’t say it was a perfect analogy. We don’t amend the Bible. Only God can do that.

Man wrote the Constitution and instilled methods to change it. God wrote the Bible; check with him on how to change it. I think He reserves that right to Himself exclusively.[/quote]

The Bible is for interpretation, or are you saying that how you understand it to be is the only interpretation? You cannot possibly have the same mindset and read the same message as a man from 50yrs ago much less one from 2000yrs ago in which case the Bible has evolved.

To say that the interpretation of the Bible hasn’t evolved is not true. It has. I am sure you know of how women were previously treated as a direct response to interpretation of the Bible. Thankfully that has evolved. Not to where it should be, but things happen slowly some times. Previously if a woman died in childbirth she was considered unclean and was not allowed burial on hallowed ground.

I shouldn’t have posted because I don’t hold to the Bible as I don’t agree with it for so many reasons. So in that regard I don’t care if the Bible is outdated, it doesn’t effect me.

The only thing that can be irksome and can effect me is people who believe women should be subordinate and submit to men. Luckily that doesn’t happen to often in the business sector and in my personal life I can tell them to hit the road.

There is also that saying that you can change a person’s opinion but not their belief (however right or wrong) so if you can’t reconcile with someone’s belief that is when you just dust off your hands and move along.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[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]

Number 1: The morality of sex can only be right in marriage correct? If not, then wouldnt you say thats adultery?

“But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Matt 5:28

If that is the case then think about this: lets say right now you are married to one woman. How can you marry and have sex with one tomorrow if you look at her, once you see her, with lust or even sexual attraction? [/quote]

You’re going over ground that I have already plowed. Go back and read all my posts.[/quote]

Ya my bad. Posts get put up fast and some are skimped over.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I agree it is very clear.

“You shall not commit adultery”

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

For the five thousandth time, adultery is stealing another man’s wife. Lust is the planning of the theft.

If you study Scripture carefully and not just rely on your Webster’s Dictionary you will find this is a valid conclusion.[/quote]

So you dont think adultery is a married man haveing sex with an unmarried woman?[/quote]

We can look at this two ways:

#1 In OT times it never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever once was considered wrong for a married man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It happened all the time with no condemnation. As shocking as it sounds EVEN with prostitutes (unmarried ones) it was never condemned. I know, I know, folks just fell out of there chairs reading that but it’s true. GO STUDY YOUR BIBLE if you disagree. Don’t tell me what “millions” have agreed on since Constantine. Cite Bible references to make your point that married men in the Old Testament were sinning when they had sex with an unmarried woman.

Shucks, folks, even Boaz (don’t know if he had any wives or not at the time right off hand) had sex with Ruth BEFORE they were married. Naomi, her mother in law, even encouraged her to do it.

#2 If a married man nowadays has sex with an unmarried woman and the unmarried woman is intent on stealing the man from the wife then yes, adultery occurred. If the man facilitates this theft by knowingly having sex with an unmarried woman who has the intent of theft then yes, he has facilitated a moral crime and he is wrong.

If the act between the married man and unmarried woman causes a dissolution of the marriage then yes, that is the dismantlement of the institution of marriage between that man and woman. Sure it’s wrong.

When Gideon chose and had sex with his second wife did that cause the dissolution of his marriage with his first wife? No.

When Jacob had sex with and married Rachel did it cause his marriage with Rebekkah to end? No.

Would a second or third or tenth wife of a pastor of a N.T. times (circa 60 A.D) Greek church had been inhibited in his duties to care for his flock? Yes. So it makes perfect sense for Paul to tell church pastors, Hey guys, here’s the deal…you have a lot on your plate…let’s just go with one wife…OK?"[/quote]

But Push, it wasn’t every case that the unmarried woman wasn’t held to a different standard of blame.