I think it's obvious to anyone that has glossed over the bible, if only for a little bit, that men are thought of in higher regard than women are. The bible, in numerous places says that women should be subservient to men.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

I have a few questions. The first is do the Orthodox Jews still practice some of those laws and traditions?

My second question is what do modern female christians think about how God pictures their place in society and in the household?

*would answer but is too scared of undermining NC's authority..*

Seems like you waited juuuuust long enough to bring this topic back up to escape the perception that you might be riding on Snoop's coattails here.

But I knew it was coming. You, or the next guy, or the next.

I know you think I am stupid, and don't know anything about the Bible and my role as a woman based on what it says, but I am going to tell you what I think anyway.

Not right now, but soon. *tired*

I guess there was no point in me telling you that, other than to give you a heads up.

Some women just like to be submissive. These Christian chicks just love to get a blue eye or their teeth kicked in by their husbands. It's the result of a lack of good sex, or any sex for that matter.

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Some women just like to be submissive. These Christian chicks just love to get a blue eye or their teeth kicked in by their husbands. It's the result of a lack of good sex, or any sex for that matter.

i would disagree with you but i'd hate people to think i was undermining your authority as a mod...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I think it's obvious to anyone that has glossed over the bible, if only for a little bit, that men are thought of in higher regard than women are. The bible, in numerous places says that women should be subservient to men.

http: //www.nobe liefs.com/ DarkBible/darkbible7.htm (http: //www.nobe liefs.com/ DarkBible/ darkbible7 .htm)

I have a few questions. The first is do the Orthodox Jews still practice some of those laws and traditions?

My second question is what do modern female christians think about how God pictures their place in society and in the household?

The Biblical model (at least that which includes the NT) says tat women are valued as much as any man, but that man is to be the authority figure in all forms of government (home,church,government). They are to be helpful and subserviant, but its not like they are slaves to a barbarian as in Islam.

Certainly not slaves, but definitely subservient in public and in the household.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

*would answer but is too scared of undermining NC's authority..*

Authority you were pissed you didn't get? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

They are to submit to the man, which is what they are told to do in islam as well. It the man's place to decide what to do with them.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Certainly not slaves, but definitely subservient in public and in the household.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Authority you were pissed you didn't get? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

lol yep, of course thats always a good argument when someone bitches about a new mod.

nah , he and i just started out on the wrong foot and it went down from there.

Liberal christian women follow in the footsteps of those who wrote the bible and are interpreting it based on modern ideas. Just like how the bible incorporated societies beliefs at the time it was written. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Of course, there is a reason why female power religions like wicca are growing so rapidly.

OK, here we go.

First, I am going to avoid answering the questions NC asked directly, for this portion of my post. I need to clarify some misconceptions about the idea that women are inferior, and that the Bible supports persecuting women.

Here are some verses that show an equality in value to men:

Exodus 21:15 - "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death."

Exodus 21:22 - "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

Exodus 21:6 - "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth."

Exodus 21:28 - "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. 31 This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. 32 If the bull gores a male or female slave, the owner must pay thirty shekels of silver to the master of the slave, and the bull must be stoned."

Some women were viewed in a positive light, as intelligent individuals who played a significant part in Israel's history. Examples include:

Exodus 1:15-19 - "The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, 16 "When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live." 17 The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live. 18 Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, "Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?" 19 The midwives answered Pharaoh, "Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive."

In Exodus 2, the birth mother of Moses was able to circumvent the Pharaoh's order to kill all of the baby boys, and to save her child.

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

In Judges 4 and 5, Deborah is described as both a Judge of Israel and as the leader of the army.

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

In 2 Kings 22:14-19 and 2 Chron 34:23-7, the prophetess Huldah was asked to validate the book found in the Temple -- presumably the book of Deuteronomy. She spoke "....as the voice of God; 'Thus says the LORD' ...Jeremiah and Zephaniah were in Judah also at the time but there is no record of their having been consulted."

The Hebrew Scriptures describe many other Prophetesses, including Miriam, Noadiah, and Isaiah's wife.

Read about the women of the Bible here: http://www.alabaster-jars.com/biblewomen-a.html

The New Testament Gospels, written toward the last quarter of the first century CE, acknowledge that women were among Jesus' earliest followers. From the beginning, Jewish women disciples, including Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna, had accompanied Jesus during his ministry and supported him out of their private means (Luke 8:1-3). He spoke to women both in public and private, and indeed he learned from them. According to one story, an unnamed Gentile woman taught Jesus that the ministry of God is not limited to particular groups and persons, but belongs to all who have faith (Mark 7:24-30; Matthew 15:21-28).

Prisca, Junia, Julia, and Nereus' sister worked and traveled as missionaries in pairs with their husbands or brothers (Romans 16:3, 7, 15).

Junia was a prominent apostle, who had been imprisoned for her labor. Mary and Persis are commended for their hard work (Romans 16:6, 12). Euodia and Syntyche are called Paul's fellow-workers in the gospel (Philippians 4:2-3).

Paul's letters also offer some important glimpses into the inner workings of ancient Christian churches. These groups did not own church buildings but met in homes, no doubt due in part to the fact that Christianity was not legal in the Roman world of its day and in part because of the enormous expense to such fledgling societies. Such homes were a domain in which women played key roles. It is not surprising then to see women taking leadership roles in house churches. Paul tells of women who were the leaders of such house churches (Apphia in Philemon 2; Prisca in I Corinthians 16:19). This practice is confirmed by other texts that also mention women who headed churches in their homes, such as Lydia of Thyatira (Acts 16:15) and Nympha of Laodicea (Colossians 4:15). Women held offices and played significant roles in group worship. Paul, for example, greets a deacon named Phoebe (Romans 16:1) and assumes that women are praying and prophesying during worship (I Corinthians 11). As prophets, women's roles would have included not only ecstatic public speech, but preaching, teaching, leading prayer, and perhaps even performing the eucharist meal. (A later first century work, called the Didache, assumes that this duty fell regularly to Christian prophets.)

I could go on and on.

To answer the questions posed by NC, I will say that as a modern woman, or a woman of old, my role has not changed.

I am to be subservient to my husband. He is the head of my house. He makes all the decisions, both physical and spiritual, and I am to honor his decisions.

I am also supposed to provide sound counsel, and assist in prayer in the home.

All these things make men stronger. It supports them in ways that they need to be supported, as designed by God.

Being subservient to my husband does not make me a doormat. As a matter of fact, he is drawn to my subservience in a manner that in turn makes him subservient to me, in a way.

I won't try to answer the question about the Jews, since I have no idea.

So which set of passages are christians meant to go by? They're obviously a little bit contradictory, so I'd imagine that a lot of people would be confused by the mixed messages.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



To answer the questions posed by NC, I will say that as a modern woman, or a woman of old, my role has not changed.

I am to be subservient to my husband. He is the head of my house. He makes all the decisions, both physical and spiritual, and I am to honor his decisions.

I am also supposed to provide sound counsel, and assist in prayer in the home.

All these things make men stronger. It supports them in ways that they need to be supported, as designed by God.

Being subservient to my husband does not make me a doormat. As a matter of fact, he is drawn to my subservience in a manner that in turn makes him subservient to me, in a way.

I won't try to answer the question about the Jews, since I have no idea.

I think you described that well...because...in actuality...one serves the other I would say...in purpose.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

So which set of passages are christians meant to go by? They're obviously a little bit contradictory, so I'd imagine that a lot of people would be confused by the mixed messages.

We are supposed to live by all of them. Which ones sound contradictory to you?

quote:Originally posted by ArgonPlasma2000:

Which ones sound contradictory to you?

Are you some kind of mo-ron?

quote:Originally posted by Snoopy:

Are you some kind of mo-ron?

Actually it was a serious question http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

Argon, I think he is referring to all of the other verses:

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

Except he is forgetting that a lot of these verses are dealing with something specific, and are not COMMANDMENTS for women.

He is also ignoring the fact that a large portion of the seemingly "negative" verses in the Bible about women are a reflection of the Jewish tradition and customs, and nothing more.

Even though Eve was called Adam's "helper", and it was said that he was the head of their union (which men still are supposed to be), God doesn't tell Adam to keep her in the house, not let her have a say in anything, or that her only purpose is to bear his children.

Those are all laws and traditions that developed over time by the hands of men, not God.

For the time, it may have been very appropriate for some of these laws and traditions to exist.

For instance, when Paul spoke to the Corinthians about not allowing women to speak in the church, it was because of the way they had services, and not in an effort to degrade women and what they might think about God.

They had women sit in the back of the church/house where a message was being given, and the women would end up shouting out questions, to be heard over the men (Jewish men love to argue in the synagogue, and argue LOUDLY sometimes). This caused a great deal of confusion, and not much was being accomplished. It was disrespectful to both the teacher/rabbi/whatever, as well as the other men that were considered the "congregation".

So, the men were asking what should be done about this annoying disruption, and Paul said that they should have their women ask them question when they returned to the privacy of their own homes, which prevented unecessary interruptions. It also made for a more intimate spiritual relationship possible for a man and his wife, as well as perpetuated the man's role as spirutual head of the home.

So, someone that just takes the verse, "women are not allowed to speak in the church" and twists it into something sexist against women is certanly in err, because that is not at all what it is intended to mean.

You have to read the WHOLE Bible, and put everything together. You cannot take one verse or another, and develop an entire belief system about it.

That's just ridiculous.

Here's an example...

In the link I provided above, the story of the concubine in Judges 19:16-30 describes a woman that was brutally raped and murdered because she was offered as an appeasement gift.

This shows that the woman had little to no value to the man that gave her over to her captors.

If you only read these verses, you get the feeling that women are merely possessions to be given away, and nothing more.

However, when you continue to read on into Judges chapter 2, you see thousands of men come together to avenge her death. They go to war with the Benjamites over this ONE LITTLE WOMAN.

So, this sexism is displayed by one man PERSONALLY. His belief was that she meant nothing, while an entire nation begged to differ with him.

It is also notable that God did not say to the owner of the concubine, "Give this woman in place of your guest."

This was all the result of one stupid man's actions.

Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that it is something we ought to abide by, as far as Christianity is concerned. It also does not mean God is giving a commandment.

This is simply a clear case of the Bible being manipulated by unbelievers to try and prove that it is flawed somehow, when in fact, it is not.

Misunderstood, yes.

Wrong, no.

I'd agree that the verses in my link dealt with specific situations, but so did yours.

Which of the verses, if any, are commandments from God on the position of women?

Digi, you are trying to 'explain away' a bible passage which sits ill in modern christianity.

paul makes clear this is a sign of true faith ( 'as in all churches of the saints' - implying that 'false' churches behave differently).

there is no evidence for your 'explaination' and we should not be guided in faith by modern fashion.

if you read the passage paul says plainly a commandmment from god and anyone teaching differently is not of god.

i don't know about you but to my mind claiming a NT commandment from god is no longer valid, is wrong.

Question: "Is God / the Bible sexist?"

During the Old Testament the whole world was a patriarchal society. That status of history is very clear - not only in Scripture but in the social mores that governed most societies in the world. By modern value systems and worldly human viewpoint that is called sexist. God ordained the order in society not man and He is the author of the establishment principles of authority. However, like everything else, the fall man has corrupted this order and that has resulted in the inequality of the standing of men and women through out history. The exclusion and the discrimination that we find in our world is not new and is the result of the fall of man and the introduction of sin - which is rebellion against God. Therefore, we can rightly say that the term and the practice of sexism is a result of - a product of the sin of mankind. The progressive revelation of the Bible leads us to the cure for sexism and indeed all of the sinful practices of the human race.

To find and maintain a spiritual balance between the God ordained positions of authority we must look to Scripture. The New Testament is the fulfillment of the old and in it we find principles that tell us the correct line of authority and the cure for sin, the ill of all mankind, and that includes discrimination based upon gender.

The Cross of Christ is the great equalizer. John 3:16 says, "Whosoever will" and that is an all inclusive statement that leaves no one out on the basis of position in society, mental capacity or gender. We also find a passage in Galatians that tells us of our equal opportunity for salvation. "26 For we are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ. 27 for as many of you as have been baptized (identified) into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male or female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:26-28). There is no sexism at the foot of the Cross.

The Bible is not sexist. Why? Because it accurately portrays the results of sin and does not "guild the lily". The Bible records all kinds of sin; slavery and bondage and the failures of its greatest heroes yet it also gives us the answer and the cure for those sins against God and His established order. That answer? It is a right relationship with God. In the Old Testament it was looking forward to the supreme sacrifice and each time a sacrifice for sin was made it was teaching the need for reconciliation to God. In the New Testament the "Lamb that takes away the sin of the world" was born, died, buried and rose again and then ascended to His place in Heaven and there He intercedes for us. It is through belief in Him that the cure for sin is found and that includes the sin of sexism.

The charge of the sexism of the Bible is based upon a lack of knowledge of Scripture. When men and women of all ages have taken their God ordained places and lived according to "Thus says the LORD" then there is a wonderful balance between the genders and that balance is what God began with and it is what He will end with. There is an inordinate amount of attention paid to the various products of sin and not to the root of it. It is only when there is personal reconciliation with God through the LORD Jesus Christ that we find true equality. "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

~ http://www.gotquestions.org/God-Bible-sexist.html

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Digi, you are trying to 'explain away' a bible passage which sits ill in modern christianity.

No.

quote:paul makes clear this is a sign of true faith ( 'as in all churches of the saints' - implying that 'false' churches behave differently).

there is no evidence for our 'explaination' and we should not be guided in faith by modern fashion.[/b]

Agreed. Where is this passage you are referring to, and how do you see me twisting it to fit modern standards ?

I don't believe I did that, so please afford me the opportunity of clarifying, if necessary.

quote:if you read the passage paul says plainly a commandmment from god and anyone teaching differently is not of god.

WHICH VERSE ?

quote:i don't know about you but to my mind claiming a NT commandment from god is no longer valid, is wrong.



Agreed.

I don't believe I said that.

quote:Agreed. Where is this passage you are referring to, and how do you see me twisting it to fit modern standards ?

sorry ,i should have quoted. i was refering to quote:For instance, when Paul spoke to the Corinthians about not allowing women to speak in the church, it was because of the way they had services, and not in an effort to degrade women and what they might think about God.

They had women sit in the back of the church/house where a message was being given, and the women would end up shouting out questions, to be heard over the men

quote:WHICH VERSE ?

1. corinthians 14 v.37



quote:I don't believe I said that.

quote:Those are all laws and traditions that developed over time by the hands of men, not God.

For the time, it may have been very appropriate for some of these laws and traditions to exist.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Which of the verses, if any, are commandments from God on the position of women?

I can try to answer that.

First, I want to ask where you are getting your negativity of the Bible regarding women from ? That site provided in your thread starter ? That site was putrid, so I hope it is not coming from that.

Is it because you have been raised a Catholic ?

"Women are vessels of excrement." - A recorded proclamation by Saint Augustine, one of the Catholic Church's founding fathers.

Just curious.

Anyway, on with your question.

********************************************

These are just some that I can find. I am sure there are many more, but I can't spend on day on just one post.

1 Timothy 2:11 - "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states, "...As in all the congregations of the saints, 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."

At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are not allowed to speak at all in the church. However, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the church - and does not condemn it. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 must not be an absolutely command for women to always be silent in church.

The context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is talking about interpreting and understanding the gifts of tongues and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:26-32). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not commanding women to be absolutely silent in the church all the time. It is only saying that women should not participate when tongues and/or prophecy is being interpreted and tested (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1). This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says that women should not teach or have authority over men. If women were involved in deciding whether a prophecy was truly from God, they would be disobeying what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Therefore, Paul tells women to be silent when tongues and prophecy are being interpreted so that they will not be disobeying God’s Word.

As mentioned, women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying, only to having spiritual teaching authority over men.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved.

The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit - 1 Corinthians chapter 12.

Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Matthew 28:18-20 - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 1:8 - "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

1 Peter 3:15 - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (something I personally must work on).

Women are encouraged to teach other women.

Titus 2:3-5 - "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

Just for fun, I wanted to give some insight on Israelite women(situational, and not commandments):

1. They were necessary to make the universe "good" (Gen 1.26-28)

2. They shared joint responsibility with man to rule/fill the earth. (Gen 1.26-28)

3. God judged people who sinned against females. (Gen 12.17; Gen 20.1-6)

4. God spoke directly with females. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 21.17-19;Judg 13.2)

5. God listened to females and answered their prayers. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 30.17; I Sam 1.27)

6. God makes promises to females. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 21.17-19)

7. The first appearance of the Angel of YHWH was to a female. (Gen 16.17ff)

8. God blessed Sarah at the same level and in the same covenant-forms as Abraham. (Gen 18.9ff)

9. God includes females and their issues in His discussions with males. (Gen 18.9f; 19.12f)

10. God is gracious and faithful to females. (Gen 21.1f; Gen 29.31; Gen 30.17)

11. God tells males to pay attention to their wives! (Gen 21.12)

12. God imparts insight/wisdom to women.(Gen 21.17-19)

13. Women could inquire of God formally. (Gen 25.2f)

14. Women were the first to 'inquire' of God in scripture. (Gen 25.2ff)

15. God delivered prophecies directly to women. (Gen 25.2ff)

16. Women recognized God's goodness and so bore witness in their children's'` names. (Gen 29.32f; 30.18ff)

17. God killed people for not protecting/providing for women's needs. (Gen 38.8)

18. God included women in the core functions of the first Passover. (Ex 4.22ff)

19. God honored 'civil' disobedience on the part of wise and committed women. (Ex 1.20-21)

20. God 'took the side' of women in some major legal disputations/decisions. (Num 27.1ff)

21. God gave military victory/honor to women. (Judg 4.4)

22. Women publicly declared that God answered their prayers. (Judg 5)

23. Women were involved in public exposition/reading of the Law. (Jos 8.34-35)

24. Women could dedicate gifts and offerings to YHWH. (Judg 17.3)

25. Women had access to the pre-Temple sanctuary. (I Sam 1,2)

26. Women could make vows without husband approval. (I Sam 1,2)

27. Women served the Lord at the Tent of Meeting. (I Sam 2.22)

28. Women served as prophetesses. (Miriam--Ex 15.20; Deborah--Judg 4.4; among Abe, Moses, Aaron, Samuel)

29. Women had legal rights to name children, without husband involvement. (Gen 4.25; 29,30; 35.19; I Sam 1)

30. Women had recognized legal rights, which also generate 'duties' for males (Gen 20.14ff; 38.8).

31. Women show up in all sorts of genealogies (except military enrollments). (Gen 5; 46:5; 46.15; 46.17; Num 26.33; 26:46; I Chron)

32. Marriage required the approval of the woman. (Gen 24.6ff; 24:57f)

33. Women show up as joint-agents with husbands in a wide range of authority-type activities.(Gen 26.11; 26:34-35)

34. Mothers had considerable influence and legal authority over adult male sons.(Gen 27; 37.9-10)

35. Wives/women could own property. (Gen 29.24,29)

36. Unmarried daughters could own property. (Num 27)

37. Wives co-owned property with their husband. (Gen 29.31.16)

38. Childless widows could own and sell property. (Ruth 4.9)

39. Women were consistently loved and blessed by their relatives. (Gen 23.2; 25.59; 25.21; Gen 31.48ff; 31.55; 48.7)

40. Women were sought for counsel by males. (Gen 31.4ff)

41. Women were called 'noble' and 'better' in public by males. (Gen 38.26; Gen 34.7.31; Ruth 3.10)

42. Women's interactions with their husbands indicate a strong 'uppity' character. (Gen 16.1ff; 16.5; 27.46; 30.1; 30.16; Ex 4.24)

43. Women typically manifest sage-like behavior, argumentation, functions, and results. (above 'uppity' passages; Gen 21.11; Gen 27-the 'trickery of Reb'; Gen 38-Tamar; Gen 31.4ff; Midwives, Zipporah, Judg 4.17ff)

44. Women are sometimes pictured as 'correcting' the mistakes of male authority figures (Rebekah, midwives, Jael, Rahab).

45. Women contributions to the history of the chosen people (apart from giving birth to all of the participants!) were substantial and critical to the success of biblical history:

A. Rebekah saved the birthright line by the deception of Isaac.

B. The midwives saved the majority of Israelite men (from infanticide in Egypt)

C. They save the life of Moses TWICE before he leads Israel out of Egypt!

D. Rahab is a key to success for the overthrow of the major border town Jericho--the gateway to the land of Israel. (Jos 2)

E. Deborah and Jael were deliverers of Israel for the extremely disruptive/destructive oppression of King Jabin (cf. Judg 5.7--"village life had ceased")

F. The spiritual life of Hannah produced the major positive figure in post-conquest Israel--Samuel.

46. Men leaders officially declare women as vindicated or ethically superior. (Gen 38.26; 20.14ff)

47. The only known exception to God's exclusion of Moabites from His assembly (Dt 23.3) is for a female--Ruth, who also becomes an ancestor of David and Jesus (cf. Ruth 4.21 and Matt 1.5).

48. Several women heroes show up in the narrative (the Matriarchs, Sherah, the midwives, Miriam, daughters of Zelophehad, Rahab, Deborah, Hannah(?), Ruth)

49. One woman actually 'sat' in the assembly of the elders in the 'gate' (Jud 5.11f).

50. One woman held the highest political office of the day.

These role models came from every strata of society--leadership, wealthy families, foreigners, ordinary folk, prostitutes.

Anyway, is this good enough ?

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-14-2005).]

Jack, maybe I am just being obtuse here, but I don't see how I was manipulating the word to suit modern women.

You either need to expound, or just assume the worst of me.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Jack, maybe I am just being obtuse here, but I don't see how I was manipulating the word to suit modern women.

You either need to expound, or just assume the worst of me.

nah i could never assume the worst of you http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

but as far as i could see you were stating that god's commandment for women to be silent in the congregation was infact only valid for the time it was written .(because of the noise in church back then)

which happens to be one of the usual arguments put forward by the supporters of women clergy.

http://tinyurl.com/cdgro - this was interesting. Seems pretty sexist to me. Although there are many verses, like the ones provided by D_S, that include women in at least an equal, possibly positive light, I don't see how that refutes or negates any of these verses.

quote:Those are all laws and traditions that developed over time by the hands of men, not God.

So you don't believe that the Bible is the complete and literal Word of God? That it contains no errors and is "God-breathed" (as Paul once calls it)?

quote:Just because something is in the Bible doesn't mean that it is something we ought to abide by, as far as Christianity is concerned. It also does not mean God is giving a commandment.

1.) See above.

2.) Well, when it's actually phrased as a commandment (such as "women should be silent in churches")...

quote:For the time, it may have been very appropriate for some of these laws and traditions to exist.

This is a different stance on the Bible than most Christians I meet have. For one, there's the verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) - this apparently meaning that every single verse and so forth is direct from God and always to be obeyed. Can't say "well THAT isn't important" or "actually that is a flawed commandment written by flawed men" or "we don't have to pay attention to that verse, God only meant THIS one". Another point is that I don't think you can just say "Oh, that verse only applies in THIS case" when in reality that verse says nothing of the sort: it provides a commandment and no situational clauses. The Bible is supposed a be a clear and perfect guide to living, now and always - not only a history lesson.

quote:Question: "Is God / the Bible sexist?"

[gotquestions text]



That really doesn't refute anything... just sort of says "the Bible is NOT sexist because God is perfect and wants us to be to."

quote:As mentioned, women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying, only to having spiritual teaching authority over men.

...why can't they have that?

quote:Women are encouraged to teach other women.

But not men, who are superior and to be the teachers of women.



I have a Christian friend who's very vehement on this subject; I'll contact him and ask him for his opinions and evidence as well. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 07-15-2005).]

Oh, ok, Jack. That helped tremendously.

I don't advocate female clergy, if their position is to TEACH men. If they are the women's bible study leader or something, then it is completely permissable.

However, I wasn't using that verse to excuse women who DO hold inappropriate places of authority in a church. All I was pointing out is that men often quote that scripture as if it is saying women should NEVER speak in a church, and that is not so.

Nowadays, in modern Christian churches (minus pentacostal and some baptist's), women don't generally shout in church, especially over the men. Church is no longer an "open forum" like it was in Paul's time. We all sit quietly, and listen. There is no discussion allowed, so this rule doesn't seem to be relevant to modern society.

thanks for clarifing that digi..i was a bit surprised that you seemed to be arguing against such a clear commandment!

FYI there are still 'open forum' churches where only the men stand up to speak and the woman cover their heads.

but otherwise what you said about the nature of church services today is right.

quote: http://tinyurl.com/cdgro - this was interesting. Seems pretty sexist to me. Although there are many verses, like the ones provided by D_S, that include women in at least an equal, possibly positive light, I don't see how that refutes or negates any of these verses.

So, are you insinuating that the Bible is contradictory to itself ?

The negativity towards women in the Bible originates from man, not God.

The Bible is God-inspired, and the stories contained within it are meant to teach us something.

Other things in the Bible are direct commandments. You can't say every story is a commandement, because they aren't even written that way.

Take tha parables, for instance. They were given to illustrate some very fundamental points, and that's what they are. We can think upon them while experiencing life's curveballs, and come to logical conclusions that are God inspired. Are they COMMANDMENTS ? No.

quote:So you don't believe that the Bible is the complete and literal Word of God? That it contains no errors and is "God-breathed" (as Paul once calls it)?

I do. I never said otherwise, and nor does my explanation of the Bible indicate that I don't.

I was talking about the difference between cultural laws, and God's laws. Cultural laws were shown in the Bible to contrast God's laws.

I do not deviate from God's laws. I do, however, scrutinize the laws of man, and if they are in accordance to God's laws, I will heed them if I can.

As far as women being men's PROPERTY, in that they can be given away for sexual purposes, I do NOT believe that this is a God-ordained tenet of the Christian faith, and can find no verses which support that assertion.

This falls under the cultural laws of that day, and are not to be taken as something we should enforce today.

quote:1.) See above.

2.) Well, when it's actually phrased as a commandment (such as "women should be silent in churches")...

And they should, during a service.

This is not to say that they themselves cannot teach other women, and children, when it is not disruptive to the male teacher/pastor/rabbi/whatever.

Taking God's word out of context is no more respectable than ignoring things from it.

quote:This is a different stance on the Bible than most Christians I meet have. For one, there's the verse that says "all scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16) - this apparently meaning that every single verse and so forth is direct from God and always to be obeyed. Can't say "well THAT isn't important" or "actually that is a flawed commandment written by flawed men" or "we don't have to pay attention to that verse, God only meant THIS one". Another point is that I don't think you can just say "Oh, that verse only applies in THIS case" when in reality that verse says nothing of the sort: it provides a commandment and no situational clauses. The Bible is supposed a be a clear and perfect guide to living, now and always - not only a history lesson.

Every word of the Bible is God-breathed, and inspired. I do not have any contention with that belief.

I also believe every single word applies to us, but in what ways ? You have to use logic and deductive reasoning sometimes, and certain verses may not mean the same thing for every person, in every situation.

Do you consider the texts that were not canonized ? What of them ? Are we missing vitally important information from them ?

I don't know, but I doubt it. What we have is what we live by.

I have NEVER discarded something from the Bible as "unimportant", and if that is what you thought I was saying, I either misspoke, or you misunderstood.

Everything is important. Does everything apply to me ? No. At any given moment, different things will apply to me, based on my thought process, my maturity, things going on in my life, and environment, just to name a few. I have read the same verses many times, and each time they shed new light on my understanding of this world, and how God operates.

If I shout out in church in an attempt to gain knowledge, and disrupt the service, then I am certainly disobeying God's word.

But I don't. So, it doesn't apply to me.

See what I am saying ?

I also never said that any of the commandments were flawed. Paul gave direction to a church that had requested it, based on their needs and issues. Paul was wise, and knew what needed to be done in that case. God didn't give a commandment telling women to be quiet. Paul gave his recommendation on how the issue was to be handled.

It was completely situational, and unless a church can identify with the problems that Paul was addressing, I see no need to make it a "law". I guess this is left up to perception.

I never said the Bible was merely a history lesson.

Please don't insult my Christianity, nor my intelligence.

I am well aware of the magnitude the Bible should have in our lives.

I don't, however, think it supports sexism.

I was giving an example of a scripture that COULD be perceived as sexism, but really isn't, when taken in context.

That's the reason I brought that up.

quote:That really doesn't refute anything... just sort of says "the Bible is NOT sexist because God is perfect and wants us to be to."

Ok.

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.

quote:...why can't they have that?

Because women are not to have positional authority over men.

If I am sitting with a friend who happens to be male, and I am witnessing, I am well within my rights to do so. There is no misconception about authority in that scenario, since authority is not necessary to speak to a friend.

In a church setting, "teaching" men is forbidden, since it puts the woman positionally ABOVE men. Women are not to diminish man's respect and rightful place as head of the institution of church, or anywhere, for that matter.

quote:But not men, who are superior and to be the teachers of women.

This is not a matter of social superiority, which insinuates degredation of women as a whole. It is a matter of spiritual superiority. Men are to be shephards, this is made abundantly clear.

This is also a matter of subservience.

Women are best at counseling women, because they can identify with each other.

quote:I have a Christian friend who's very vehement on this subject; I'll contact him and ask him for his opinions and evidence as well.

Ok, I look forward to his feedback.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:As far as women being men's PROPERTY, in that they can be given away for sexual purposes, I do NOT believe that this is a God-ordained tenet of the Christian faith, and can find no verses which support that assertion..

i want to say something on that because there is some biblical support for the 'my wife is my property' type attitude but its almost 1am and us old men need our sleep. i'll write it up tomorrow.



edit Judges 19:19 (onwards) -just off the top of my head.

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I think it's obvious to anyone that has glossed over the bible, if only for a little bit, that men are thought of in higher regard than women are. The bible, in numerous places says that women should be subservient to men.This site quotes a noted anti-semite (whose father was a member of Action Française) who tried for years to prevent Jewish authorities from examining the Dead Sea Scrolls and whose blatantly misleading publications about sites like Qumran have been widely discredited. He also claims in the book the site is quoting (Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions) that the Holocaust has a parallel with Jewish history as a “guilt-offering” of human sacrifice for “Zionists and other guilty parties.”

quote:Roland de Vaux (ibid.)

Sacrifice transfers the gift into the realm of the invisible...The rites themselves make this even clearer; sacrifice is essentially connected with the altar, for the altar is the symbol, or the reminder, of God's presence, a mediation between God and man[…]From this point of view the holocaust may be considered the most perfect sacrifice, for man receives nothing of it, and all is burnt[…] The sacrificial code in Leviticus ascribes an expiatory value to the holocaust. Blood played an important part in all animal sacrifices and according to Lv 17; 11, the blood was given to men ' to perform the rite of expiation on the altar.’[…] the expiatory sacrifice was of ancient origin in Israel, but this kind of sacrifice was developed and became much more important when great national calamities brought home to the people the sense of its own guilt, and when the nation developed a more acute sense of its own sin and of Yaweh's demands.

quote:I have a few questions. The first is do the Orthodox Jews still practice some of those laws and traditions?Now that Mr. de Vaux is dealt with, I’ll try to present Judaism’s actual view of women.

This story begins with the creation of the planet. God created it as a home for humanity. Our sages tell us the world was not complete without man, and man was not complete without woman. So God made woman as well. Woman however, our sages have taught, requires no partner for her own completion. That is why she is not required to marry. While a man must find a wife some time in his life, according to Jewish law, women have no such requirement. Furthermore, women are closer to God’s idea of perfection. While man was formed from mud, woman was formed from an already-made living being. She therefore reflects the more advanced expression of his will. This puts her, according to Kabbalah, on a higher spiritual plane than men. A man, according to the Law, is required to honour his wife more than himself and to provide for all of her physical and emotional needs. A woman according to the Hallakhah has the right to buy, sell, or own property and make her own contracts thereto (this coming millennia before that right was granted in western civilisation). According to the sages, woman was granted greater binah (wisdom, intiuation, understanding, et cetera) by God, thus solidifying the necessity of her participation in society.

Fewer commandments apply to Jewish women than to Jewish men. This is for the very reason of the Jewish woman’s spiritual superiority. The Mitzvot are for our spiritual elevation. Performing each of them is like retrieving a divine spark and placing it back in the heavens, bringing ourselves closer to redemption. Men wear tzitzis to remember the importance of the commandments, women are not required to. Men wear Tefillin to elevate themselves spiritually in prayer. For women prayer itself is superfluous. They are already partners in creation with God as the bearer’s of children. By the way, on the note of abortion, if the mother’s life is threatened, it is permissible, because a mother’s life is more valuable than that of an unborn child. Levirate marriage is a mechanism to ensure that widows are cared for. You may wonder why some of the punishments seem stricter upon the women than upon the men. This is in fact on the merit of their default state of righteousness, for it is taught that God punishes the righteous for their minor transgressions with greater force than he does the wicked for their great ones, just as their reward will be greater, for it is taught that in spite of all the commandments applying to men and not to women, it will be primarily the merit of righteous women that brings the final redemption, when the Shechinah (divine presence, a feminine reference to God) will again descend to earth.

Some facts:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> The matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in prophesy.

<LI>Miriam is considered one of the liberators of the Children of Israel, along with her brothers Moses and Aaron.

<LI>Women did not participate in the idolatry of the golden calf.

<LI>One of the Judges (Deborah) was a woman and, as I believe Digital mentioned, a commander of the Tzivos Yisrael (Legions of Israel).

<LI>Seven of the Biblical Prophets were women.

<LI>The Talmud and later rabbinical writings speak of the wisdom of Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir. In several instances her opinions on Hallkhah were accepted over those of her male contemporaries.

<LI>In the marriage contract of Rabbi Akiba's son, the wife is obligated to teach the husband Torah!² (http://tinyurl.com/cc5dz)

<LI>The Talmud itself teaches that sex is the woman’s right, not the man’s. She may demand it, but he may not. She is authorised to collect a divorce certificate if he refuses her sex, but he is not for the opposite situation, unless she takes it to absolutely malicious extremes. Furthermore, it is the husband’s duty to please the wife sexually.

<LI>One of the most important figures in Judaism is Ruth (a female convert no less), because she chose to remain with her Jewish mother in law when her husband died (the ultimate chick-flick plot there) and her line is the one that brought forth King David and therefore ultimately the Messiah who will redeem the world.

<LI>Esther saves the Jews from utter destruction in her own self-titled book, which spawned the holiday of Purim.

<LI>Yiddishkeit itself is transmitted through the mother’s side and not through the father, making the whole religion rather matriarchal at its heart, and I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the exploits of the Jewish mother are pretty famous.

<LI>Perhaps most tellingly of all, God itself is referred to in both the male and female forms throughout the Tanakh.</UL>

Now one of the most frequently misunderstood regulations regarding women is that of ritual impurity during menstruation. Here’s (http://tinyurl.com/bn6u6) an article on the subject that I hope will clear up any misconceptions. As for the other rules with regards to how men and women relate, you’ll notice that they’re all meant to control the men. Men aren’t allowed to hear women singing by themselves by some opinions. This is because men are thought to be aroused by the voice of a woman in song. Men and women must be segregated when they pray by a Mechitzah, that’s again to keep the wandering eyes of the men in place so that they can concentrate on praying. For anybody who’s ever had to rely on the Hallakhic advice of a Rebbetzyn, there can be no doubt of the involvement of women in Jewish life. At any rate, this is starting to get rather long and I’m noticing other points in this thread I want to discuss, so I’ll just mark this down as a first blush answer to your question.

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 07-15-2005).]

You forgot to cite your sources DS.

quote:The negativity towards women in the Bible originates from man, not God.

Not sure exactly what you're getting at here... it seems to me to be saying that some parts of the Bible were written by man and thus flawed, being negative toward women.

quote:Take th[e] parables, for instance. They were given to illustrate some very fundamental points, and that's what they are. We can think upon them while experiencing life's curveballs, and come to logical conclusions that are God inspired. Are they COMMANDMENTS ? No.

Well, when Paul says something like "women should be silent in church" it seems like a commandment to me.

quote:

I was talking about the difference between cultural laws, and God's laws. Cultural laws were shown in the Bible to contrast God's laws.

Hmm... I don't recall the Bible ever saying "this is only a cultural law, not to be obeyed but merely scrutinized!" http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif) Really though, I can't think of any instances in the Bible where it does this... maybe I'm reading it too literally or something.

quote:And they should, during a service.

This is not to say that they themselves cannot teach other women, and children, when it is not disruptive to the male teacher/pastor/rabbi/whatever.

This is what I'm getting at. That seems plenty sexist to me, but most Christian women don't seem to see the problem with it.

quote: and certain verses may not mean the same thing for every person, in every situation.

Some are pretty clear-cut.

quote:

But I don't. So, it doesn't apply to me.

Sort of like saying "I don't smoke marijuana, so the law against it doesn't apply to me." Well, yes, yes it does - but you just obey it. I dunno, maybe I'm missing the point.

quote:That's your opinion, which you are entitled to.

I see your insidious tactics! No, it is not an opinion that that link doesn't refute anything. It either does, or it doesn't, and I don't see how it does. It offers no verses or any evidence/proof, only empty and meaningless justifications.

quote:Because women are not to have positional authority over men.

There we go... I don't see why and where we are disagreeing, if you admit this.

quote:This is not a matter of social superiority, which insinuates degredation of women as a whole. It is a matter of spiritual superiority. Men are to be shephards, this is made abundantly clear.

This is also a matter of subservience.

This seems to me to be almost exactly the same. OK, so we're not socially superior, apparently, merely spiritually. Men are the captains, you women are the first mates. Obey! Submit, like the Bible says!

quote:Ok, I look forward to his feedback.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif) He'll probably just agree with you, now that I think of it.



[This message has been edited by Twisted_Ferret (edited 07-15-2005).]

You're truly a liar of the biggest proportions.

It wasn't even a real problem, but since I had read the article you took it from before, (on another website if I remember correctly) and since you had sourced everything else, then I thought I should mention it.

But now, since you chose to make a fool out of yourself, when you could have easily stated the truth, I'll oblige, and help you in that quest:

You plagiarized this:

"1. They were necessary to make the universe "good" (Gen 1.26-28)

2. They shared joint responsibility with man to rule/fill the earth. (Gen 1.26-28)

[...]

*Shortened for brevity*.

[...]



49. One woman actually 'sat' in the assembly of the elders in the 'gate' (Jud 5.11f).

50. One woman held the highest political office of the day.

These role models came from every strata of society--leadership, wealthy families, foreigners, ordinary folk, prostitute."

Taken from, http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02a.html

Those are not the words of the bible, but the words of the man who created that article. In fact, NONE of that is the bible; it is a summary made by the man or woman who created that article. Moreover, it's not only the words, it's the formatting, the order and the abreviations! That's plagiarizing

P.S. I'll admitt that "sources" wasn't entirely correct because it was one source, not many, but the underlying fact still remains, and you could have easilly answered, "Ahh yes, but I forgot one source, not more than one..." or something similar.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

P.S. I'll admitt that "sources" wasn't entirely correct because it was one source, not many, but the underlying fact still remains, and you could have easilly answered, "Ahh yes, but I forgot one source, not more than one..." or something similar.In any case, the mere fact of the matter renders your point utterly useless. The whole purpose of your original post was nitpicking for the purposes of attempting to discredit someone you don't like. You bent the truth in the first place, implying that she didn't cite any of her sources when she clearly did provide citation for all but one and then laid a rhetorical trap, hoping she wouldn't notice the last source she had neglected. When she responded defensively, as you had hoped when you purposefully over-stated the truth in order to draw out her indignation, you replied in "moral" outrage over the single source she had omitted in a topic where her responses alone added up to pages. It would seem that the only purpose to which you even opened this topic was to attempt to humiliate her using any means necessary, since it's clear you've provided no other contribution in addition to that attempt. No matter that she apparently realised her mistake and deleted the response in order to reformulate it to incorporate the final source...that just helps you to portray her as being in retreat, right? Shame on you.

Sephiroth, please.

1. What you call "bending the truth" is in fact me making a mistake; a mistake which I already admitted to.

2. You cannot possibly know what my purpose for posting it is, so please refrain from making these claims that you cannot possibly back up. Unless of course, I am free to also make assumptions as to why you are making this post.

I'll assume something equally preposterous.

3. My reasons are irrelevant. Yes, the reason, which you don't even know to begin with, are irrelevant. The fact is, she did plagiarize, and you're choosing to ignore this in an effort to defend her. For shame.

4. She deleting her post is a dishonest move on her part, much more dishonest than what you erroneously accuse me of.

But she isn't being dishonest, oh no! Her dishonest moves are understandable as I, the evil, fetus-killing atheist, have undoubtedly attacked her. She is now free to perform all the dishonest things she want, free from any criticism. Her previous plagiarization? Completely forgotten. Who could hold that thought for even a second after my evil attack? As if!

In fact, these are not dishonest tactics at all! These are virtues! Deleting a response is actually her having "realized her mistake and deleted the response in order to reformulate it to incorporate the final source" (ignoring of course that this has not even happened)! No dishonesty here, but virtues; future virtues! Now I understand.



5. The fact that she deleted the post, and did not go ahead and say that she had replied as she did because I had used a plural which threw her off (at least a decent defense), is evidence that this was not what threw her off, but that she deliberately lied, or that she does admit that she did make a mistake.

Like I said, she could have easily said, "Hey I only forgot one source not more than one, don't be a total fucking moron you fucking idiot" and she would have been completely correct and justified in saying that! She didn't.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

3. My reasons are irrelevant. Yes, the reason, which you don't even know to begin with, are irrelevant. The fact is, she did plagiarize, and you're choosing to ignore this in an effort to defend her. For shame.Plagiarism is the purposeful omission of a citation with the intent of claiming credit for another's work. You and I know she didn't omit it purposefully with the intention of claiming credit for someone else's work. It is completely obvious from the context of the entire page, with every other source cited properly, that the omission was accidental. Your point is petty and merely an attempt to discredit her. This is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation.

quote:4. She deleting her post is a dishonest move on her part, much more dishonest than what you erroneously accuse me of.

...

In fact, these are not dishonest tactics at all! These are virtues! Deleting a response is actually her having "realized her mistake and deleted the response in order to reformulate it to incorporate the final source" (ignoring of course that this has not even happened)! No dishonesty here, but virtues; future virtues! Now I understand.Calm down. I was talking to her on aim just as she was reading over the topic checking her sources. That's how I know what she was doing.

quote:**** ** ****: Rust is complaining to you about your sources

**** ** ****: 0_o

**** ** ****: I don't know why he demands a doctoral dissertation

desired hush: Yeah

desired hush: I saw

desired hush: First, I don't have any, other than the Bible

desired hush: Second, the one I DID have a source for, I provided it

desired hush: I am about to tell him that right now

desired hush: He obviously doesn't have anything to say about the scriptures

desired hush: And he can't contest me on any points I have made

desired hush: Why does he bother ?

desired hush: What do you think of a simple, "Actually, I didn't." ?

desired hush: Or just roll my eyes ?lol

desired hush: I am looking, though, and I don't think I missed any sources in this thread

desired hush: Oh, wait

desired hush: I did leave one out

desired hush: I will post it, just to prove I am not scared of his ass

desired hush: I will delete the first one before he sees it, since I did forget a source and I don't want to be flip with him

desired hush: Because I don't want him hijacking the thread on a technicality

desired hush: He will simply hairsplit everything about ME, instead of what the topic is about

desired hush: Be back later

Not only virtuous, but prophetic...also the short time elapsing between her posting the original and her noticing her error and deleting it indicates you must have been practically refreshing the screen on baited breath.

quote:Like I said, she could have easily said, "Hey I only forgot one source not more than one, don't be a total fucking moron you fucking idiot" and she would have been completely correct and justified in saying that! She didn't.So you admit your original point was absolutely worthless. What was your aim in this then, beyond your trying to set a trap for her?

[This message has been edited by Sephiroth (edited 07-15-2005).]

As the person who recommended you both to the administration, I feel obligated to mediate this dispute, because frankly it's not good for the site now that both of you are on the staff. I have seen you be quite vicious with her in a way you haven't been with other users on the site and quite frankly it surprises me. So just play nice.

Rust, since I listed all my other sources, don't you think you could cut me a break and just ASSUME, for once, that I didn't do it on purpose ?

You just LIVE to try and make me look stupid (which is pathetic)...but hey, I never said I don't make mistakes. I am sorry I didn't post it, but it wasn't intentional.

That doesn't make me a liar, nor a plagiarist. As I said, I posted all the other links.

It is interesting that instead of actually trying to debate me on the topic, you choose to hone in on me personally. Nobody comes out of this looking like a creep but YOU.

Now, to address your assertions that "Those are not the words of the bible, but the words of the man who created that article." and "NONE of that is the bible; it is a summary made by the man or woman who created that article."

I am going to pick several random numbers from the list, and post the scriptures that accompany them, to illustrate that the summaries given ARE in fact accurate, and that you have once again proven that you don't read the Bible, and therefore shouldn't try to pretend like you know anything about it.

21. God gave military victory/honor to women.

Judges 4:4-7 - "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading [a] Israel at that time. 5 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. 6 She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, "The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: 'Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead the way to Mount Tabor. 7 I will lure Sisera, the commander of Jabin's army, with his chariots and his troops to the Kishon River and give him into your hands.'"

17. God killed people for not protecting/providing for women's needs.

Genesis 38:8 - "Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also."

28. Women served as prophetesses.

Exodus 15:20 - "Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing."

Judges 4:4 - "Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time."

35. Wives/women could own property.

Genesis 29:24 - "And Laban gave his servant girl Zilpah to his daughter as her maidservant."

29:29 - "Laban gave his servant girl Bilhah to his daughter Rachel as her maidservant."

41. Women were called 'noble' and 'better' in public by males.

Genesis 38:26 - "Judah recognized them and said, "She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn't give her to my son Shelah." And he did not sleep with her again."

I am too tired right now to give any more, but I think my point has been made.

1. Did I make a mistake and forget to post a source ? Yeah. SORRY.

2. Did you try to discredit the author's summaries, without even referencing the Bible verses to make sure the summaries were inaccurate, thus making your accusation completely worthless, at best ? Yes.

quote:But she isn't being dishonest, oh no! Her dishonest moves are understandable as I, the evil, fetus-killing atheist, have undoubtedly attacked her. She is now free to perform all the dishonest things she want, free from any criticism. Her previous plagiarization? Completely forgotten. Who could hold that thought for even a second after my evil attack? As if!

Rust, what you wrote there is wrong. so far Digi has made good her promise not to let her strong personal faith cause her to be unjust in her modding. (you will remember i raised exactly that concern when she was modded).

you can be sure that if she was doing as you describe that everybody would be crying foul.

Thanks, Jack...I appreciate that, coming from you. (someone that is not necessarily fond of me, but tolerates me with a measure of decency !)

But he's right...I did miss ONE. But it wasn't because I was trying to be dishonest.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thanks, Jack...I appreciate that, coming from you. (someone that is not necessarily fond of me, but tolerates me with a measure of decency !)

But he's right...I did miss ONE. But it wasn't because I was trying to be dishonest.

actually the more i read of your posts, the better i like you.(esp. your ones on women and the bible)

never assume that just because i often dislike and strongly criticise your method of bibliology that there is any personal animosity.there isn't.

now excuse me please ...i've only had 3 cups of coffee this morning!

Why ? Did you forget to cycle boot your pc coffee dispenser last night before you went home ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Why ? Did you forget to cycle boot your pc coffee dispenser last night before you went home ?

no..i was refering to the fact of my being nice to anyone so early in the morning without first having had a major caffeine injection :P

quote:Originally posted by outcast:

I think you described that well...because...in actuality...one serves the other I would say...in purpose.



Exactly...

Each role is purposeful in engineering a successful relationship.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Exactly...

Each role is purposeful in engineering a successful relationship.

ain't that the truth! too many christian men bemoan their wife's lack of obedience but fail to realise that the reason their wives are not acting as wives is because they themselves are not acting like men.

the 'leadership' role given to husbands is infact far more difficult a thing to fulfil than the obedience commanded of wives because power corrupts.

The FemiNazi Movement castrated men, in my opinion...

And these same women haughtily wag their tongues and stick their noses in the air, all while screaming with contempt, "Why can't you just be a man ?!!"

Hmmm....such a dilemma.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I can try to answer that.

First, I want to ask where you are getting your negativity of the Bible regarding women from ? That site provided in your thread starter ? That site was putrid, so I hope it is not coming from that.

Is it because you have been raised a Catholic ?

"Women are vessels of excrement." - A recorded proclamation by Saint Augustine, one of the Catholic Church's founding fathers.

Just curious.

Anyway, on with your question.

Could you please stop hating catholicism? I don't think it is asking much for you to NOT hate the world's largest religion, is it? Protestants have been known to be just as bad. Look at the south. Church organized lynchings and bombings of other churches. But really, you have to stop hating Catholics. I didn't mind it at first, but now it's just becoming cumbersome.

Anyways, no I got it from reading the bible.

Edit: Anyways, I was taught by nuns for half of my Catholic education. Smart, nice nuns. The principal at my school was female(also not a nun). The rest of my teachers in my Catholic school have been mostly female. It also isn't very smart of you to base the Church's stance on women on one quote from a saint, especially considering that the saint in question's philosophy isn't the majority philosophy in the Catholic Church(St. Thomas has those honors). Really, I would expect a little better from you(but not much).

quote:1 Timothy 2:11 - "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 states, "...As in all the congregations of the saints, 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."

At first glance, this seems to be a blanket command that women are not allowed to speak at all in the church. However, 1 Corinthians 11:5 mentions women praying and prophesying in the church - and does not condemn it. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 must not be an absolutely command for women to always be silent in church.

The context of 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 is talking about interpreting and understanding the gifts of tongues and prophecy (1 Corinthians 14:26-32). Therefore, 1 Corinthians 14:34 is not commanding women to be absolutely silent in the church all the time. It is only saying that women should not participate when tongues and/or prophecy is being interpreted and tested (1 Thessalonians 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1). This is in agreement with 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which says that women should not teach or have authority over men. If women were involved in deciding whether a prophecy was truly from God, they would be disobeying what the Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12. Therefore, Paul tells women to be silent when tongues and prophecy are being interpreted so that they will not be disobeying God’s Word.

As mentioned, women in the church are not restricted to public praying or prophesying, only to having spiritual teaching authority over men.

1 Corinthians 11:5 - And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head — it is just as though her head were shaved.

The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit - 1 Corinthians chapter 12.

Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the Gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

Galatians 5:22-23 - But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Matthew 28:18-20 - "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Acts 1:8 - "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

1 Peter 3:15 - But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (something I personally must work on).

Women are encouraged to teach other women.

Titus 2:3-5 - "Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."

Just for fun, I wanted to give some insight on Israelite women(situational, and not commandments):

1. They were necessary to make the universe "good" (Gen 1.26-28)

2. They shared joint responsibility with man to rule/fill the earth. (Gen 1.26-28)

3. God judged people who sinned against females. (Gen 12.17; Gen 20.1-6)

4. God spoke directly with females. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 21.17-19;Judg 13.2)

5. God listened to females and answered their prayers. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 30.17; I Sam 1.27)

6. God makes promises to females. (Gen 16.17ff; Gen 21.17-19)

7. The first appearance of the Angel of YHWH was to a female. (Gen 16.17ff)

8. God blessed Sarah at the same level and in the same covenant-forms as Abraham. (Gen 18.9ff)

9. God includes females and their issues in His discussions with males. (Gen 18.9f; 19.12f)

10. God is gracious and faithful to females. (Gen 21.1f; Gen 29.31; Gen 30.17)

11. God tells males to pay attention to their wives! (Gen 21.12)

12. God imparts insight/wisdom to women.(Gen 21.17-19)

13. Women could inquire of God formally. (Gen 25.2f)

14. Women were the first to 'inquire' of God in scripture. (Gen 25.2ff)

15. God delivered prophecies directly to women. (Gen 25.2ff)

16. Women recognized God's goodness and so bore witness in their children's'` names. (Gen 29.32f; 30.18ff)

17. God killed people for not protecting/providing for women's needs. (Gen 38.8)

18. God included women in the core functions of the first Passover. (Ex 4.22ff)

19. God honored 'civil' disobedience on the part of wise and committed women. (Ex 1.20-21)

20. God 'took the side' of women in some major legal disputations/decisions. (Num 27.1ff)

21. God gave military victory/honor to women. (Judg 4.4)

22. Women publicly declared that God answered their prayers. (Judg 5)

23. Women were involved in public exposition/reading of the Law. (Jos 8.34-35)

24. Women could dedicate gifts and offerings to YHWH. (Judg 17.3)

25. Women had access to the pre-Temple sanctuary. (I Sam 1,2)

26. Women could make vows without husband approval. (I Sam 1,2)

27. Women served the Lord at the Tent of Meeting. (I Sam 2.22)

28. Women served as prophetesses. (Miriam--Ex 15.20; Deborah--Judg 4.4; among Abe, Moses, Aaron, Samuel)

29. Women had legal rights to name children, without husband involvement. (Gen 4.25; 29,30; 35.19; I Sam 1)

30. Women had recognized legal rights, which also generate 'duties' for males (Gen 20.14ff; 38.8).

31. Women show up in all sorts of genealogies (except military enrollments). (Gen 5; 46:5; 46.15; 46.17; Num 26.33; 26:46; I Chron)

32. Marriage required the approval of the woman. (Gen 24.6ff; 24:57f)

33. Women show up as joint-agents with husbands in a wide range of authority-type activities.(Gen 26.11; 26:34-35)

34. Mothers had considerable influence and legal authority over adult male sons.(Gen 27; 37.9-10)

35. Wives/women could own property. (Gen 29.24,29)

36. Unmarried daughters could own property. (Num 27)

37. Wives co-owned property with their husband. (Gen 29.31.16)

38. Childless widows could own and sell property. (Ruth 4.9)

39. Women were consistently loved and blessed by their relatives. (Gen 23.2; 25.59; 25.21; Gen 31.48ff; 31.55; 48.7)

40. Women were sought for counsel by males. (Gen 31.4ff)

41. Women were called 'noble' and 'better' in public by males. (Gen 38.26; Gen 34.7.31; Ruth 3.10)

42. Women's interactions with their husbands indicate a strong 'uppity' character. (Gen 16.1ff; 16.5; 27.46; 30.1; 30.16; Ex 4.24)

43. Women typically manifest sage-like behavior, argumentation, functions, and results. (above 'uppity' passages; Gen 21.11; Gen 27-the 'trickery of Reb'; Gen 38-Tamar; Gen 31.4ff; Midwives, Zipporah, Judg 4.17ff)

44. Women are sometimes pictured as 'correcting' the mistakes of male authority figures (Rebekah, midwives, Jael, Rahab).

45. Women contributions to the history of the chosen people (apart from giving birth to all of the participants!) were substantial and critical to the success of biblical history:

A. Rebekah saved the birthright line by the deception of Isaac.

B. The midwives saved the majority of Israelite men (from infanticide in Egypt)

C. They save the life of Moses TWICE before he leads Israel out of Egypt!

D. Rahab is a key to success for the overthrow of the major border town Jericho--the gateway to the land of Israel. (Jos 2)

E. Deborah and Jael were deliverers of Israel for the extremely disruptive/destructive oppression of King Jabin (cf. Judg 5.7--"village life had ceased")

F. The spiritual life of Hannah produced the major positive figure in post-conquest Israel--Samuel.

46. Men leaders officially declare women as vindicated or ethically superior. (Gen 38.26; 20.14ff)

47. The only known exception to God's exclusion of Moabites from His assembly (Dt 23.3) is for a female--Ruth, who also becomes an ancestor of David and Jesus (cf. Ruth 4.21 and Matt 1.5).

48. Several women heroes show up in the narrative (the Matriarchs, Sherah, the midwives, Miriam, daughters of Zelophehad, Rahab, Deborah, Hannah(?), Ruth)

49. One woman actually 'sat' in the assembly of the elders in the 'gate' (Jud 5.11f).

50. One woman held the highest political office of the day.

These role models came from every strata of society--leadership, wealthy families, foreigners, ordinary folk, prostitutes.

Anyway, is this good enough ?



That still doesn't really tell me what the bible's official stance on the role of women is.

[This message has been edited by napoleon_complex (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Now that Mr. de Vaux is dealt with, I’ll try to present Judaism’s actual view of women.

This story begins with the creation of the planet. God created it as a home for humanity. Our sages tell us the world was not complete without man, and man was not complete without woman. So God made woman as well. Woman however, our sages have taught, requires no partner for her own completion. That is why she is not required to marry. While a man must find a wife some time in his life, according to Jewish law, women have no such requirement. Furthermore, women are closer to God’s idea of perfection. While man was formed from mud, woman was formed from an already-made living being. She therefore reflects the more advanced expression of his will. This puts her, according to Kabbalah, on a higher spiritual plane than men. A man, according to the Law, is required to honour his wife more than himself and to provide for all of her physical and emotional needs. A woman according to the Hallakhah has the right to buy, sell, or own property and make her own contracts thereto (this coming millennia before that right was granted in western civilisation). According to the sages, woman was granted greater binah (wisdom, intiuation, understanding, et cetera) by God, thus solidifying the necessity of her participation in society.

Fewer commandments apply to Jewish women than to Jewish men. This is for the very reason of the Jewish woman’s spiritual superiority. The Mitzvot are for our spiritual elevation. Performing each of them is like retrieving a divine spark and placing it back in the heavens, bringing ourselves closer to redemption. Men wear tzitzis to remember the importance of the commandments, women are not required to. Men wear Tefillin to elevate themselves spiritually in prayer. For women prayer itself is superfluous. They are already partners in creation with God as the bearer’s of children. By the way, on the note of abortion, if the mother’s life is threatened, it is permissible, because a mother’s life is more valuable than that of an unborn child. Levirate marriage is a mechanism to ensure that widows are cared for. You may wonder why some of the punishments seem stricter upon the women than upon the men. This is in fact on the merit of their default state of righteousness, for it is taught that God punishes the righteous for their minor transgressions with greater force than he does the wicked for their great ones, just as their reward will be greater, for it is taught that in spite of all the commandments applying to men and not to women, it will be primarily the merit of righteous women that brings the final redemption, when the Shechinah (divine presence, a feminine reference to God) will again descend to earth.

Some facts:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> The matriarchs Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah were superior to the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) in prophesy.

<LI>Miriam is considered one of the liberators of the Children of Israel, along with her brothers Moses and Aaron.

<LI>Women did not participate in the idolatry of the golden calf.

<LI>One of the Judges (Deborah) was a woman and, as I believe Digital mentioned, a commander of the Tzivos Yisrael (Legions of Israel).

<LI>Seven of the Biblical Prophets were women.

<LI>The Talmud and later rabbinical writings speak of the wisdom of Berurya, the wife of Rabbi Meir. In several instances her opinions on Hallkhah were accepted over those of her male contemporaries.

<LI>In the marriage contract of Rabbi Akiba's son, the wife is obligated to teach the husband Torah!² (http://tinyurl.com/cc5dz)

<LI>The Talmud itself teaches that sex is the woman’s right, not the man’s. She may demand it, but he may not. She is authorised to collect a divorce certificate if he refuses her sex, but he is not for the opposite situation, unless she takes it to absolutely malicious extremes. Furthermore, it is the husband’s duty to please the wife sexually.

<LI>One of the most important figures in Judaism is Ruth (a female convert no less), because she chose to remain with her Jewish mother in law when her husband died (the ultimate chick-flick plot there) and her line is the one that brought forth King David and therefore ultimately the Messiah who will redeem the world.

<LI>Esther saves the Jews from utter destruction in her own self-titled book, which spawned the holiday of Purim.

<LI>Yiddishkeit itself is transmitted through the mother’s side and not through the father, making the whole religion rather matriarchal at its heart, and I don’t know if you’ve heard, but the exploits of the Jewish mother are pretty famous.

<LI>Perhaps most tellingly of all, God itself is referred to in both the male and female forms throughout the Tanakh.</UL>

Now one of the most frequently misunderstood regulations regarding women is that of ritual impurity during menstruation. Here’s (http://tinyurl.com/bn6u6) an article on the subject that I hope will clear up any misconceptions. As for the other rules with regards to how men and women relate, you’ll notice that they’re all meant to control the men. Men aren’t allowed to hear women singing by themselves by some opinions. This is because men are thought to be aroused by the voice of a woman in song. Men and women must be segregated when they pray by a Mechitzah, that’s again to keep the wandering eyes of the men in place so that they can concentrate on praying. For anybody who’s ever had to rely on the Hallakhic advice of a Rebbetzyn, there can be no doubt of the involvement of women in Jewish life. At any rate, this is starting to get rather long and I’m noticing other points in this thread I want to discuss, so I’ll just mark this down as a first blush answer to your question.

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't see this in your post. Would those be the attitudes of the Orthodox Jews(I don't know if Kabbalah is orthodox)?

Thank you very much for answering my question though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Women and the Bible

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

Firstly a caveat: I am by no means an expert on the definiton of OT laws . There are board members who know far more about this than i do, so my exegesis will need to be treated with some caution.

That said, it is my understanding that from a biblical view a girl is the property of her father (or by extension the tribe) until she marries and then becomes the property of her husband.

There are a myriad of verses to support this contention and i shall refrain from writing them all out a la Digi. Those who are interested can look the references up and those who aren't won't have read even this far.

Exodus 21:17 here a wife is listed under the property of her husband.

Deut. 22 gives us clear indications of status of women and girls. note especially the rape laws . compensation is paid not to the woman as we today might expect but to her father to compensate his loss.

The crime itself is described as 'violating his neighbour's wife' and nothing akin to the modern idea of a crime against the woman herself, but is compared to an attack on the neighbour himself.

Now we come to the story of Abraham/sarai. I'll spare the long winded details but basically Ol Abe had total control of his wife's body, He commanded her to commit adultery. Something i doubt even the most old fashioned of christian husbands would feel they had a right to do.

Does god punish Abraham for this? No, infact the reverse and later in the NT Christian wives are exhorted to be as obedient as once sarah was!!

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

unfortuantely i have to go out now. If anyone is interested i will write more later or if not i will just stfu!

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Plagiarism is the purposeful omission of a citation with the intent of claiming credit for another's work. You and I know she didn't omit it purposefully with the intention of claiming credit for someone else's work. It is completely obvious from the context of the entire page, with every other source cited properly, that the omission was accidental. Your point is petty and merely an attempt to discredit her. This is a message board, not a doctoral dissertation.



Sephiroth, let's look at the facts.

- You have DS not posting a source, or using quotation marks on an article.

- You have me then saying "You forgot to cite your sources DS"

- You have her claiming that she didn't forget any source, just the bible. You also have her insulting me in that very post.



So with those facts, we have you automatically (magically) knowing why I posted in this thread, while at the same time knowing that she wasn't purposely plagiarizing. How in the world do you know this? You don't.

Now, you may say that you're basing your claim that she wasn't doing this on purpose on the fact that she cited everything else. A very reasonable position.

But at the same time, you fail miserably at using this reasoning when it comes to me.

If my purpose, according to you, is to "discredit someone I don't like" then why in the world would I have let it open for her to easily excuse the lack of that one source? She could have easily said "Ahh yes, here it is, my mistake". Not only that, but I also erroneously used the plural form which leaves it open for her to completely ridicule me, if she so wished. Is that my master plan? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I could have easily said: "DS you're a lying, plagiarizing piece of shit! Blahbity blah blah blah" and I would have not only discredited her, but also not let her any chance to excuse her mistake, and also not any chance for me to make the mistake in plurality I did. I would have been completely correct.

The fact that I didn't do so, and didn't even accuse her of anything in the beginning, should say volumes of my true intentions. But you ignore this.

You're being completely biased and unreasonable if you conclude this was done on purpose to discredit her. The fact is I made a statement in which she could have easily, easily, admitted to the error, and moved on, but she chose to not only claim the opposite, but also to insult me.

And I'm somehow the bad guy?

quote:Calm down. I was talking to her on aim just as she was reading over the topic checking her sources. That's how I know what she was doing.

...

Not only virtuous, but prophetic...also the short time elapsing between her posting the original and her noticing her error and deleting it indicates you must have been practically refreshing the screen on baited breath.



What short time? The only thing I know is that I posted a reply, refreshed the page about two times, and her post was still there. Then it disappears. I find it hard to believe that she didn't notice my reply.

Moreover, it still remains dishonest, because she could have posted another reply, saying that she did forget a source, and that it was an error. Nothing she did necessitated her deleting the reply. NOTHING.

quote:So you admit your original point was absolutely worthless. What was your aim in this then, beyond your trying to set a trap for her?



How was it worthless? It was me stating that she forgot a source. If you find that worthless, then that is evidently your bias, not mine.

The fact remains that NOTHING I said precipitated this melodramatic bullshit. It was SHE who insulted me after I only had stated that she forgot to cite her sources.

How you can find me guilty for pointing a fact out, but not her guilty for insulting me is beyond logic.

quote:As the person who recommended you both to the administration, I feel obligated to mediate this dispute, because frankly it's not good for the site now that both of you are on the staff. I have seen you be quite vicious with her in a way you haven't been with other users on the site and quite frankly it surprises me. So just play nice.

Must I remind you that SHE insulted me, not the other way around? So who the fuck needs to play nice? Me or her? Me, the one who stated a simple fact, without ever accusing her of plagiarizing in the first place, or her, who insulted me after having posted a fact?

My dislike of her is not going to affect the administration, or at least I feel that it wont. If you or the administration feel that it would cause problems, then feel completely free to tell me so, and I will kindly leave.

I rather retain my posting rights than being punished for stating a fact, and getting insulted.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Rust, since I listed all my other sources, don't you think you could cut me a break and just ASSUME, for once, that I didn't do it on purpose ?

You just LIVE to try and make me look stupid (which is pathetic)...but hey, I never said I don't make mistakes. I am sorry I didn't post it, but it wasn't intentional.

That doesn't make me a liar, nor a plagiarist. As I said, I posted all the other links.

How did I assume anything? I said you forgot your sources, nothing else. I never, NOT ONCE before you replied, said that you had plagiarized. I said you forgot your sources.

Do not blame your subsequent lying and insults on me. If you then proceed to claim that you didn't miss anything, then what am I supposed to do? Be fine an dandy? No. I will point out that you DID miss something. If the way I pointed it out was not of your liking, then maybe you should have not insulted me in the first place... just maybe...

quote:It is interesting that instead of actually trying to debate me on the topic, you choose to hone in on me personally. Nobody comes out of this looking like a creep but YOU.

Now, to address your assertions that "Those are not the words of the bible, but the words of the man who created that article." and "NONE of that is the bible; it is a summary made by the man or woman who created that article."

I am going to pick several random numbers from the list, and post the scriptures that accompany them, to illustrate that the summaries given ARE in fact accurate, and that you have once again proven that you don't read the Bible, and therefore shouldn't try to pretend like you know anything about it.

Is this not evidence of your dishonest tactics? I'm saying that the LITERAL WORDS are not of the bible, not that the summaries are wrong.

I said this because you claimed that the only sourced you missed was the bible, so I'm pointing out that those words, the ones that make up the summary, are not from the bible, but come from a man or woman who created the article. Thus you did forget a source other than the bible.

This is you just trying to twist what I said when in fact I never claimed the summary was wrong.

quote:2. Did you try to discredit the author's summaries, without even referencing the Bible verses to make sure the summaries were inaccurate, thus making your accusation completely worthless, at best ? Yes.

WRONG. See above. I never said the summary was incorrect, only that the summary itself is not the bible (i.e. that the bible doesn't contain those exact words, so it was not created by the authors of the bible but another man), so you did forget a source other than the bible.

I said this because you claimed that the only source you forgot was the bible. That is not so. You forgot that article as well.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-15-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't see this in your post. Would those be the attitudes of the Orthodox Jews(I don't know if Kabbalah is orthodox)?

Thank you very much for answering my question though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)Yes, those are the general attitudes of Haredi (Religious) Jews. They call us "Ultra-Orthodox"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

While Kabbalah has recently become more popular among the secular crowd, due to Madonna and the Kabbalah Centre, its origins are in the extreme of Jewish religiosity. For those of us who hold our alleigiance to the Hassidic Dynasties, Kabbalah is an eventuality of our learning process, because the founder of the Hassidic movement, the Baal Shem Tov, was a Torah sage and Kabbalist of literally mythic proportions.

In the interests of full disclosure, I will explain what part of the spectrum I'm coming from. My journey towards greater religiosity began in the Chabad Lubavitch movement. Chabad was founded by the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liladi, a student of the Baal Shem Tov. His seminal work in Jewish theology, Tanya, represents his perspective on the mystic aspects of Torah learning (stemming from Kabbalah) and forms the spiritual constitution of the movement. After the movement was nearly destroyed in the Holocaust, a new leader emerged in the personage of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson who became the Seventh and Final Rebbe of the Chabad movement. His principle goal was outreach to secular Jews, so that greater observance in the modern era would lead to the final redemption with the coming of the long-awaited Messiah. It was through a Rabbi of the Chabad movement that I discovered where I belonged in Judaism and learned the vast majority of what I talk about on this board. I take no pride in that, as I am far behind where I should be and can only be viewed as a beginner in this, but that's where I'm coming from. You can learn more about the Chabad movement from their website... http://Chabad.org or the various other websites they run in the interests of Jewish outreach such as http://askmoses.com. As sundown is rapidly approaching here, I am going to have to log off the internet, but I'll be back on sunday to answer any additional questions. Thanks for your interest.

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

Women and the Bible

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

Firstly a caveat: I am by no means an expert on the definiton of OT laws . There are board members who know far more about this than i do, so my exegesis will need to be treated with some caution.

That said, it is my understanding that from a biblical view a girl is the property of her father (or by extension the tribe) until she marries and then becomes the property of her husband.

There are a myriad of verses to support this contention and i shall refrain from writing them all out a la Digi. Those who are interested can look the references up and those who aren't won't have read even this far.

Exodus 21:17 here a wife is listed under the property of her husband.

Deut. 22 gives us clear indications of status of women and girls. note especially the rape laws . compensation is paid not to the woman as we today might expect but to her father to compensate his loss.

The crime itself is described as 'violating his neighbour's wife' and nothing akin to the modern idea of a crime against the woman herself, but is compared to an attack on the neighbour himself.

Now we come to the story of Abraham/sarai. I'll spare the long winded details but basically Ol Abe had total control of his wife's body, He commanded her to commit adultery. Something i doubt even the most old fashioned of christian husbands would feel they had a right to do.

Does god punish Abraham for this? No, infact the reverse and later in the NT Christian wives are exhorted to be as obedient as once sarah was!!

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

unfortuantely i have to go out now. If anyone is interested i will write more later or if not i will just stfu!

That is more along the lines of what I'm looking for. Anything else you have would be greatly appreciated by me.

quote:Originally posted by Sephiroth:

Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Pardon my ignorance, but I didn't see this in your post. Would those be the attitudes of the Orthodox Jews(I don't know if Kabbalah is orthodox)?

Thank you very much for answering my question though. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)Yes, those are the general attitudes of Haredi (Religious) Jews. They call us "Ultra-Orthodox"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

While Kabbalah has recently become more popular among the secular crowd, due to Madonna and the Kabbalah Centre, its origins are in the extreme of Jewish religiosity. For those of us who hold our alleigiance to the Hassidic Dynasties, Kabbalah is an eventuality of our learning process, because the founder of the Hassidic movement, the Baal Shem Tov, was a Torah sage and Kabbalist of literally mythic proportions.

In the interests of full disclosure, I will explain what part of the spectrum I'm coming from. My journey towards greater religiosity began in the Chabad Lubavitch movement. Chabad was founded by the Alter Rebbe, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liladi, a student of the Baal Shem Tov. His seminal work in Jewish theology, Tanya, represents his perspective on the mystic aspects of Torah learning (stemming from Kabbalah) and forms the spiritual constitution of the movement. After the movement was nearly destroyed in the Holocaust, a new leader emerged in the personage of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson who became the Seventh and Final Rebbe of the Chabad movement. His principle goal was outreach to secular Jews, so that greater observance in the modern era would lead to the final redemption with the coming of the long-awaited Messiah. It was through a Rabbi of the Chabad movement that I discovered where I belonged in Judaism and learned the vast majority of what I talk about on this board. I take no pride in that, as I am far behind where I should be and can only be viewed as a beginner in this, but that's where I'm coming from. You can learn more about the Chabad movement from their website... http://Chabad.org or the various other websites they run in the interests of Jewish outreach such as http://askmoses.com. As sundown is rapidly approaching here, I am going to have to log off the internet, but I'll be back on sunday to answer any additional questions. Thanks for your interest.

I always get confused when I start to hear the different branches and types of judaism, so your explanation was appreciated a lot.

I think you've pretty much covered all my questions about Judaism and women. If I think of any more I'll post them.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here's an example...

In the link I provided above, the story of the concubine in Judges 19:16-30 describes a woman that was brutally raped and murdered because she was offered as an appeasement gift.

This shows that the woman had little to no value to the man that gave her over to her captors.

If you only read these verses, you get the feeling that women are merely possessions to be given away, and nothing more.

However, when you continue to read on into Judges chapter 2, you see thousands of men come together to avenge her death. They go to war with the Benjamites over this ONE LITTLE WOMAN.



This just proves women were property. Big war fought over one woman? Helen of Troy. She was property too.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That still doesn't really tell me what the bible's official stance on the role of women is.

*blinks*

You can't be serious...

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

Could you please stop hating catholicism? I don't think it is asking much for you to NOT hate the world's largest religion, is it? Protestants have been known to be just as bad. Look at the south. Church organized lynchings and bombings of other churches. But really, you have to stop hating Catholics. I didn't mind it at first, but now it's just becoming cumbersome.

Anyways, no I got it from reading the bible.

Edit: Anyways, I was taught by nuns for half of my Catholic education. Smart, nice nuns. The principal at my school was female(also not a nun). The rest of my teachers in my Catholic school have been mostly female. It also isn't very smart of you to base the Church's stance on women on one quote from a saint, especially considering that the saint in question's philosophy isn't the majority philosophy in the Catholic Church(St. Thomas has those honors). Really, I would expect a little better from you(but not much).

*laughs*

Actually, that comment didn't have anything to do with my disdain for their idolatry and pride.

I really was curious.

If your perception of women comes from the Bible, then you aren't reading it right, as I illustrated in the MANY scriptures I posted showing that women are NOT inferior, rather exist to fill the subservient role. BIG DIFFERENCE.

That ONE quote I gave wasn't the only one. Would you like all of the others ? Catholic men of the past haven't been very nice to women, to say it lightly.

If THEIR mindset if YOUR mindset, putting two and two together isn't a stretch.

I wasn't insinuating ANYTHING by asking. I gave the quote as a reference to show that it is possible that you have been brainwashed by like-minded people to St. Augustine.

I don't hate Catholics. I detest CATHOLICISM. I feel bad for Catholics.

It wasn't very smart of you to assume that I based my opinion of the Church's bias towards women on just ONE man's opinion. Pfft.

I don't really care what you expect of me, but you got a hell of a lot more out of me on this thread than you did from anyone else.

I guess I'll just ignore your questions in the future, since you can't seem to understand my answers.

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

That is more along the lines of what I'm looking for. Anything else you have would be greatly appreciated by me.

Oh, I see.

You didn't want the WHOLE truth, just the truth that justifies bigotry towards women ?

Just what are you trying to achieve ? I mean, why did you post this thread ?

And why should Jack do all the work for you, or ME for that matter ?

Open a Bible. It won't kill you.

Your posts were actually long winded and devoid of any explanation. You list verses. That is it. That is what you do. Jakketch's post answered my question much better than you tried to do.

Your arrogance is something that I detest. Really, for a supposedly humble and meek christion(I'm assuming you try to emulate the beatitudes), you're very condescending(to the point where I'm tempted to call you a bitch).

Do you regularly converse with many non-christians?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Oh, I see.

You didn't want the WHOLE truth, just the truth that justifies bigotry towards women ?

Just what are you trying to achieve ? I mean, why did you post this thread ?

And why should Jack do all the work for you, or ME for that matter ?

Open a Bible. It won't kill you.

No, it's just that he actually answered my question, which you couldn't/didn't do.

quote:Originally posted by Fanglekai:

This just proves women were property. Big war fought over one woman? Helen of Troy. She was property too.

Again, CULTURAL.

God didn't command this man to give his concubine over to a band of raping lunatics.

And it is clear that his punishment fit the crime, since Israel was up in arms about it.

This still is not a commandment of God.

quote:You didn't want the WHOLE truth, just the truth that justifies bigotry towards women ?

hmm, perhaps before i write anything more on my interpretation of the bible in this question i should state my own beliefs.

i believe women are in NO way inferior to men. i have however noticed over the years that women are different....and i don't just mean the content of their knickers.

i believe that the job of women is to learn obedience ,as the job of men is to learn to lead.

If you read the story of adam and eve you will see that adam's sin was listening to his wife and hers was thinking she knew better than god.

i believe wives are given to their husbands as property but that in no way means that they are inferior.

I should poitn out that the bible was the first (that i know of) ancient codex that really gave women legal rights.

In most other cultures at that point a husband could for example kill his wife on a whim ...or throw her out to starve etc.

*edit. for christians, of course, learning to lead is infact learniing to obey and serve!

[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-16-2005).]

quote:How did I assume anything? I said you forgot your sources, nothing else. I never, NOT ONCE before you replied, said that you had plagiarized. I said you forgot your sources.

Here we go with the hairsplitting again. As predicted, the thread is officially hijacked. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Do not blame your subsequent lying and insults on me. If you then proceed to claim that you didn't miss anything, then what am I supposed to do? Be fine an dandy? No. I will point out that you DID miss something. If the way I pointed it out was not of your liking, then maybe you should have not insulted me in the first place... just maybe...

Prove that I lied. As illustrated in Seph's cut and paste job of our convo, I didn't know I HAD forgotten anything. I looked my posts over, and didn't see anything missing. That's why I posted that I HADN'T.

Shortly thereafter, I discovered that I had. So, I removed that post, because I was mistaken. So, I'll just bold this so you can get your rocks off, and leave me alone: YOU WERE RIGHT.

We are always insulting to each other. What else is new ? Are you the only one that gets to be insulting ? How very chivalrous of you.

You would have been a jerk in pointing it out whether or not I had insulted you. My mere presence seems to insult you, so don't try to blame the motives of your Christian-bashing on me.

quote:Is this not evidence of your dishonest tactics?

Staff chose wisely in appointing you as mod of Conspiracy !

Well done, guys.

quote:I'm saying that the LITERAL WORDS are not of the bible, not that the summaries are wrong.

Even if that was your ONLY point, so what ?!

It wasn't, which is obvious, because you would never post something so trivial. You had an ulterior motive, and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

Your track record is consistent - try to make people look stupid.

If you already know what source I didn't cite, you could have just posted it, and saved us all the drama.

As Seph said, you were trying to set a trap for me. Again, this is pathetic.

quote:I said this because you claimed that the only sourced you missed was the bible, so I'm pointing out that those words, the ones that make up the summary, are not from the bible, but come from a man or woman who created the article. Thus you did forget a source other than the bible.

And I had already figured it out before you detailed it. My post comes after yours, but only because I was typing it up, and not because I needed you to remind me.

Again, this only further shows how weird it is that you lie in wait for me to screw up. Especially since I don't think anyone else cares that I didn't cite that ONE source.

quote:This is you just trying to twist what I said when in fact I never claimed the summary was wrong.

Again, if all you were trying to do was point out something I had forgotten, what's the point ?

You wanted to make an issue of it. It would be too assanine and worthless for you to point something so miniscule out, and you wouldn't have done so (if only for the sake of pointing it out), based on what I know of you.

This leads me, and apparently others, to assume you had an ulterior motive.

quote:WRONG. See above. I never said the summary was incorrect, only that the summary itself is not the bible (i.e. that the bible doesn't contain those exact words, so it was not created by the authors of the bible but another man), so you did forget a source other than the bible.

I said this because you claimed that the only source you forgot was the bible. That is not so. You forgot that article as well.

You're right. You never said the summaries were wrong, only that they were summaries.

SO WHAT ??!

You proved I forgot a source. Bravo.

*starts a slow clap*

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-16-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

No, it's just that he actually answered my question, which you couldn't/didn't do.

Actually, I did.

That you didn't get the answer you wanted is another issue, and one you bear sole responsibility for.

I showed you what a woman's role is, in MANY of the verses I posted. Subservient. That's the woman's role.

Her role is ALSO to teach other women and children.

Her role is ALSO to pray and provide counsel to her husband.

All the scriptures I posted illustrated this.

The fact that YOU couldn't derive the obvious answer from the scriptures is no fault of mine.

quote:You're being completely biased and unreasonable if you conclude this was done on purpose to discredit her.

Hmm...where might we get THAT idea ?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Actually, I did.

That you didn't get the answer you wanted is another issue, and one you bear sole responsibility for.

I showed you what a woman's role is, in MANY of the verses I posted. Subservient. That's the woman's role.

Her role is ALSO to teach other women and children.

Her role is ALSO to pray and provide counsel to her husband.

All the scriptures I posted illustrated this.

The fact that YOU couldn't derive the obvious answer from the scriptures is no fault of mine.

You never gave me a concrete answer. You post a long list of verses that have different attitudes towards women. You claim that the OT shouldn't be thought of because it concists of Jewish cultural laws and because they're only case specific and are not general commandments. You also make remarks like these:

quote:Here are some verses that show an equality in value to men

&

quote:I am to be subservient to my husband. He is the head of my house. He makes all the decisions, both physical and spiritual, and I am to honor his decisions.

What the fuck! How am I supposed to get an answer out of this? It seems to me that you're just casting away anything in the bible that hurts your position as cultural and a sign of their times, while proclaiming the things that do help your position as God's true word, instead of being the "laws of men".

Also, I can'd believe the gall you possess to say that one must interpret the laws in the bible, but you can't interpret the creation story.

It makes NO sense. You either interpret it all, or you take it all at face value. You can't switch between the two based on your convenience.

quote:You never gave me a concrete answer. You post a long list of verses that have different attitudes towards women. You claim that the OT shouldn't be thought of because it concists of Jewish cultural laws and because they're only case specific and are not general commandments.

I gave you concrete answers, in the form of scriptures. That you don't seem to have the fortitude to gain the answer that you are seeking form them is, again, not my problem.

I NEVER said the OT shouldn't be considered ! I said that you have to look at each scripture, and determine if the effect on women was due to culture, or God.

As far as I know, there AREN'T any "general" commandments specifically for women. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any that I can remember.

I am sorry I didn't paraphrase it to your liking, but I am of the opinion that if you want to know what the Bible says on any given issue, you must go to the source. THAT WOULD BE SCRIPTURE, which is what I gave you.

You have a brain, so I figured you could derive the same understanding of women and their roles that I did from the verses I provided.

quote:You also make remarks like these:

"Here are some verses that show an equality in value to men..."

and

"I am to be subservient to my husband. He is the head of my house. He makes all the decisions, both physical and spiritual, and I am to honor his decisions."

What the fuck! How am I supposed to get an answer out of this? It seems to me that you're just casting away anything in the bible that hurts your position as cultural and a sign of their times, while proclaiming the things that do help your position as God's true word, instead of being the "laws of men".

Also, I can'd believe the gall you possess to say that one must interpret the laws in the bible, but you can't interpret the creation story.

It makes NO sense. You either interpret it all, or you take it all at face value. You can't switch between the two based on your convenience.

I suggest you employ the use of a dictionary, because you seem to think the word "subservient" and "inferior" mean the same thing. That is the ONLY issue I see with your inability to understand what I was trying to say.

I AM subservient to my husband. That doesn't make me inferior. Does that make sense ?

I don't have to cast away anything from the Bible, because God is NOT sexist. Jews were sexist. Big surprise ! Who knew MEN could be scumbags ?

Equality in WORTH is not the same as equality in POSITIONAL AUTHORITY. Men have positional authority. The Bible makes that clear. The woman's positional role is that of subservience. The man's positional role is that of leader. All the verses I gave show this, as did my opinion of them. I WAS VERY CLEAR.

The Creation account doesn't change our salvation (so it matters very little what opinion we have of it, though if you are of the opinion that God's word is true, cover to cover, you should probably know what "true" means). Commandments and laws were given to show us that we are sinners, so that we could be ready to accept Christ's salvation when he came. Because of the vast differences between Judaism and Christianity (Christ, mainly), the 613 commandments given to the Jews in the OT do not necessarily apply to Christians, post Christ's death. That is another subject altogether, and I suggest if you want to learn more about it, you create a new thread.

All this boils down to is that you don't understand the Bible, which is fine. Don't try and turn it around on me, as if I don't. I have reasons for my positions on the Bible, and they are not only valid, but time tested. I still have much to learn, but what I do know is pretty solid, verified by many scholars of the Word.

I take everything in the Bible at face value. If Jewish men persecuted their women by treating them like property [by handing them over to be raped, sodomized, or murdered] (I can give you MANY OT stories that show men that DIDN'T treat their women as property, but you'll just accuse me of twisting God's word to support my opinion), the question should actually be, "Is this what God commanded or wanted ?"

The answer, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is NO.

It doesn't get any more clear than this.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Here we go with the hairsplitting again. As predicted, the thread is officially hijacked.

What a fucking surprise. It's "hair-splitting" when it shows you to be wrong... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The fact is, no matter how much you don't want it to be a fact, that I DID NOT CLAIM THAT YOU PLAGIARIZED BEFORE YOU STATED THAT YOU HAD NOT FORGOTTEN YOUR SOURCE.

That's a fact.



And yes. It WAS hijacked. By you.

quote:Prove that I lied. As illustrated in Seph's cut and paste job of our convo, I didn't know I HAD forgotten anything. I looked my posts over, and didn't see anything missing. That's why I posted that I HADN'T.

Shortly thereafter, I discovered that I had. So, I removed that post, because I was mistaken. So, I'll just bold this so you can get your rocks off, and leave me alone: YOU WERE RIGHT.

I'm not omniscient. As such, I have to assume. I will do the logical thing and base myself on the evidence. I said that you forgot your sources, and you denied it.

quote:

We are always insulting to each other. What else is new ? Are you the only one that gets to be insulting ? How very chivalrous of you.

You would have been a jerk in pointing it out whether or not I had insulted you. My mere presence seems to insult you, so don't try to blame the motives of your Christian-bashing on me.

More self-martyrdom. I'm debating Sephiroth's implication that I need to play nice. I wasn't the one who started the insults, so I DON'T have to play nice, YOU do.

quote:Staff chose wisely in appointing you as mod of Conspiracy !

Well done, guys.

Pathetic.

quote:Even if that was your ONLY point, so what ?!

It wasn't, which is obvious, because you would never post something so trivial. You had an ulterior motive, and you aren't going to fool anyone into thinking otherwise.

Your track record is consistent - try to make people look stupid.

If you already know what source I didn't cite, you could have just posted it, and saved us all the drama.

As Seph said, you were trying to set a trap for me. Again, this is pathetic.

Fucking hilarious that you have the gall to say this after you imply that I am a conspiracy theorist! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

I already explained why I posted it, I suggest you learn to read. I'll quote it again:

"I said this because you claimed that the only sourced you missed was the bible, so I'm pointing out that those words, the ones that make up the summary, are not from the bible, but come from a man or woman who created the article. Thus you did forget a source other than the bible."

quote:And I had already figured it out before you detailed it. My post comes after yours, but only because I was typing it up, and not because I needed you to remind me.

Again, this only further shows how weird it is that you lie in wait for me to screw up. Especially since I don't think anyone else cares that I didn't cite that ONE source.

You took 2 hours to type your reply? Because my post was done at 5, your reply, the one you're claiming you were typing up before even having read what I said because you had "figured it out", was posted at 7.

So either you're the slowest typer in the world, or a the biggest liar in the world. Which one is it?

quote:Again, if all you were trying to do was point out something I had forgotten, what's the point ?

You wanted to make an issue of it. It would be too assanine and worthless for you to point something so miniscule out, and you wouldn't have done so (if only for the sake of pointing it out), based on what I know of you.

This leads me, and apparently others, to assume you had an ulterior motive.

You already answered it. My point is to point out that you missed a source.

We've had this discussion, the one about you failing to cite sources, numerous times before. Why? Because you've failed to cite sources, numerous times before! And I have not been the only person to notice this.

That was my point in making the post.

quote:

You're right. You never said the summaries were wrong, only that they were summaries.

SO WHAT ??!

You proved I forgot a source. Bravo.

*starts a slow clap*



Who the fuck said my post was of the utmost importance? Nobody. Like I already said IT WASN'T A BIG DEAL. YOU turned it into one by making these idiotic accusations, by insulting me, and by lying.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Equality in WORTH is not the same as equality in POSITIONAL AUTHORITY. Men have positional authority. The Bible makes that clear. The woman's positional role is that of subservience. The man's positional role is that of leader. All the verses I gave show this, as did my opinion of them. I WAS VERY CLEAR.

Well it can be disputed that they're not equal in worth either. I think it's VERY CLEAR that women are to be treated as property, which would mean that men and women are NOT equal in worth.

quote:I take everything in the Bible at face value. If Jewish men persecuted their women by treating them like property [by handing them over to be raped, sodomized, or murdered] (I can give you MANY OT stories that show men that DIDN'T treat their women as property, but you'll just accuse me of twisting God's word to support my opinion), the question should actually be, "Is this what God commanded or wanted ?"

Well if there are verses that both support and dispute that women are property, then it's contradictory.

quote:As far as I know, there AREN'T any "general" commandments specifically for women. I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any that I can remember.

You could have posted this in the beginning to avoid all this, but instead you had to post a thesis on the matter that was just pointless.

Jesus Christ you're frustrating.

quote:Posted by Rust:

You took 2 hours to type your reply? Because my post was done at 5, your reply, the one you're claiming you were typing up before even having read what I said because you had "figured it out", was posted at 7.

Yup. It took me 2 hours. We have had this discussion before - I have a family. SOMETIMES (oh, the horrors !) they actually need me.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 07-17-2005).]

You said that you were "typing it up". Technically, you were "taking care of the family".

In any case, fine. That's another alternative.

Now go reply to everything else.

Oh, and if I may, I'd like to apply your amazing rhetorical skills to this argument:

We have had this discussion before - You forgot a source. SOMETIMES (oh, the horrors !) a post pointing out that you didn't source something, is just a that, pointing out that you didn't source something.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 07-17-2005).]

god is overrated

quote:Originally posted by annihiliator_115:

god is overrated

Man, can somebody please close this bitch-fest?

I dont mind woman being equal... It sjust when they starting thinking there better.