Are Women's Rights Against The Bible?

Post Reply New Topic

think he was being sarcastic,because the bible says that.

Bingo.

the quote you posted does not really contradict my conclusions a husband can be considered to 'love' his wife and still force her not to vote or disallow her to vote. Your quote does imply that women are not entitled to think by themselves.

Even if your quote contradicted mine , it would just show that bible contradict itself.

Do you really think that God would tell husbands to love their wives if he viewed Women as pieces of property? I don't. Women have rights to their own opinions as well, and a husband does not "own" his wife as you claim, you can't own a human being without there being issues. Women are citizens of this country as much as Men, and should be treated as such under the law. God values both sexes equally, Galatians 3:28: says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.".

Umm..... honestly, you can't use that verse in order to prove your point. That verse also says that "there is neither slave nor free", but the issue is that slavery wasn't strongly opposed by Christianity.

Ephesians 6 talks about the proper behavior of both slaves and slave owners even though the Galatians 3:28 talks about the non-existence of slaves or freemen. I don't take that as a contradiction, but rather you are doing a poor reading of Galatians 3:28, as a good reading would be compatible with slavery and thus male-female inequality.

Christian Domestic Discipline is a very persuasive concept:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_6jUjQAnrc[/youtube]

Nothing like a good spanking for an unruly wife.

And exactly what would qualify as "unruly"?

AwesomelyGlorious, exactly how are Women inferior in God's eyes? Are you saying God should not care about Women and allow them to be abused by their husbands if they are abusive towards them?

Well, I offer another explanation.
Am I wrong? Perhaps.
Do most religious people think otherwise than I do? For sure.

All I'm saying is - whether there is a God or isn't, these stories can be interpreted as peaceful, or as war-mongering. Now, you can say that every religious person is automatically a hater, or you can promote that religious people who advocate peace.

I understand the position of hating religion, because I was there too. But when I read it again, I saw it under a completely different light. So, you can let the "religious" idiots do all their bizzare and unhumane doings in the name of their lord, and yell at them that their lord doesn't exist - or you can show them that their lord doesn't necessarily say so. I choose the second option.

As said, I'm agnostic, I don't even know whether there is a God. But when I read the Bible alone, it doesn't necessarily contradict my "secular" morals. So I prefer showing religious people that their religion says nothing about their cruel behaviour. I don't fight religion, I fight hatred of women, of different races, nationalities, etc.

If I see that the Bible doesn't say what they say it means, I have to point it out for them. It's my duty, as I see it, as a person who cares for human love. I don't care if they worship a God that I don't know if exists - it's their right. My problem is when they hurt innocent people. So when I see that their religion doesn't contradict giving respect for women, I point it out.

I see nothing wrong about that.

I was mostly attacking your interpretation of Galatians.

As for inferiority in God's eyes? That's irrelevant to the question of women's rights. Are slaves supposed to be inferior in God's eyes? No, but do they have rights? No, their lack of rights is part of the basis of them being labeled slaves.

Well, the Bible isn't an abolitionist text, so anything that could be done to a slave could theoretically be acceptable to do to a woman based upon your citation of Galatians 3:28. I have not gone much further than criticize your interpretation as it is quite faulty. Is it true that masters should be kind to their slaves? Yes, but the condition of slavery is not built upon the kindness of the master. Similar statements could arguably be made about a woman's role.

That being said, I am not sure the text supports gender equality. Some issues can be argued in favor of it. Others can be argued against it. I would say that to argue against it one could use the more conservative parts of the NT, and much of the OT, and if one were to argue for it, I would use New Testament liberty compared to standing beliefs. That being said though, I think that a better interpretation would probably give women less rights than men, simply because the text isn't clearly in favor of women's rights, and because over the last millenia, Christians haven't really been known for their strong valuation of women's rights, with the latter coming about more in the more modern eras.

It would be entirely at the whim of the husband to determine what would qualify as "unruly"

Either way, abuse is never justified.

Abuse would be justified if both parties, both adults, consented to it.

And, abuse is cool, so long as you can find some Biblical passage that appears to support your position, regardless of the original context.

If so, can it be called "abuse" in the first place?

No, not abuse. It's called insanity.

there is no such thing as sanity, therefore there is also no such thing as insanity.