| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > Women and the Bible |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 13 2004, 02:40 PM | ||
| Several christians have denied that the bible treats women as second-class or property. Here's one story from Judges that plainly shows that women are considered less than men. Note: the man who gives up his wife to be raped and then cuts up her body into twelve pieces after she is murdered is the hero in this story. He's the one that yahweh helps get revenge later.
|
| Posted by: Asimov Dec 13 2004, 07:46 PM | ||||
 |
| Posted by: Fweethawt Dec 13 2004, 11:35 PM |
| I've always held a certain 'something' for Judges 19. (mainly, my mouth...  )Where are our members from Tribblefarces at? C'mon people! Help us to see the loving message of hope in Jesus within this message.  But, before you do, please take into consideration verses 18 & 19 of chapter 22 in the book of Revelation. And you idiots want to put this shit in our schools?!?!?! You idiots want us to feed this shit to our kids?!?!?!?! Fuck you! |
| Posted by: Merlinfmct87 Dec 14 2004, 12:27 AM |
| This is something I'm quite keen to learn. How DO people counter/explain/apologize for this? Merlin |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 14 2004, 05:42 AM | ||
It's a really nice touch the way he neglects to mention that he actually provided his wife for them to rape. And he did this to save his own asshole. |
| Posted by: Reach Dec 14 2004, 06:10 AM |
And of course, that brings to mind the story of Lot, in Sodom, when Lot offered his two daughters to the mob of men outside his door, for sexual relations.  Can't explain that one either. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 14 2004, 06:29 AM | ||
Yes, and once again the men who offered up the women to be raped were rewarded by yahweh - they were allowed to escape the city before it was destroyed. Men of the Lot family offer up women for rape, but are still considered "good to go" by yahweh and are allowed to escape. Lot's wife looks back while they're escaping and is struck down by yahweh. Moral of the story: Women are not to be valued as highly as men (and, it's better to be a male pimping your daughters than a curious woman). |
| Posted by: Reach Dec 14 2004, 06:49 AM | ||
Being a curious sort of female often resulted in me being ostracized among Christian men and yet, oddly enough, all things being fairly equal, the male who was equally as inquisitive and asked the same questions was patted on the back, socially embraced and commended for having such insight and seeing more than the obvious.  I learned to not ask questions, since they are unwelcome, and I sat my second-class self down and studied for myself. I couldn't be happier that I did just that. |
| Posted by: Zach Dec 14 2004, 06:55 AM |
| I think I see vestiges of some positive aspects of femininity in ancient Hebrew culture in Leviticus 12. I suspect that women were made to remove themselves originally not because of sin, but because giving birth was viewed by the ancients as a divine act. Women left village not because they were dirty, but because the men were afraid of their power. Giving birth to a female child carried a longer sentence because producing another individual with the divine creative power brought even more dangerous power into being. There is a reason, I think, why the word is 'unclean' and not 'dirty'. It's a difficult concept to translate- something too sacred to be safe in normal life. |
| Posted by: quicksand Dec 14 2004, 12:21 PM | ||
Well, it does show that virgins are worth more than women who aren't. And women are worth something if you can sell them into slavery as according to Paul. What is it with these bible-cited Christians and virginity anyway? Why does it appear to be something of an economic coin? |
| Posted by: phoenix Dec 14 2004, 12:46 PM |
| sadly, i've encountered a person that defended that, saying it was absolutely find and justified. |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Dec 14 2004, 01:30 PM |
| In defense of the bible, in Judges chapter 4 God raises up Deborah (A WOMAN!?!) to be judge over Israel. It also says she was a prophetess. What's this? Women ruling over men? Leading men? Speaking for god? As far as what I've been able to interpret, the 'judges' god raised were both supreme legal and religious leaders of Israel. She speaks for god and orders men about. Not too many of those conservative southern baptist types seem to remember that when it comes time to talk about a woman's place in the church or the home... So it would seem the bible goes BOTH ways in its treatment of women. Some are property and some are raised up as the end-all-be-all of leadership. Nowhere in the story of Deborah does it mention that she submits to her husband when directing the war and speaking for god. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 14 2004, 01:33 PM | ||
That would seem to present a problem to those who hold that the bible provides one clear, unambiguous message regarding morals, etc. |
| Posted by: LloydDobler Dec 14 2004, 01:56 PM |
| Yeah, if anything it implies some sort of caste system. That or Deborah had some wicked dirt on her peers so that nobody opposed her rise to power. |
| Posted by: quicksand Dec 14 2004, 02:25 PM | ||
That's so sad. Talk about self-brainwashing... what about self-sexism? Geez. I pity this type of Christian. I really do. |
| Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Dec 14 2004, 02:53 PM | ||
Yeah! I second that! |
| Posted by: Anomalie Dec 14 2004, 06:11 PM | ||
C'mon Why not just say sacred instead of unclean.? Isnt the same unclean used for when a guy has sinned in some way? What you have said is not believable. |
| Posted by: Zach Dec 15 2004, 08:42 AM |
| Anomalie- Well, you have to view the Hebrew scriptures as something carried and copied through millenia of patriarchal thinking... ...and you have to keep in mind that some ancient concepts just don't translate very well into modern thinking. The fact that this prohibition has been placed next to laws about 'leprosy' which is also deemed 'unclean' give it, I think, a false mischaracterization. Keep in mind that these writings were compilations- the editorial process that spawned them does not necessarily give them the proper context. For example, the law about 'unclean' seminal emissions was placed next to laws about other 'discharges' in Leviticus 15. We know that normal semen is not infectious- ejaculation really shouldn't be classified with sexual diseases. But I think that semen was probably regarded with the same divine power that menstrual and partural blood was assumed to have, and so was associated with dangerous divine power. The concept that I'm driving at is along the lines of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana, which ambiguously describes a life-force, which would be unmistakable to the ancients in the processes associated with procreation. I may be way off base, but what I know of anthropology indicates this very strongly to me. |
| Posted by: Anomalie Dec 15 2004, 03:56 PM |
| For me I usually settle for the fact that the people who translate the Bible are likely to be in someway more accurate then I could be without years and years of training. If they cant get it right then what is the point of reading the bible in english at all. I feel like the only time I hear people start to reinterpret or quote hebrew culture and tradition is when they come up against something they dont like (when I say they I dont mean you Zach). I find it frustrating because it makes Christianity impossible to evaluate. How can I really draw conclusions about something that is not really defined and keeps changing whenever it has to face something difficult. I would much prefer something that is consistent and has a fixed view that I could then either accept or throw away. Thanks for you reply. Hope I did not seem like I was being rude, it was not intended. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 15 2004, 04:30 PM | ||
I feel the same way. Most fundamentalists will say the bible is god's way of communicating with mankind. It's a simple message that anyone can understand. However, once you start pointing out doctrinal problems and inconsistencies the fundies will say that it takes special skills to understand those parts properly. (And of course only fundy scholars have those "special" skills.) |
| Posted by: blue Dec 15 2004, 06:19 PM |
| i'm not defending these people, the atrocities in the bible are inexcusable. but from what i heard from a christian, they say that the OT was god's law and that the NT is god's grace and they don't follow the OT anymore. i guess that makes them feel better. but i'd still like to know their explanation to why such things had to occur. yeah yeah... the evil committed is by man not god... blah blah blah... it was a different time and culture... blah blah blah... (insert inhumane answer here) blah blah blah... |
| Posted by: Lokmer Dec 16 2004, 02:51 AM | ||
I started picking up on this phenomenon in Jr. High, and saw it get worse the longer I was in the church. And, upsettingly, women in leadership perpetuated it just as much as the men did. And this in laid-back California evangelical churches (doctrinally fairly fundy, but culturally very Californian). Heartbreaking and deeply rage-inducing all at once. I'm glad you're free, my friend. Glad I'm free too. -Lokmer |
| Posted by: Anomalie Dec 16 2004, 04:32 AM | ||
The funny thing is that there is much emphasis placed on the old testament when it is convenient. For example when it comes to giving money, or condemning something they dont like, they go all old testament. |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 16 2004, 05:05 AM | ||||
Yet, the NT tells christians that ALL of the OT is still valid:
|
| Posted by: luck mermaid Dec 16 2004, 08:58 AM |
| It's all about the Vagina. Every year we sell millions of plant vaginas and smell them. We give plant Vaginas for funerals, weddings, birthings, accomplishments, etc. It seems plant vaginas make everything better. We make millions in the porn industry with vaginas. Of course, penises are definitely included in this too, but by and large this is an industry where in front of the screen, people who have vaginas make more money - why? Because unless you're a gay man (or a woman who likes gay man sex) you don't want to see a porno with exclusively penises. However you can watch exclusively vaginas. People licking vaginas probing vaginas rubbing vaginas cumming on vaginas 'humiliating' vaginas exalting vaginas arguing with vaginas if you will. Traditional Voudou 'virgin' paper is made from the vagina of a virgin lamb ( most lambs are 'kids' and tend to be virgin anyway). We perfume ourselves with essences of various plant vaginas. We rape cows each year to get them pregnant and producing milk - you just don't see people jerking off male animals to sell 'bulljizz' although I['m sure there would be a real health cult around it if we did sell it. We make fake plastic vaginas so people can have sex with them. Most North American homes are equipped with a bath to simulate the womb when filled with warm water. We eat female chickens and eat chicken-womens ovums. We use female parts in baking, spa treatments and so on and so forth. Sometimes we just have female reproductive parts for breakfast - a great way to start the day. Honey if you don't know by now every pussy has a price on it. If someone tells you it's gotta be 'virgin' to be worth more it's just a bullshit ploy to lower the price for the elite, whether they're men, north america, human beings in an ecosystem world, and so on. All About The Vagina. Let us celebrate by having some eggs and milk for breakfast around a centerpiece of flowers. Men you are cum dumpers. And in a human capacity you are protectors against other humans. Good thing we are evolved enough so that men can enter the realm of 'just being a person' and can grow as more than cum dumpers and the occasional humah shield. They have taken over for a bit though ladies so we've gotta push them back alongside us as human equals cause no pussy is free. It's worth something. Pussy is mana trust me. |
| Posted by: Joyfullness Dec 16 2004, 10:18 AM |
| I am commenting on the posts regarding interpreting the bible. I am not in any way suggesting that there is not alot of crap in the bible! that I do not believe in. But, throughout my whole life, even now, I have been able to look to the bible for beautiful verses that I can call upon in my own times of need and longing and love. Man created the bible, so to me its like, sitting in a meeting at work, in a large conference room with say, 20 people. Five people in there are going to say alot of crap, that I am going to just tune out. (It might even result in some bad code being written, or some software being implemnted that has to be ripped out.) But, one or two of the individuals are going to say something really valuable and useful that I can use to get my job done. So, I keep my ears perked up, and I am thankful that I have a gift of discernment to know which is which. When I see a verse that makes me go crazy, I try to get to the bottom of the verse. Like Romans Chapter 1 where Paul mentions "homosexuality" as one of the great sins...... Well, when my daughter (who was attending a christianschool) asked me if homosexuality was really wrong, rather than just provide her with my answer, we looked up the origin of the word in the earliest bible. Here we found it to be sexual perversion, not homosexuality. From this point, we went on to discuss which things we felt were perversions......and homosexuality was not among them. So, for us, that bible verse has some meaning...... Regarding unclean, here is the definition I found on it -- -----ajkavqartoßfrom ---- (1) (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative of (2508) (meaning cleansed) ak-ath'-ar-tos Adjective Definition : not cleansed, unclean ---in a ceremonial sense: that which must be abstained from according to the levitical law ---i a moral sense: unclean in thought and life. So, there are two meanings. Like Zach was saying, one of the reasons why women were sometimes thought of as unclean or ceremonially needing to stay away from.................. could be because they were afraid of her sacredness. I am not sure, but it seems to make sense to me. |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 16 2004, 10:50 AM | ||||
I got fired from my last chruch for bringing women's voices into the service for prayer and bible reading. It was the wives of the elders that pushed them to do it. Go figure? |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 16 2004, 11:00 AM | ||
 I just love your style, Luck. You ought to have a blog.Send this to http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/resources/; I wouldn't be a bit surprized if she used it on her show.  |
| Posted by: Anomalie Dec 16 2004, 12:10 PM | ||||
Bingo! Forgot that one! |
| Posted by: luck mermaid Dec 16 2004, 08:49 PM |
| Thank you Chef! I clicked the link - who is she ? didn't get too much info from the main page - what does she do? |
| Posted by: Zach Dec 17 2004, 09:04 AM | ||||||||||
| luck mermaid- Far be it from me to denigrate the noble vagina, but allow me to correct a few mistakes:
Flowers are technically hermaphroditic organs. That is, the stamen is the male organ, and the pistil is the female organ, all in one structure. 
Actually, procuring semen from livestock is big business, and there are quite a few 'semen jockeys' who have made that practice their profession. Not to mention that traditional Chinese medicine uses the penis of several animals in various potions.
Not that I claim any personal experience, but the variety, not only in size, shape, and technological sophistication of fake plasic penises far outweigh the fake vagina market... for now.
We eat male animals too, and in many places of the world, testicles are a supreme delicacy. Serbia even has a World Testicle Cooking Championship.
If men are cum-dumpers, then are women cum-dumps? Come on, we're all humans here. Certainly we can get past our sexual identities enough to be more than "just a person?" |
| Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 17 2004, 09:53 AM | ||
She is a radio talk show host on Air America. Might not be interesting for a Canadian, but she sets herself on fire every weekday afternoon and burns Bush and company with the heat. Air America streams on line. http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp |
| Posted by: atheist_ewtcoma Dec 17 2004, 10:29 AM |
| Bitch!!!!! get in there and make me a goddam sandwich and bring me a fucking beer. Smack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And that is what I have to put up with when I come home after work. |
| Posted by: natasha Dec 17 2004, 10:55 AM |
| As a former Christian and a woman, I must say that being a woman specifically never made me feel all oppressed in the church. I never felt like the church oppressed me JUST because I was a woman. I felt like church just oppressed people, period. I was oppressed because I was a human being, and if I Was a man, I would have gone through the exact same pain with Xtianity. It never got my panties in a bunch about "male" God, because I was always taught that God was non-Gendered. JM2C |
| Posted by: luck mermaid Dec 17 2004, 11:23 AM | ||
Well I was just pointing out that men are biologically useless except in order to pollinate or to protect us from other human males - take out the human males and you just need a cum dumper. Women are more then cum dumps because we are usually primary caregivers, vaginas are hot, we're smart and don't need men. Men however would have to change their entire biological system in order to gestate like we do. That's what I'm saying BECAUSE we are human and evolved men are more than just drones (male fuck bees). Thank you for pointing out the differences of a flower Zach I forgot that many flowers are double sexed! Id' say they're more vaginalike then male like though just by shape and smell in terms of how human and animal vaginas function. Also, my name isn't sexkitten.  |
| Posted by: Zach Dec 17 2004, 11:39 AM | ||
luck mermaid (sorry- don't know why I wrote 'sexkitten'. must have been a brain fart)-
In some species this is true. Male ants and bees play a minimal role in the life of their colony- those are truly nothing more than 'cum dumpers'. But now I see your argument more fully explained, and it is interesting. If you've seen the movie "Roger Dodger" then you know that the opening minutes of the film are composed of the same argument, as hypothesized by the protagonist- given the burgeoning female independence, are men in the future doomed to a life of providing genetic material for artificial fertilization and moving furniture? Perhaps. But I think that phallus-worship (particularly among men) has kept men relevant throughout history, and it'll probably keep us going for a long time. |
| Posted by: Oberon Dec 17 2004, 12:36 PM | ||||
I have always been confused by this and the similar tale of Lot. If there are guys out there demanding to have sex with you, why do they always offer their daughter / wife / concubine? Wouldn't it make more sense to offer a servant / son? Speaking as a gay man I would never demand someone's 'attentions' but if I did I sure wouldn't be interested in a woman as a substitute. Judges goes on to say how she was raped and abused all night. In my experience there aren't that many switch hitters out there. How come these old bible cities seem to be full of them? Was gang rape all the rage back then? |
| Posted by: TexasFreethinker Dec 17 2004, 12:43 PM | ||
If these stories are based on fact - male citizens in the ancient middle east liked to rape male newcomers - then it sounds a lot like our present-day prisons to me. That another situation where you have heterosexual males raping other heterosexual males. Just like with other rapes, it mainly about power and dominance than plain sex. |