Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on March 06, 2009, 10:19:39 PM
-
Does the Bible say that women should have equal rights as men?
As Christians, do you believe women should have equal rights as men?
-
I don't recall reading anything about "equal rights," but everyone should be treated with love and respect.
And what do you mean by "equal rights"? Are you using the phrase in the same way it applies in society (e.g., voting, property ownership, work, etc.)? Or is this a set up for the "women should be silent in the church" stuff?
-
I don't recall reading anything about "equal rights," but everyone should be treated with love and respect.
And what do you mean by "equal rights"? Are you using the phrase in the same way it applies in society (e.g., voting, property ownership, work, etc.)? Or is this a set up for the "women should be silent in the church" stuff?
Voting, property, equal pay, owner ship etc.. that stuff. Women being silent in church is their choice.
-
Voting, property, equal pay, owner ship etc.. that stuff. Women being silent in church is their choice.
I guess the answer is "yes" (to your second question), but I don't hold that view as a "Christian," I hold that view as a member of society.
-
The Bible was one of the largest obstacles in the Woman's liberation movements.
If a woman is raped...She must marry her rapist.
If a woman disobeys her husband, she commits a sin.
If a woman cheats on her husband, she must be put to death.
Men can sell daughters as sex slaves.
All commanded by the totally moral God. ::)
-
The Bible was one of the largest obstacles in the Woman's liberation movements.
If a woman is raped...She must marry her rapist.
If a woman disobeys her husband, she commits a sin.
If a woman cheats on her husband, she must be put to death.
Men can sell daughters as sex slaves.
All commanded by the totally moral God. ::)
Err wrong.
-
Does the Bible say that women should have equal rights as men?
As Christians, do you believe women should have equal rights as men?
This is a very good question. As I understand the Bible, men and women are equal, but they also have roles. Scripture tells us that man is the head of the woman. Of course this only applies to a Christian household. A lot of people, Christians included, misunderstand the meaning of this authority. Many take it to mean that their word is law. This given authority is meant for a man who has made God the head of his life. When that's the case, a man's "word" will be based on God's will.
-
The Bible was one of the largest obstacles in the Woman's liberation movements.
If a woman is raped...She must marry her rapist.
Ummmm.....NO!! If the woman is unbetrothed, the rapist must provide for her material care for the rest of his life. The family (headed by the father) makes the call about an actual marriage.
If the woman is betrothed (i.e. she has a husband/fiance to care for her), the rapist get the DEATH PENALTY!!!
If a woman disobeys her husband, she commits a sin.
NOPE!!!! Not if the husband's action are contrary to law or are sinful acts.
If a woman cheats on her husband, she must be put to death.
Yep......and so does the man with whom she committed adultery.
Men can sell daughters as sex slaves.
No, they can't!!
This is a very good question. As I understand the Bible, men and women are equal, but they also have roles. Scripture tells us that man is the head of the woman. Of course this only applies to a Christian household. A lot of people, Christians included, misunderstand the mean of this authority. Many take it to mean that their word is law. This given authority is meant for a man who has made God the head of his life. When that's the case, a man's "word" will be based on God's will.
And the people said.....AMEN!!!! ;D
-
And the people said.....AMEN!!!! ;D
Amen ;D
-
Amen ;D
Thanks!!!
It's been my experience that most women don't have a problem with the concept of the man being head of the home or the leader of the family. They have a problem with the lack of execution of that concept.
In other words, the men aren't "manning up".
-
Thanks!!!
It's been my experience that most women don't have a problem with the concept of the man being head of the home or the leader of the family.
When I first read this statement I was thinking "probably not most women" but after thinking of both my Christian and non-Christian friends, I do believe this is true for most of them.
They have a problem with the lack of execution of that concept.
In other words, the men are "manning up".
Exactly!
-
Err wrong.
Actually reading Bible not your strong suit?
-
When I first read this statement I was thinking "probably not most women" but after thinking of both my Christian and non-Christian friends, I do believe this is true for most of them.
Exactly!
Wow, you have non-Christian friends? I never would have thought. You must go out of your way to not discuss religion with them.
-
Ummmm.....NO!! If the woman is unbetrothed, the rapist must provide for her material care for the rest of his life. The family (headed by the father) makes the call about an actual marriage.
If the woman is betrothed (i.e. she has a husband/fiance to care for her), the rapist get the DEATH PENALTY!!!
NOPE!!!! Not if the husband's action are contrary to law or are sinful acts.
Yep......and so does the man with whom she committed adultery.
No, they can't!!
And the people said.....AMEN!!!! ;D
All of which well reflects evolutionary behaviour patterns.
-
Yes
Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
-
Ummmm.....NO!! If the woman is unbetrothed, the rapist must provide for her material care for the rest of his life. The family (headed by the father) makes the call about an actual marriage.
Even giving the father the opportunity to let a rapist marry his daughter is vile and disgusting.
NOPE!!!! Not if the husband's action are contrary to law or are sinful acts.
That's irrelevant. Women have the right to refuse ANYTHING their husbands tell them to do. Contrary to the law or not.
Yep......and so does the man with whom she committed adultery.
Absurdity. Putting a woman (and a man) to death for adultery is ignorant. People have the right to have sex with whomever they want, married or not. It's certainly unethical to go behind someone's back and cheat on them, but it shouldn't be illegal and DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BY DEATH.
No, they can't!!
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7
And the people said.....AMEN!!!! ;D
You're insane.
-
Yes
Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Neither one of those passages say that women have equal rights. ::)
The 1st simply says that a female made it up to a high court. Not that females in general have equal rights.
The 2nd says that everyone is "one in christ" but not that men and women living in the world have equal rights.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
“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”
Wives, submit to your husbands.
Ephesians 5:22
-
Neither one of those passages say that women have equal rights. ::)
The 1st simply says that a female made it up to a high court. Not that females in general have equal rights.
The 2nd says that everyone is "one in christ" but not that men and women living in the world have equal rights.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
“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”
Wives, submit to your husbands.
Ephesians 5:22
It also tells husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church.
-
Yes
Judges 4:4-5 (New International Version)
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time. She held court under the Palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the Israelites came to her to have their disputes decided.
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Neither one of those passages say that women have equal rights. ::)
The 1st simply says that a female made it up to a high court. Not that females in general have equal rights.
The 2nd says that everyone is "one in christ" but not that men and women living in the world have equal rights.
And a female making it up to high court doesn't mean that women had that same right and opportunity as men? Besides, this is more than just that. In the days when Deborah was leading Israel, Israel had no king and the nation's leader was a judge, in this case Deborah. The judge was like the President of Israel in those days.
If an Israelite woman in those ancient times was given the opportunity and the right to become the leader of the entire nation, what does that tell you about women's rights? Not only that, but this was proudly recorded in the Bible and not hidden from future generations. What does that tell you about women's rights in ancient Israel?
As for the other verses you posted, leadership of a nation and leadership within the Church and within the family are two different things in the Bible.
When it comes to leadership of a nation, men and women have equal rights and opportunity.
When it comes to leadership in the family and in the Church they have equal rights too, but God has set up ranks just like in the military. God has given men the top most position of leadership within both the church and the family. The children submit to both parents and to God, while the wife submits to her husband and to God, while the husband submits to God, while God submits to no one.
It is not a matter of who is superior or inferior, but simply a matter of rank.
Jesus Christ is far superior than this inferior earthly parents, Mary and Joseph. Yet Jesus Christ set an example and obediently submitted to his parents all of his childhood and up until he started his ministry around age 30.
-
And a female making it up to high court doesn't mean that women had that same right and opportunity as men? Besides, this is more than just that. In the days when Deborah was leading Israel, Israel had no king and the nation's leader was a judge, in this case Deborah. The judge was like the President of Israel in those days.
If an Israelite woman in those ancient times was given the opportunity and the right to become the leader of the entire nation, what does that tell you about women's rights? Not only that, but this was proudly recorded in the Bible and not hidden from future generations. What does that tell you about women's rights in ancient Israel?
As for the other verses you posted, leadership of a nation and leadership within the Church and within the family are two different things in the Bible.
When it comes to leadership of a nation, men and women have equal rights and opportunity.
When it comes to leadership in the family and in the Church they have equal rights too, but God has set up ranks just like in the military. God has given men the top most position of leadership within both the church and the family. The children submit to both parents and to God, while the wife submits to her husband and to God, while the husband submits to God, while God submits to no one.
It is not a matter of who is superior or inferior, but simply a matter of rank.
Jesus Christ is far superior than this inferior earthly parents, Mary and Joseph. Yet Jesus Christ set an example and obediently submitted to his parents all of his childhood and up until he started his ministry around age 30.
I'm just going by what the bible says.
-
Even giving the father the opportunity to let a rapist marry his daughter is vile and disgusting.
What the father is doing is making sure his daughter has the material care she needs. For this reason alone, the rapist is spared.
That doesn't equate to the rapist being able to continue to have sex with or even live in the same house as the victim. Even today, you can be legally married to someone and not even stay in the same house for YEARS (i.e. people who are separated, en route to a divorce).
I've known women who've done that. They've lived separate lives, in separate homes, and have virtually NO contact with their husbands, except as necessary. That tends to happen when kids are involved, as women may stay legally married to their husbands, simply because the husband's job has better health insurance for the kids. Heck, I remember hearing on the news that most divorced women STILL KEEP their ex-husbands' last names, usually for professional purposes or ease of paperwork (i.e. Tina Turner, Cory Everson, etc.).
In short, the marriage has more to do with financial aspects, than romantic or sexual ones. This would also explain why, if the rape victim is already married/betrothed, the rapist GETS EXECUTED. She already has a man to take care of her.
That's irrelevant. Women have the right to refuse ANYTHING their husbands tell them to do. Contrary to the law or not.
They also have the right to suffer the consequences, when their disobedience leads to family deterioration. See below.
Absurdity. Putting a woman (and a man) to death for adultery is ignorant. People have the right to have sex with whomever they want, married or not. It's certainly unethical to go behind someone's back and cheat on them, but it shouldn't be illegal and DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE PUNISHED BY DEATH.
It's hardly an absurdity, especially in a society where family structure was critical to survival. In addition, to adultery severing that, there's also the matter of things like disease, which could easily wipe out a people. Given that (not to mention other factors), it's easy to see why adultery would be a capital offense. And, of course, ONLY when the woman is a willing participant is she put to death (along with the guy involved).
Granted, it may not fit into your grandiose ideal of being able to screw around without conscience or consequence. But, that matters little in this particular instance.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7
I believe I mentioned this on Stella’s thread about a month or two ago. First, this was done in order to help the daughter escape poverty.
Plus, it appears you missed the rest of the verses. If the master marries the woman (which must happen before any sex takes place), she then becomes a WIFE, hence the reason he still has to take care of her, even if he decides to leave her for another woman. That sounds like an old-school version of alimony (In fact, the son of the former or "hated" wife becomes the man's primary heir, even if he has a son with his new or "loved" wife).
If he arranges the marriage for her and his son, he must treat her as a DAUGHTER And, last time I checked, guys humping their daughters warranted the death penalty, as well.
And, as the last part of the verse indicates, if he doesn't take care of her, she can leave without having to compensate him for the money he spend for her service. And, that's domestic service: cooking, tilling soil, house care.....NOT SEX.
You're insane.
Only during Tuesdays (leg day)!!!
;D
-
1 Timothy 2:11-12
“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”
Sounds like another contradiction. What was this about women being leaders loco and McWay?
-
Sounds like another contradiction. What was this about women being leaders loco and McWay?
They were leaders; Loco mentioned one: Deborah, one of the judges of Israel.
I pointed out another: Naomi, executor of her husband’s estate and the one who orchestrated the deal to get her daughter-in-law, Ruth, a new hubby.
Not to mention the prophetess, Anna, who witnessed the blessing of Jesus at the temple as an infant.
The bottom line is that your claim (mentioned on another thread, which sparked you to make this one) that women had no intellectual rights, whatsoever, is quite false.
-
They were leaders; Loco mentioned one: Deborah, one of the judges of Israel.
I pointed out another: Naomi, executor of her husband’s estate and the one who orchestrated the deal to get her daughter-in-law, Ruth, a new hubby.
Not to mention the prophetess, Anna, who witnessed the blessing of Jesus at the temple as an infant.
The bottom line is that your claim (mentioned on another thread, which sparked you to make this one) that women had no intellectual rights, whatsoever, is quite false.
I agree that base on what you posted, they, these three women in the things you cited had intellectual and spiritual influence.
But now, here we have "god talking" and saying “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”
Which pretty much means they are second class citizens. You can't have women teachers, professors, etc...
In other words they are better seen then heard. Yet, we have these 3 you and loco mentioned. It reeks of contradiction. Deborah, Naomi, and Anna should have just kept there mouths shut up like good little bitches in the eyes of god, right?
This thing you worship slaves, commits mass murder, murders children in cold blood, is a hypocrite and tells women the shut their mouths and submit to men.
I see where some think Allah and God are one in the same.
-
Some other juicy "nuggets"
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Can't put a price on virginity? God can.
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
Women I own you:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
-
I agree that base on what you posted, they, these three women in the things you cited had intellectual and spiritual influence.
But now, here we have "god talking" and saying
Which pretty much means they are second class citizens. You can't have women teachers, professors, etc...
Says who? Last time I checked, that was Paul's statement you just quoted in 1 Tim 2.
In other words they are better seen then heard. Yet, we have these 3 you and loco mentioned. It reeks of contradiction. Deborah, Naomi, and Anna should have just kept there mouths shut up like good little bitches in the eyes of god, right?
Not even close!!! They would have never held those positions in the first place, if that rather ridiculous position you just posted were accurate, especially considering that two of the women mentioned held the aforementioned authority, CENTURIES before Paul was even born. The Christ that Paul served was blessed by Anna, before Paul ever became a Christian in the first place.
To top it all off, part of Paul's instruction as he became a Christian came from a woman, Priscilla.
Acts 18:26. "So he begn to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquilla and Priscilla heard him, THEY took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately."
In other words, Paul received instruction regarding the way of the Lord from both Aquilla AND HIS WIFE, Priscilla.....So much for the women keeping their mouths shut flap. Heck, he even taught women in Acts 16.
Paul's statement to Timothy was for a specific audience for a SPECIFIC reason. Timothy was in Greece, where there was lot of confusion taking place, regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ and issues of faith. This was especially true among the women of that area. Therefore, Paul gave Timothy specific instructions, not to let the women teach, until they are properly instructed (ala Priscilla) in the way of the Lord.
That wasn't the case in Jerusalem (or at least, it wasn't as widespread), where PAUL HIMSELF noted that there women were prophetesses, spreading the Gospel to the people there, with his full approval and blessing.
This thing you worship slaves, commits mass murder, murders children in cold blood, is a hypocrite and tells women the shut their mouths and submit to men.
I see where some think Allah and God are one in the same.
And, I see where, as is the case with some of your other posts, you're WAY off the mark.
Some other juicy "nuggets"
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
And, this is a problem because.........
"When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets: then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her." (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
In short, leave the "secrets" (the man's nuts) alone. Grab a skillet and waffle him upside the head, instead.
Can't put a price on virginity? God can.
"If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
That's been discussed numerous times. The issue is permanent material care. He took the girl's virginity; now he's responsible for her well-being: food, shelter, healthcare, etc.
Women I own you:
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
Once again, this applies to a specific set of women (in Corinth) whose Christian doctrine was flawed. As stated earlier, Paul not only taught women, he was taught himself by a woman (Priscilla) as he became part of the movement to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Women who were taught the way of the Lord were not only allowed to speak, but Paul credited these women HIMSELF, in his letters to his Christian brothers.
Phillipians 4:2-3,
I implore Euodia and I implore Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. And I urge you also, true companion, help these women who labored with me in the Gospel, with Clement also, and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the Book of Life.
Now, why is he doing all this urging to help these women, if all they're supposed to do is keep silent?
-
Paul not only allowed women to teach but he actually PRAISES women who taught the Gospel and helped him out.
Romans 16:1-6
I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea, that ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you. for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.
Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus, who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.
Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
Let's see: There's Phoebe, Priscilla (he actually mentioned her BEFORE her husband :o ), Mary, Junia........In fact, nearly HALF the people he mentioned in Roman 16 are WOMEN (You know!! For a guy who supposedly thinks that women should just “shut up like good little b%&^@”, Paul seems to be going just a WEEEEEE bit overboard with the “Greetings” and “Thank You’s” to the ladies. ;D )
Furthermore, Phoebe is described as a "servant" of the church, the Greek for that is diakonos, from which we get the word, "deacon", which according to Strong's dictionary (with relations to the church) means, "one who, by virtue of the office assigned to him by the church, cares for the poor and has charge of and distributes the money collected for their use".
Of course, today, a lady with that title is called a "deaconess".
-
And a female making it up to high court doesn't mean that women had that same right and opportunity as men? Besides, this is more than just that. In the days when Deborah was leading Israel, Israel had no king and the nation's leader was a judge, in this case Deborah. The judge was like the President of Israel in those days.
If an Israelite woman in those ancient times was given the opportunity and the right to become the leader of the entire nation, what does that tell you about women's rights? Not only that, but this was proudly recorded in the Bible and not hidden from future generations. What does that tell you about women's rights in ancient Israel?
Don't forget the issue in Num. 27. After a group of women talk to Moses, telling them of their father's death and that they don't want to see his name gone from Israel, the law is made that allowed women to inherit their father's property (the eldest daughters, that is), if he died with no sons.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnolegal.html (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wnolegal.html)