I don't really mind people being religious, provided they're not complete hypocrites (everyone's human, but there are some things I can't stand), and provided they don't involve me in their pesonal dilusions/beliefs/whatever. Christianity is one of those religions, though, where women are supposed to be subordinate... And that would play a role in a married relationship. Every time there was a problem, the root of it would be be not following his 'lead'. Religion plays a huge role in counseling, so if anything needed to be worked out with outside help, it wouldn't be likely to be fair or impartial.

Marraige, as I want to be married, couldn't happen with me and someone devoutly religious. The relationship would be missing so much.

-- Lilly (lsilley@hotmail.com), March 30, 2004

Answers

Response to Marraige to a Christian/Catholic

Hi Lilly,

I understand your fear, but I think it is based upon a misunderstanding of what Christian marriage is all about.

My wife is a good Catholic woman, but I'd never tell her she's my subordinate (at least not to her face ;) ) You may not have heard what the Church really teaches about marriage. Most Christian/Catholic men I know aren't looking for a "subordinate" as a wife, but a partner.

In Ephesians 5:22-33 we are told: Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Everyone makes a big deal about the first part and that wives must be submissive to their husbands. But that's a misrepresentation of the entire message. It's about mutual love and respect. It's about unselfish and unconditional love. The marriage act, sexual intercourse, is a physical reflection of this entire giving of oneself (i.e., real love) in marriage.

Husbands are told to "love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Jesus gave everything to the church. He gave us His entire self, holding nothing back. He died for us! As Catholics we believe he remains with us still in the Eucharist. How's that for a faithful, loving, and devoted husband?

A real Christian husband will give up everything for his wife, leaving nothing for himself. That's what Christ did for us. Did you see the Passion of the Christ? Husbands are expected to be willing to do the same for their wives. Husbands are also told to "love their wives as their own bodies." What man would knowingly inflict pain upon his own body? My wife likes to point out that men could never give birth because we have such a low threshold for pain. Guilty as charged!

In addition, men are told to "nourish and cherish" their wives in imitation of Christ. Marriage is about truly and genuinely loving each other, holding nothing back. It's about unconditional and unselfish love. That's the real model of a Christian marriage. Not subordination and domination. I don't always live up to this ideal, but I certainly strive for it everyday (with the help of my wife, of course).

So someone who is devoutly religious and is not a hypocrite is exactly what all of us who are called to marriage should be looking for.

God Bless you Lilly! I hope you find a faithful Catholic guy who's willing to give his whole self up for you just as Christ did for all of us.

-- Andy (aszmere@earthlink.net), March 30, 2004.

Response to Marraige to a Christian/Catholic

lilly,

your fears are unfounded based on your experience of SOME christians. We do not place men "above" women. Nor should situations in a marraige necessarily be drawn back to a woman not listening to her husband. A marraige is a pairing of two equal, different people.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 30, 2004.

Actually Lilly, Christianity is a wonderful religion for women. The Bible established these guidelines in order to give women *more* rights than they had in their society at the time.

Jesus Himself broke the cultural norm and probably shocked everyone by talking to a woman (!) who wasn't even Jewish (!). Plus, she was married and divorced 5 times (!) and living with her boyfriend (!). These were all huge warning signals in the culture that a man like Jesus shouldn't talk to such a woman, and yet Jesus broke those standards. He broke through and showed compassion for her. All Christians should follow His example.

Also, when the religious leaders of the time brought a woman caught in adultery before Jesus, the religious leaders wanted to stone her. But Jesus said, "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone." Of course, everyone has done wrong things (sin) in their lives before, so no one could rightly cast that stone but Jesus Himself. He was the only one without sin. But after the religious leaders all walked away (in shame of their sin), Jesus didn't cast a stone. Instead he showed love to the woman by forgiving her and telling her to leave her life of sin.

The Bible is all about LIBERATION of women, not bondage. Jesus came to correct the misinterpretations that the culture had imposed in order to oppress women. Old Testament law (that was originally meant to protect women) was distorted by the culture over time. Jesus and His followers came to change that, and they did.

Let's say that Sally (fictional character) joined a religion such as those you mentioned, or was a secular humanist, or whatever. These belief systems have vague lifestyle guidelines, if any at all. She moves in with Bob (fictional character), who is of the same religion as her. Their belief system does not see anything wrong with cohabitation or extramarital relations. So Sally gets pregnant. What does Bob do? If he's like many guys, he takes off, because why should he take responsibility for a kid? What does he care? Please tell me, what is going to keep this man from leaving Sally?

You might say the law will keep him responsible through child support, in a country like the USA. Well, lucky Sally that she lives there. What if it was another country (such as one not founded on Christian values) that didn't give rights to women? Or since you mentioned marriage, let's say they were married. If the law is unfavorable to women, there is nothing legally or ethically binding on Bob (in their faith system) to keep him there and make him take responsibility.

Christianity will require that Bob stays as a faithful, responsible husband and father. Other religions (or lack thereof) do not require such ethical standards. So please tell me in that scenario, which relgion is more favorable to women?

I am a woman, and I choose Christianity.

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), March 31, 2004.

Well said Emily, but Lilly has gotten her information not form the Bibl itsself, btu has rather chosen to edicate herself form Skeptics annotated Bible and beleive their interpretation as 100% correct.

Unfortunately SAB pften MISREPRESENTS the Bible, loes about its ocntent, and presents a jaundiced veiw of it.

Lilly has read how bad Paul was form one of the dime a dozen skeptic sites. She beelives it and hates pretty muh everythign Paul wrote. I doubt shes ever tried to read what Paul write alone, whtout the aid of a skeptic site. If she tries now she will just remember the old arguments, and not try to look at the facts.

Her midn is made up.

As to those other rleigions, Hinudism is spacific. Hinduism is praised above Chrisyainity by people like Lilly because its not Chrisasin, theirfore vortue is imparted on it, and Christainity must reap abuse.

However, in Hinduism tha man is superior tt he oman, and women, wives included, areproperty. She said this was the case in the Bible, its not. It is the case in Modern day India in many regions, and was in all of india until modern western ( Christain) cultures began to change things back in the Britixh Occupation, and later throyghout the 20th centurty.

Buddha made omen subject to men as well. At first he didn't even allow women to join the onastic order, and hwenn forced to by his aunt, who was a ruler, and an elder in his family ( Back in those days age and family counted) he still said that, no matter how long the woman wa sin the order, she must bow and pay reverence to a male member, een if he had jst mbeen initiated that day, and must Obey him woiytout queatsion.

Buddhism is an eastern religion though, so naturally we decide to forget hat aprt and invent the fiction that women where treated as eaiels throughou the entire hisory of Buddhism, unlike, oh, say Chriaainity as a "Random" comparrison.

Also, ask yourself this. Why did Lilly insist on comign here to tell us her feelings? if this was just to be honest and tell us how she feels, why bother? We don't knwo her, shes nto a regular here. This s her first thread. She came to shock us and shame us. She came to show us verses fort eh Bible that oppress women. Pity she posted the Link form Skeptics Annotated, all they do is present the Bible in a bad light. They do not, however, present it failry and honestly.

She wa nted ot show how superior other rleigions where t Chrisainity, and ow bad Chrisyainity was. She basiclaly wanted ot attack Beelivers. Nothign more. She wated ot show how intellegent sh was, and independant. How mucg mor epowerful she is than a beleiver and how she wont submit to god ( Lower case G)

She wanted, in short, to make herslef feel powerful by putting someone else down. And she got her information for nreiable sources.

She sint intereste din the truth, just in attacks. She sn intereste din what Paul said, only in tellign others what he said, base don her limited understanding which is corrupted throuh arguments that make little sence when contrasted tothe actal work shes criisising.

She wants to claim the Bibel si all bout oppressing women, and any attemot on our part to clarify the Bibles meanign will be seen by her as nothign but mental gymnastics, even if what she said is a msireadign and ours is the plain reading. ( SAB is famus of warped readings and mental gymnastics. One of the insults to women came form Titus, it siad " Even old women mst obe their husbands". The acutal pasage is longer and more involved than that, and they cut out two whole verse sin otder to create the sayign thery wanted.)

In short, shes a fool. She proves Paul right, as I said arlier, because she is ever learning, form such places as Skeptics Annotated Bible, learign all the contradictions, and the insults to women, all the arugments agaisnt religion, and never arriving at the truth, in this cse, what paul and the Bibel actually said, what the actual meanign of religion is, and what the core pronciples are.

She just wants ot justufy her atheist tendancies. as it is wrtten in proverbs,and to paraphrase,

A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that her heart may discover itself.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 31, 2004.

Ok... so you don't like the SAB... It's the quickest way for me to find the verses I'm looking for. I don't have all of the refrences memorized anymore. Sorry.

But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of writers in the Bible were good folks toward women.

I'll try to get you to read religious tolerance... they have Christians on staff, so they can't possibly be so evil as the skeptics.

Old testament views toward women... not protective.

Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve. The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.

Genesis 19: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This in frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead. Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the men must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child.

Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. The imbalance in worth is continued through all age groups in subsequent verses.

Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can marry a woman captive without regard for her wishes

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist.

Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the concubine of the Levite so that they could "do to them whatever you wish." The man sent his concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The Levite only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.

As described in 2 Chronicles 36:23, the Second Temple was constructed after some of the Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.

Exodus 21:7: A father could sell his daughter as a slave.

Now, there are a few exceptions...

Exodus 21:15-17: A person who murdered or cursed either their father or mother would be executed.

Exodus 21:20-21: A slave owner who beat his male or female slave so severely that he or she died a few days later would not be punished.

And Biblical 'Heroines'... all of them liars, prostitutes, or otherwise evil, but they did a few good works...

Joshua 2:1-16 describes how Rahab, a prostitute, hid two Israelite spies and saved their lives by misdirecting the soldiers.

In 1 Samuel 19:11-13, David's first wife, Michal, tricked soldiers and engineered David's escape.

And a couple of 'goddess' figures...

Wisdom is always considered a female when personified, although, so is idolatry and harlotry...

Deborah, the Judge and battle commander.

Mary, mother of Jesus.

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

From the New Testament:

Jesus' treatment of women was indeed revolutionary. However, since he gave no commands on the subject, Paul's commands have tended to rule out any gains Jesus may have made in equality.

When I was growing up, the letters in the latter part of the New Testament were attributed to Paul, Peter, and some contemporary disciples of Paul's... I'll just deal with all of the letters here.

1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.

Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.

1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.

Note: All of these books carry messages that proclaim women to be inferior to men. Some of the earlier writings do not... However, you believing in biblical inerrancy like all good little Catholics, have to believe it...

Better stuff...

John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.

Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague."

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

If OT law were meant to protect women, it would have been restrictions on males. If men were prohibited (and I know this is going to sound radical) from selling their wives/daugheters into slavery or prostitution, they would have been protected.

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist, after he pays a fee to her father, isn't protection.

Forcing women to be veiled after marraige isn't protection.

Women being worth less in a blood price, and not counted as citizens in a census isn't protection.

I've said before that I think that the biblical Jesus, if he existed, was probably a pretty swell guy. I just think that it's too bad that male dominated society can't figure out how to follow Jesus' lead.

And BTW, I educated myself in a private, conservative Christian school. I spent four years there, taught by a Dr. of Divinity, and then attempted to continue my education in the church I belonged to.

The church that wouldn't teach me, and treated me poorly because I've got a nice rack rather than a dick. I'm glad, though, because it opened my eyes to the lie that I believed. And at least they followed what they said they did, down to the last letter of God's law...

-- Lilly (lsilley@hotmail.com), April 01, 2004.

Ok... so you don't like the SAB... It's the quickest way for me to find the verses I'm looking for. I don't have all of the refrences memorized anymore. Sorry.

{iTS NOT THAT i DON LIE sab, ITS THAT sab IS DISHOINEST, AND DILIBERATLEY WARPS THE TEXT.}-Zarove

But that doesn't mean that the vast majority of writers in the Bible were good folks toward women.

{Yet you don even knwo what Paul was relaly tlakign about. You said it yourself, you hate prett ymuch everytign he write. But you have demonstrated you dont knwo what he wrote, you jujst knwo the snippets and quotes out of context.}-Zarove

I'll try to get you to read religious tolerance... they have Christians on staff, so they can't possibly be so evil as the skeptics.

{Religious Tolerence relaly sin good either. They arent tolerent of Chrisyain beleifs. They still javent corrected what Conserivitves beleive about Jesus on their " Did Jesus sin" page. They have a Liberal Bias, and will cater to a Liberal theological understanding.Also, i doubt you read all sides their , you will just read the craa that supports your veiws. }-Zarove

Old testament views toward women... not protective.

{This is, again, biased.}-Zarove

Genesis 3:16: Adam's role is to be Eve's master. The King James Version (KJV), New International Version (NIV), and Revised Standard Version (RSV) use the term "rule" to describe Adam's role over Eve.

{Verse not applicable. You really don shw WHERE this si stated, and it can easily be an out of context line. Eve was created as Adams help meet, but was an equel partner. Liek toyr claim that god ( lower case G because your an offensive anti-Chrisyain Bigot.) made man inhis own Image and woman in Mans image. You dodnt even correct your mistake their. Your just ramble on.}-Zarove

The Living Bible uses the term "master". The Modern Language Bible uses "dominate". By implication, all of their descendents are would have the same power imbalance between spouses.

{Based on your jaunsdiced veiw, which relaly isnt he Biblical understandign. You are gpign out of your way to MAKE the Bibel anti- woman so you have soemthign to complain about, and when you are proven wrong, IE, when you claimed that " Man is made in the image of god, woman int he image of man" as an offensie to women. I corrected you, you didnt acknowledge it and went on rambling.

Heck, your whole rpeasence here is nothign mroe than an attmeot to [ut down the reigion and call is sexist. You don even have the courtesy to see both arguments, you will cling to your argument as if its proven right.}-Zarove

Genesis 19: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This in frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead. Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

{This si misleading. No where dos the Bibel condone Lots aciton either. You asusme that because Lot wasnt punished ( And gven the situation Punishing Lot woudl have been difficult) that this means its de facto seen as OK. Lot was a just man, not infallabley perfect. You can disagree with Lotds actiosn all you want, this dos not mean that thr Biblical worldveiw when taken as a whole is one of oppresison to women. Lots actiosn where his own. The timing had a lot to do with the lack of punishment on his part.

But did God tell Lot to offer his Virgin Daughters instead? Did God day they wher einfiriot? Or was htis Lot's actions alone? If so, then the Bible must record what happened o be accurate. ( I dont care of you think its a myth, the poitn is that the Bibel will record the event, no matter heat happened.)

Exaclty how do you link Lots bad decision wiht how God wants us to live?}-Zarove

Exodus 21:22-25 describes a situation in which two men are fighting and hit a pregnant woman. If the woman has a miscarriage because of the blow, the men must pay a fine for their act - not to the woman, but to her husband, presumably because he has been deprived of a child.

{This is another "Lillys warps vewis." You are diliberatly lokign for fault, and so you foudn it.

The reality is that the Chold was the man's son or daughter as much as the mothers, and the wealth in a family is shared. The wording is he only thing you are makign your case on.}-Zarove

Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. The imbalance in worth is continued through all age groups in subsequent verses.

{Do you een know what this is talkin about? REally? The oricing is fair, based on the cnditions they where in. But I relaly am curuous of you kne whats beign discussed. ( You probabelu think its slavery...)}-Zarove

Numbers 30 describes that a vow taken by a man is binding. But a vow taken by a woman can be nullified by her father, if she is still living in her family of origin, or by her husband, if she is married.

{This signifies duty and repsoncibility, whihc was comon int he ancient Near East. You have to rmember that this is BETTER treatment than women got in neighbouring nations at the time. God was Shaping the Children of Israel toward a spaficic end. I will descitbe later as right now I am haivn computer errors while tying.}-Zarove

Deuteronomy 21:10-13 describes how a soldier can marry a woman captive without regard for her wishes

{As opposed to killing her. See Ancient Near eastern customs. This was Generous for the time period.}-Zarove

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist.

{Lie. That one is discredited. she can opt out and be recompenced.}- Zarove

Judges 19:16-30 describes an event similar to Genesis 19. Some men in the city wanted to "know" a visiting Levite. The owner of the house offered his virgin daughter and the concubine of the Levite so that they could "do to them whatever you wish." The man sent his concubine outside to the gang, who proceeded to serially rape her. She died of the attacks. The Levite only learned of her death when he was leaving the house in the morning and stumbled across her body. The woman was clearly considered expendable and of little value.

{Again, you are blamign God with a mans actiomns. David had an affair with a married woman, that dosnt mean God condones adultery. Please learn the difference between how the Bibel tells us to live and how peopel act in historical times.}-Zarove

As described in 2 Chronicles 36:23, the Second Temple was constructed after some of the Jews returned from exile in Babylon. It was rebuilt by Herod late in the 1st century BCE. One of its features was women's court, considered the least sacred area. Next was the court of the Israelites (reserved for males), then the court of the Priests, and finally the Temple itself. The courts were laid out in this order to separate the women as far as possible from the Temple.

{The verse itsself dosnt mention the womans area beign the least sacred.

23. Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up.

You loose on that acocunt.}-Zarove

Exodus 21:7: A father could sell his daughter as a slave.

{Or his son...the poin being?}-Zarove

Now, there are a few exceptions...

Exodus 21:15-17: A person who murdered or cursed either their father or mother would be executed.

Exodus 21:20-21: A slave owner who beat his male or female slave so severely that he or she died a few days later would not be punished.

And Biblical 'Heroines'... all of them liars, prostitutes, or otherwise evil, but they did a few good works...

{Now your lying again.

All Bibel heroines where Liars, prostitutes, or otherwise Evil?

Deborah was a Portitute? Maybe a Liar.

My Bibnle said she wa a Judge.

Ruth was a Prostitute, liar, or otherwise evil? Sorry, ruth an naomi's story doens tfeature Prostitution.

Esther? Nope, she married a King, she wasnt a hooker. She saved her people fork his wrath.

You just lied again.}-Zarove

Joshua 2:1-16 describes how Rahab, a prostitute, hid two Israelite spies and saved their lives by misdirecting the soldiers.

{Yes she was a prostitute, thats ONE. Also, her proffession was bad but she was redeemed. That was the point.}-Zarove

In 1 Samuel 19:11-13, David's first wife, Michal, tricked soldiers and engineered David's escape.

{Thats evil how?}-Zarove

And a couple of 'goddess' figures...

Wisdom is always considered a female when personified, although, so is idolatry and harlotry...

{Wisdom isnt a goddess, shes an allegory.}-Zarove

Deborah, the Judge and battle commander.

{Told you not all where bad. In fact you mention molre good than bad.}-Zarove

Mary, mother of Jesus. {Yes, another biggie.}-Zarove

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

{Instead of lookign for things that spport your preconcienved antireligious bogotry, why dont you actually do somehtign more prodctive?}-Zarove

From the New Testament:

Jesus' treatment of women was indeed revolutionary. However, since he gave no commands on the subject, Paul's commands have tended to rule out any gains Jesus may have made in equality.

{As explained, Pauls treatent wasnt that bad. Poeple ike you just dont read the letters themselved but places like SAB and RT because they suit your need to tear into the Bible.}-Zarove

When I was growing up, the letters in the latter part of the New Testament were attributed to Paul, Peter, and some contemporary disciples of Paul's... I'll just deal with all of the letters here.

1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

{No, in comparrison to men. Scientifically this is a fact. In general men are stornger than women. Deal with it.}-Zarove

Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.

{Lie again. Commandments are given to men as wlel, just not in that spaific paraphrases verse.

itus 2

1. But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: 2. That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. 3. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4. That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. 6. Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. 7. In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8. Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. 9. Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; 10. Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. 11. For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12. Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13. Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. }-Zarove

Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.

{That is another time when you make an idiots remark. Let me ask you, swhen the Lae of Moses said one man cannot steal anothers ozen, do you think this means women may steal oxen? This si just another example of you using a gender argument invented becuase women wherent dpacifically mentioned.}-Zarove

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home.

{We covered that already. Pagan Greek Law. Remember?}-Zarove

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

{Covered already, remember?}-Zarove

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.

{Covered, in previous post.}-Zarove

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.

{Yawn, covered.}-Zarove

1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.

{Covered.}-Zarove

Note: All of these books carry messages that proclaim women to be inferior to men. Some of the earlier writings do not... However, you believing in biblical inerrancy like all good little Catholics, have to believe it...

{No the dint. They have men andwomen as equels. Like the LIE you said in utus wher epower sharing in marriages where excluded. You just LIED AGAIN, iN MARRIAGE HUSBANDS ARE TO lOVE THEIR WIVES AS cHRIST LOVED THE cHRUCH, AS THEIR OWN BODIES AND LIVES. How is that not equality?} -Zarove

Better stuff...

{Their is no better stuff. You jut pull quotes out of context form Liberal sites.}-Zarove

John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.

Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague."

{Heloer is legitimate, and not realy demeaning.}-Zarove

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm

{Again, you are pullin sokc arguments off a shelf, but at leats these stokc arguments show you the Bibel is not al oppression of women.}- Zarove

If OT law were meant to protect women, it would have been restrictions on males. If men were prohibited (and I know this is going to sound radical) from selling their wives/daugheters into slavery or prostitution, they would have been protected.

{Not really in that time period. I will expalin later, but preferabel in Email.}-Zarove

Forcing a woman to marry her rapist, after he pays a fee to her father, isn't protection.

{Hahaha, you dont knwo what yor on about. Different time, place and culture. Also the verse may not be abotu rape. Its just an old Canard used by peopel liek you that prefer to say its rape and hwo bad it is. If the woman want a cirgin she was lost witou prspects for a bette rhusband. ( In any ancient near east nation.) This provided for her.}-Zarove

Forcing women to be veiled after marraige isn't protection.

{Verse please.}

Women being worth less in a blood price, and not counted as citizens in a census isn't protection.

{Again, verse pelase.vauge references arent relaly nice.}-Zarove

I've said before that I think that the biblical Jesus, if he existed, was probably a pretty swell guy. I just think that it's too bad that male dominated society can't figure out how to follow Jesus' lead.

{"If he existed". Nice little jab. Tjeirs little to no doub that he did exist, so stip reading the atheist websites and start takign classes in Ancient near east hisory, otr better yet, STOP BLAMIGN MEN ON ALL EVILS IN CSOCIETY.}-Zarove

And BTW, I educated myself in a private, conservative Christian school.

{Yet all you can toss at us are websites liek SAB and Religious Tolerence. You cant even tell us what the letters of Oaul really contain. -Zarove

I spent four years there, taught by a Dr. of Divinity, and then attempted to continue my education in the church I belonged to.

{Irreevant. You obviosuly didnt learn much, or else are lbonded by yout own misrepresentatiosn and need to "Overtheow the male oprewssion."}-Zarove

The church that wouldn't teach me, and treated me poorly because I've got a nice rack rather than a dick.

{Can you PLEASE use clean language? Also, don take out on US yor feeligns because YOU had a bad time with someone else. I certainly didnt treat you badly.Nor did anyown here. Nor did all Chrisyains. }- Zarove

I'm glad, though, because it opened my eyes to the lie that I believed.

{You beleive lies now. I don mistreat women, nor does the Bibel say to. You just need it to be a lie so you can rationalise yoyr hatred of Christainity which you project upon it becaue you where msitreated by someone who happened ot be Christain.

Sorry you where mistreated and all, but relaly readign atheist websites and buildign stock argumnents wont help anyone.}-Zarove

And at least they followed what they said they did, down to the last letter of God's law...

{Its not Gods law, and you are forcign down our throats tou lies and misrepresentations of the Bibel and are unwllign to ipen your mind tot he posisbility that you mau be wrong!}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 01, 2004.

Lilly, email me. I will take this matter up myself, and give you much better understanding of the matter, btu I don think the baord needs to be troubled by your ramblings about hwat you think you knwo of religion. I don care of you went to a Conservitive Christin school, you get most of your information form websites, and diliberatly don get both ends od the issue. You get your side, the "Bible is anti- Woman" side that vendicates your anger. However, the websites that site "Offenses to women" usually don really do much more than take isolated verses out of context.

Your own statement that all the wmen heroes int he Bibel where liars, prostitutes, or just palin evil didnt pan out. Michah may have lied to save David, btu it was certainl,y justufiable. Deborah didnt lie at all. Nor did Naomi or Ruth.

Many women in the Bible are seen as stong leaders. You just efer to think its not so.

You also coose to ognore historial, social, and political events that shaped the ANE culture.

You spell god with lower case, call it the Common era instead of Anno Domini, and make the same tired references to how Paul was an evil man an Jesus may not have existed.

Thenyou make the same lame Feminist claim of a male cd0ominated society.

Well, I wll discuss it with you in deapth, jujst mail me. My address is below.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 01, 2004.

Tji is an exchange started I had on anothe mesage baord where another ex Chrisain Anti-Chrisyain Bigot troll came by.

I wil post here to show better argments.

It handles Lot pretty well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, here is the thread I promised. In it, I, ZAROVE, shall discuss with INETJUNKY the Bible, and its nature.

This will be carried in the form of a civil debate, but with the intent not to defend a position, but rather to arrive at a conclusion on the matter that has been raised. To this end, we follow Debate style and pattern, to make things easier. we have rules to follow. They shall be enumerated below.

However, as stated, this is not simply a thread designed to hold fast a position no matter what, but to arrive at a mutual understanding. if this is impossible I re regret it, but I hope each party will be amenable to listening to the position of the other, and willing to change veils if so needed.( Over time I have.)

Now, the topic is the Atrocities in the Bible,which InetJunky Insists somehow illustrates the book to be Immoral. He makes Vague reference, so I can only infer he means the sort of atrocities that are pointed out on such websties as "Skeptics Annotated Bible". To This I answer that their are no real atrocities in the Bible, save for those mentioned in Historical context.

My meaning is to be understood as this. The Bible is a Moral Book. its teachings make for a better Character in a person who follows its instruction. This said, any atrocity in the Bible can be explained without compromising the Bible as a book of Moral certainty. For example, if we read in the Bible of someone Leading an army against another army and killing 5000 men, this is not an atrocity that makes the Bible immoral, but rather proves the Bible recorded an historical event, a war, in which things happened that where atrocious, but are no more immoral than any other war in Human History. Likewise, mentioning something, such as a woman benign a Prostitute, does not mean the Bible endorses the behaviour, merely that it records the behaviour.

A famous example of an atrocity in the Bible skeptics, Like Internet Junky, like to use in showing that the Bible cannot be used as a Moral book, and than the God of the Bible is somehow evil, is the action of Lot in Sodom. Lot offered his Virgin Daughters to an angry mob who wished to Rape his guests, who themselves where really angels.

The skeptic will take this story as proof that the Bible is Immoral, and by extension God, as depicted in the Bible, is wicked. This, of course, is folly.

My answer to this, and similar atrocities, is that, simply because Lot did something, does not make that something either Right or Gods fault. Yes, Lot is called righteous, but Lot was not immune to lapses of judgement or sin. Lot was Human, and all humans sin, and make mistakes, and fall short. One may disagree with Lots actions, even call them Immoral, but one cannot, in any logical way, associate his behaviour with God's conduct, nor say that the Bible is somehow Immoral for recording his actions. (Any more than any other History book would be immoral for recording an unpleasant action undertaken by any other man.)

Such, however, is the typical logic of the skeptic, to site specific individuals and their actions and then lay them at the feet of God. Another Famous example is the fact that the Bible records David Having an affair with a married woman then , after making her Pregnant, sending her husband off it die to cover his own scandal.

The skeptic will be quick to site this as an atrocity, and rightly so, but where they err is in saying that this is what the Bible teaches us to do. They seem incapable of using basic logic and figuring out the truth. God punished David, a part the story they overlook. David did not get away with this scot free, nor where his actions pleasing to God, neither where they recorded as examples for us to follow. The Moral reason for recording them was to show how sin causes grief, the historical reason for recording them was to tell what happened. Neither reason in itsself proves the Bibel itsself is immoral or contains atrocities, except both as Hisotrical account and as moral lesson. Illustratign the burden and sorrow Sin causes.

However, InetJunky May disagree, and say that the Bible, filled with its atrocities, is to be discarded as a spiritual book. well,let him present his argument below.

Here are the rules, their standard.

1: begin with an opening statement, issue your stand and comment in clear, concise English Tell your beginning point and state your opening case. Feel free to site specific examples.

2: Read carefully what your opponent says in response, and do not attest to misconstrue deliberately his words. Try to present your opponents argument as he intended it.

3: In response, be courteous, and not insulting. Be mindful of the considerations of the poster.

4: Please stick to facts. If you say something that was discredited, please do not attempt to create some side trail on the issue in an attest to salvage it, such is unproductive.

5: While offering a rebuttal, limit yourself to fact, and the given example or overall theme of the spacific argument. If you wish to turn to another passage as an illustration of the same point,please announce that you are doing such. If you wish to move on to a second point, please announce as such, If you wish to link two points, please announce as such.

6: Be considerate of the posters mistakes. if he makes an error that seems as if it is an error, and not a deception,then correct him.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 01, 2004.

Oh and if you want me to really go into excrusiating detail on yuor posts, I will. I was just goign easier on you as I think its a waste of time. all that will happen is that you wll get mad and leave after positng the same arguments a million times., But I will if asked.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 01, 2004.