Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

Left out rights topic

The Bible per se is not about human rights. Only God has the means to bestow rights via kings, holy "men", and wars. If anything, it is the Bible that should shake people out of their doldrums, and enable them to see the light. and what is wrong with the way things are, and provide an impetus to change. This is sort of a manifesto in reverse.

The interpretation of the Bible by humans is where the rights come in to it.

I think you'd have more of a case arguing regarding Hitler and why God didn't stop him. God isn't going to act as everyone's babysitter, it isn't his job.

But as per whether or not God wanted human sacrifice,

For the particular rights, voting, property, inclusion in government, working, being a witness in court. There is nothing that I remember from reading that would go against women having such rights. There was even an instance where God had told Moses to give property rights to women in a case of inheritance if I remember correctly. In the writings of Paul, he had said that in Christ "there is no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, master nor servant" or something like that to the effect that all are equal in Christ and in many other places God has had it said that he is "no respecter of persons" so as to respect one more highly than the other. For these rights in particular, at the least, I think there is nothing against them in the Bible.

The bible is against many things, including itself. I would not worry that much about a random book.

It was the OP's question for a research project, so, even if it were against itself, its contents are relevant to this thread at the least.

Tuesdays. Sometimes Fridays.

Have to clarify this - nowhere in the Bible do Jewish wives have the power to divorce their husbands. (Egyptian wives did, but they're not under discussion here.)

'Send her away' meant a man giving his wife the written divorce document known as a get in Hebrew. It's outlined in Deuteronomy 24:1. It was intended for cases where the man found any 'uncleanness' in her (which could be a variety of actual diseases, including but not limited to STDs, or just the fact that she wasn't after all a virgin), but by Jesus' day, it was being used to allow men to divorce their wives for all kinds of other, often very trivial reasons; this is the background to his saying that a man who gives his wife a get is forcing her to commit adultery (if she remarried, which purely for economic survival reasons she'd have to). But even then, it was solely the man's decision to end the marriage, as it remains in orthodox Judaism today. I was watching a TV program recently about women in Israel whose husbands desert them, but out of spite refuse them a get so they can't legally remarry; there are rabbis who devote much of their time to helping these women by trying to find loopholes in the Talmud.

In OT times, a woman's only option if her spouse treated her badly would have been to run away. But if she found refuge with another man, that would have been seen as adultery, and presumably she'd be stoned to death if the husband caught up with her.

First 2 pages of genesis lol.

But here are some more for proof:












Supposedly snails melt:
PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.





This suggests that the christian god ans Satan are one and the same:














Here's one about women:
And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above; if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.(Leviticus 27:1-7)

Not unreasonable to say that women deserve less rights, with jesus clarifying they deserve SOME rights:
Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

And a woman can't have multiple husbands.....

YOU TOO!! !! !! NO!! !! !! !! !! !!

Wait... do you mean Ruby Tuesdays and TGI Fridays?

Deutorenomy 24:1 can be understood so the man should let her go, if he doesn't like her, and she is free. The use of the word "ki" seems to me like "or" in English, the same way that Rabbi Akiva defines it by the way.

Marrying a second time isn't an adultery, unless you want to marry a priest. And anywas, she can always ask the Beth Din to let her divorce him, what was the standard ruling in that times (and probably changed over times) I don't know - but I'm sure that there's was at least one thing that could count as a good enough reason.

It's a problem with the Haredim mainly as far as I know. The rabbinical court's position is that it would make them in most cases by force, but they can't according to the law. They're only allowed to beat him until he agrees - according to the tradition, contrary to state laws, and they don't have the right to force him. However, they once sent a man to 5 years in prison after he signed the get... It's a big problem in general, because only religious ceremonies (or ones performed abroad, usually Cyprus) are considered as accepted, and even then if I'm not wrong it's up to the rabbinical court to "authorise" the get. Anyways, for most people it doesn't matter, usually the ones who use this horrible "privilege" are "ultra"-religious (more ultra-primitive to me). So the state has to either accept civil divorces, or to grant the Beth Din the right to charge the men (if they would choose to use it...).

As for "what would happen if" in the Biblical times, in case the court doesn't make the husband grant his wife the get by force, I'm pretty sure her family did "pressure" him as well... Don't forget that in stories about rape the rapists were usually killed by the victim's family rather than have her marry him. Oh, and there's also an option for prenuptal agreement - at least today.

These days? A man can't as well.


Actually it says pretty much literally that have to love thy neighbour and all that, never hurt anyone, and all that stuff. It even says you have to treat foreigners in your land peacefully and respectfully, and to love our foreigner neighbours as well, before reminding us that we were in a foreign land as well, in Egypt, according to the story.

If it had nothing to do with human rights, I think it wouldn't say that rape is like murder, and that you must not think about hurting the victim as well, because she suffered - not in those days, at least. I also don't think it would talk about significance of loving a woman you're married to - again, not in those days. Even today not all cultures pay importance to romantic affection and to the concept of love (that was emphasised a lot in the bible) as the Western society does now...

Ok, but why would he still be willing to be a party to a human sacrificing his daughter to him for a supposed transaction? I mean, the deal was simple "J: God if you give me victory, I will sacrifice the first thing I see. J: I have victory!! J: Oh no, I am going to sacrifice my daughter to God". I mean, seriously, this isn't babysitting, this is instructing people on proper behavior and stopping them from making a stupid and unnecessary decision. It doesn't reduce free will. It is relatively cost-free. There is no real reason to say that God wouldn't do this. Even if Jepthah was supposed to learn a lesson about stupid vows, what about his daughter? It's not her lesson.


This is only valid evidence if one holds to the notion that scripture cannot contradict.

Your scripture doesn't magically erase the one that I used:
Exo 22:29-30 "You shall not delay to offer from the fullness of your harvest and from the outflow of your presses. The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. (30) You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: seven days it shall be with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. "

Additionally, it isn't as if you can say that scripture CAN hold a hardline against all child sacrifices, as penal substitution theory and/or satisfaction theory both uphold the notion that God made a human sacrifice from his own son to himself. So... yeah. You also have to uphold the notion that Abraham bringing his son Isaac to be killed doesn't contradict God's essential nature, because otherwise Abraham would be pretty stupid for not thinking it a matter of the devil. And well.... I think a God who is even consistent with human sacrifice is morally offensive to most of us.

Fine, I didn't magically erase this one which has been quote-mined. The firstborn of each of these are to be redeemed with another offering. For the firstborn of those made in the image of God, a sacrifice in their place was required. For the firstborn of animals, those could be sacrificed themselves.

Doesn't it strike you as oddly savage that animals and virtual people would have to be killed to pacify a powerful supernatural ruler? How is this different from placating demons or malignant phantoms?

Well, that is a harmonization that doesn't exist around this passage.

The harmonization does exist in other Exodus passages.

Exo 13:13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.

Exo 34:19-20 All that open the womb are mine, all your male livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep. (20) The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. And none shall appear before me empty-handed.

However, the practice is quite pervasive throughout.

2Sa 21:3-9 And David said to the Gibeonites, "What shall I do for you? And how shall I make atonement, that you may bless the heritage of the LORD?" (4) The Gibeonites said to him, "It is not a matter of silver or gold between us and Saul or his house; neither is it for us to put any man to death in Israel." And he said, "What do you say that I shall do for you?" (5) They said to the king, "The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, (6) let seven of his sons be given to us, so that we may hang them before the LORD at Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the LORD." And the king said, "I will give them." (7) But the king spared Mephibosheth, the son of Saul's son Jonathan, because of the oath of the LORD that was between them, between David and Jonathan the son of Saul. (8) The king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bore to Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Merab the daughter of Saul, whom she bore to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite; (9) and he gave them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them on the mountain before the LORD, and the seven of them perished together. They were put to death in the first days of harvest, at the beginning of barley harvest.

Eze 20:25-26 Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life, (26) and I defiled them through their very gifts in their offering up all their firstborn, that I might devastate them. I did it that they might know that I am the LORD.

Mic 6:6-7 "With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? (7) Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?"


In any case, most Christians hold to the human sacrifice of Jesus. So, saying that God has no human sacrifices doesn't seem correct.