Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Page 11 of 15 [ 238 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

07 Mar 2010, 10:58 pm

pandabear wrote:

Here is an interesting speech given by someone who spent a year trying to follow everything in the Bible:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/a_j_j ... cally.html

This only continues to show that you believe Women are inferior and that Men have every right to treat their Wives harshly and/or dominate them in every way possible.

Why don't you show me one recorded instance where Jesus himself disgraces, reproaches, or stereotypes a Woman. From my understanding, Jesus had a high regard for Women.

_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

08 Mar 2010, 11:48 am

Quote:

How terrible it will be in that day for women who are pregnant and for mothers with little babies!

Remember: the prerequisite for being a disciple was that you had to have a penis.

Quote:

If a man divorces his wife even though she has not been unfaithful, he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.

It gives a woman whose husband divorces her no options other than complete abstention.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

08 Mar 2010, 9:36 pm

pandabear wrote:

Remember: the prerequisite for being a disciple was that you had to have a penis.

If by disciple, you mean one of the twelve, then yes, they were all men. And Jews. Who were alive around 30 AD. And were mostly fishermen. And spoke Aramaic and/or Greek. And most likely had several other things in common that are virtually meaningless.

There were several disciples who were specifically mentioned who were women.

Quote:

If a man divorces his wife even though she has not been unfaithful, he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.

It gives a woman whose husband divorces her no options other than complete abstention.

That gives the man who divorces her no options other than complete abstention, also. It's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' passage.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

08 Mar 2010, 11:07 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

Quote:

If a man divorces his wife even though she has not been unfaithful, he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.

It gives a woman whose husband divorces her no options other than complete abstention.

That gives the man who divorces her no options other than complete abstention, also. It's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' passage.

No, the man can marry again. If the woman marries again, then she is committing adultery, and so is the man whom she marries.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Mar 2010, 12:10 am

pandabear wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

Quote:

If a man divorces his wife even though she has not been unfaithful, he is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also.

It gives a woman whose husband divorces her no options other than complete abstention.

That gives the man who divorces her no options other than complete abstention, also. It's a 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander' passage.

No, the man can marry again. If the woman marries again, then she is committing adultery, and so is the man whom she marries.

The passage says "he is guilty of making her commit adultery." The man has, at the very least, caused another person to sin, which in itself is probably at least as bad as sinning himself. And if he remarries, then yes he also is committing adultery.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Mar 2010, 11:53 am

Orwell wrote:

And if he remarries, then yes he also is committing adultery.

Not unless the woman he marries is married to someone else, or is divorced also.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

09 Mar 2010, 8:40 pm

pandabear wrote:

Orwell wrote:

And if he remarries, then yes he also is committing adultery.

Not unless the woman he marries is married to someone else, or is divorced also.

Please explain where you get this from.

I think you may be taking things away from their context. I found 3 passages that more or less match what we're talking about, one each from Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The Luke one doesn't have any context, and the Matthew and Mark ones both have contexts that imply the opposite of what you suggest. Mark 10:11 (He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.") specifically says the opposite.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Mar 2010, 9:06 pm

Mark 10:11 is an interesting find, and goes against everything else that the Bible says about adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

Quote:

Adultery...originally referred more specifically to sex between a woman who was married and a person other than her spouse.

Quote:

The word adultery originates ... from the Late Latin word for "to alter, corrupt": adulterare.

Adulterare in turn is formed by the combination of ad ("towards"), and alter ("other"), together with the infinitive form are (making it a verb). Thus the meaning is literally "to make other". ..The application of the term to the act appears to arise from the idea that "criminal intercourse with a married woman ... tended to adulterate the issue [children] of an innocent husband ... and to expose him to support and provide for another man's [children]". Thus, the "purity" of the children of a marriage is corrupted, and the inheritance is altered. The law often uses the word "adulterate[d]" to describe contamination of food and the like.

Quote:

Minnesota law provides: "when a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery.

Quote:

Greco-Roman world
A similar rule applied in the old Roman Law. That is, in the Greco-Roman world there were stringent laws against adultery, but these applied to sexual intercourse with a married woman. In the early Roman Law the jus tori belonged to the husband. It was therefore not a crime against the wife for a husband to have sex with a slave or an unmarried woman.

It is well known that the Roman husband often took advantage of his legal immunity. Thus we are told by the historian Spartianus that Verus, the imperial colleague of Marcus Aurelius, did not hesitate to declare to his reproaching wife: "Uxor enim dignitatis nomen est, non voluptatis." ('Wife' connotes rank, not sexual pleasure, or more literally "Wife is the name of dignity, not bliss") (Verus, V)...

Quote:

We keep mistresses for our pleasures, concubines for constant attendance, and wives to bear us legitimate children and to be our faithful housekeepers. Yet, because of the wrong done to the husband only, the Athenian lawgiver Solon allowed any man to kill an adulterer whom he had taken in the act. (Plutarch, Solon)

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

09 Mar 2010, 9:46 pm

pandabear wrote:

Mark 10:11 is an interesting find, and goes against everything else that the Bible says about adultery.

No it doesn't.

What makes you think it does?

Also, you do realize that quoting the latin origin of the english word, roman law, and minnesota law are hardly persuasive when we're talking about what the bible has to say about it, right?

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

09 Mar 2010, 10:17 pm

King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines. When he chose to copulate with one of them, was he committing adultery against all 999 other wives and concubines?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Mar 2010, 10:33 am

pandabear wrote:

King Solomon had 300 wives and 700 concubines. When he chose to copulate with one of them, was he committing adultery against all 999 other wives and concubines?

In terms of the religious law of the time? No.

ruveyn

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Mar 2010, 10:48 am

Actually, this interpretation of things makes life a bit more constrained for women than the original.

The original commandment read: "Do not commit adultery," where adultery was defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.

In other words, adultery is specifically a property crime against the husband of the wife, and both the wife and the other man would be equally guilty. On the other hand, she would probably be free to have sexual relations with another woman--the Bible was always soft on Lesbians.

If one day I was unhappy with my wife because she burned my toast (my wife has never burned my toast, but just saying), then I could write a letter stating that I had divorced her, and send her on her way. She would then be free to have sexual relations with any man who was interested. I would no longer have any interest in the matter. She could marry someone else, become someone's concubine, or prostitute herself, and it wouldn't affect me in the slightest. There would be no sin against me, as she was no longer my property.

But now, under Jesus' system, if she marries someone else (or has other sexual relations with another male), then she is still committing adultery against me. This would put a major hurdle in the way of any other man who might otherwise be interested in wooing her (as a wife or concubine) or in hiring her as a prostitute. Under all circumstances, she and the other man would both be guilty of adultery, and both would have to be stoned to death. Even though I really didn't care any more.

If she wanted to marry again, or to have sexual relations with another man, then she would have to wait until I was dead, which would give me a powerful incentive to increase my contingent of body guards.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

10 Mar 2010, 8:00 pm

pandabear wrote:

where adultery was defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.

Where does this definition come from?

You seem to build most of your argument on the assumption that this is an accurate definition. Why do you think it is the right one?

Quote:

In other words, adultery is specifically a property crime

You don't show why you think this is the case.

Quote:

But now, under Jesus' system,

Jesus did not establish a new legal system.

Quote:

Under all circumstances, she and the other man would both be guilty of adultery, and both would have to be stoned to death.

This scenario would have occured under Roman law, which did not allow the local authorities to execute anyone.

And again, Jesus did not establish a new legal system.

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

10 Mar 2010, 8:17 pm

Ancalagon wrote:

pandabear wrote:

where adultery was defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.

Where does this definition come from?

You seem to build most of your argument on the assumption that this is an accurate definition. Why do you think it is the right one?

Oh, for Heaven's sake. Just look it up! I'm not the one who created the definition.

Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

11 Mar 2010, 12:26 am

pandabear wrote:

Ancalagon wrote:

pandabear wrote:

where adultery was defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife.

Where does this definition come from?

You seem to build most of your argument on the assumption that this is an accurate definition. Why do you think it is the right one?

Oh, for Heaven's sake. Just look it up! I'm not the one who created the definition.

It's your idea, defend it, or don't.

I've never seen adultery defined in a one-way only fashion like this before.

In any case, where do you recommend I look it up? In a modern dictionary of English, a language which did not exist when the Bible was written?

_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Mar 2010, 10:06 am

LiberalJustice wrote:

Are women's rights (such as the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to be part of government, the right to work, and the right to testify in court) against the Bible in some way? This is just a random question, I had to ask because I've been doing research on what the Bible says on this topic (I am a supporter of Women's rights, by the way), and I felt like I should get your thoughts on it as well.

The bible said nothing about voting. Women were allowed to inherit property under Jewish law if they had no living male relatives. If you read Prov 31:10 you will see that women were expected to be business managers of their households. It was up to them to make sure the household was provisioned. They were not relegated to be baby breeding machines and just that.

ruveyn

Page 11 of 15 [ 238 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 Next

Jump to:

Are Women's Rights Against The Bible? Post Reply New Topic

Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?