How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

[Predator]

Let us look at how Islam and the Bible view women, and see in real Truth how terrible the women's status would be if they were living under a true Christian state that follows the Bible 100%.



1- In the Bible:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim): Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Some Christians claim that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women.

The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men.

Continuing with the article...

Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they're also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days.

So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

I think it's safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses.

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.





2- In Islam:

So how does Islam view women then? Is it any better than the Bible? You bet it is! Let us look at what Allah Almighty said about women in the Noble Quran:

There is a great deal of good in some women: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

Men and women were created for each others, in order to live in peace, harmony and love with each others as husbands and wives: "And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"

Men can not harm their wives: "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"



Prophet Muhammad Commanded Mercy and Kindness to the Wives:

There are literally 10s of Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he is documented to have said:


Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Righteous women are those who are loyal and obedient to their husbands: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (The Noble Quran, 4:34)"

Men can't have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.). (The Noble Quran, 2:222)"

Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"

Women have equal rights for them and against them: "..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

The birth of a female is not a biggest tragedy and the end of the world as it is in the Bible: "When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, Because of the bad news He has had! Shall he retain it On (sufferance and) contempt, Or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) They decide on? (The Noble Quran, 16:58-59)" So considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran.

Also, the Prophet peace be upon him said: Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise. (Translation of Sunan abu Dawud, Book 41, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Number 5128)"

Women have the right for the highest education, unlike what some Muslim fanatics claim: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: "The Prophet said, 'He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Manumission of Slaves, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 723)"

"....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)"

"...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"


3- Conclusion:

As we clearly saw in the Bible, women are considered worthless and defiling to men. Females' birth is even considered a loss and causes double the pollution and dirt in the Bible. The mother becomes double unclean when she gives birth to a female than to a male. How much more humiliation of women do we need to see in the Bible?

And as we clearly saw in Islam, women are considered good. Allah Almighty created both men and women to live together as husbands and wives in peace, love and harmony. Also, considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran. So unlike the Bible, it is not the end of the world when females are born!

[barney]

With respect. Thats cherry picking.

I can find verses that respect and subjigate women in any book. I would challeneg you to produce a book where I can't?

Thus:Sura 4: 35, 4: 4.Sura 2:222,2:223 2:229 4: 12 4:177 4:20 4:24 4:34 4:43 4:98 4:117
I havnt even started. I simply realised the enormity of copy and pasting all of the surahs, and thought, Nahh!

My point is that to try and compare and claim superiority by the cherry picking of verses is futile.

Its better surely to accept that
1) Women have their place and its a degree below men
2) They lie chat steal and seduce
3)They are provocative, the inhabitants of hell
4)Their word is worth less, they shall inherit less
5) They prevent prayer if they pass in front of a man, like a donkey would.
6) Yeah, all the above and much more might be "Sexist" in modern terminology. But what does that matter? It's Gods word. That surely transends silly modern human culture on equality?

[Supreme]

I agree with the Airforce that both Christianity and Islam are generally sexist religions, although I do think Christianity is trying to abridge some of the overt sexism within it. Females are being given higher roles in churches, for example.

With respect. Thats cherry picking.

No! --- A *biased* thread? Really? Who'd of guessed?

It makes you think...

[جوري]

With respect. Thats cherry picking.

I can find verses that respect and subjigate women in any book. I would challeneg you to produce a book where I can't?

Thus:Sura 4: 35, 4: 4.Sura 2:222,2:223 2:229 4: 12 4:177 4:20 4:24 4:34 4:43 4:98 4:117
I havnt even started. I simply realised the enormity of copy and pasting all of the surahs, and thought, Nahh!

My point is that to try and compare and claim superiority by the cherry picking of verses is futile.

Its better surely to accept that
1) Women have their place and its a degree below men
2) They lie chat steal and seduce
3)They are provocative, the inhabitants of hell
4)Their word is worth less, they shall inherit less
5) They prevent prayer if they pass in front of a man, like a donkey would.
6) Yeah, all the above and much more might be "Sexist" in modern terminology. But what does that matter? It's Gods word. That surely transends silly modern human culture on equality?

you find:
[Pickthal 2:222] They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.
نِسَآؤُكُمْ حَرْثٌ لَّكُمْ فَأْتُواْ حَرْثَكُمْ أَنَّى شِئْتُمْ وَقَدِّمُواْ لأَنفُسِكُمْ وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَاعْلَمُواْ أَنَّكُم مُّلاَقُوهُ وَبَشِّرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {223}
[Pickthal 2:223] Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).
وَلاَ تَجْعَلُواْ اللّهَ عُرْضَةً لِّأَيْمَانِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّواْ وَتَتَّقُواْ وَتُصْلِحُواْ بَيْنَ النَّاسِ وَاللّهُ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ {224}
[Pickthal 2:224] And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
لاَّ يُؤَاخِذُكُمُ اللّهُ بِاللَّغْوِ فِيَ أَيْمَانِكُمْ وَلَكِن يُؤَاخِذُكُم بِمَا كَسَبَتْ قُلُوبُكُمْ وَاللّهُ غَفُورٌ حَلِيمٌ {225}
[Pickthal 2:225] Allah will not take you to task for that which is unintentional in your oaths. But He will take you to task for that which your hearts have garnered. Allah is Forgiving, Clement.
لِّلَّذِينَ يُؤْلُونَ مِن نِّسَآئِهِمْ تَرَبُّصُ أَرْبَعَةِ أَشْهُرٍ فَإِنْ فَآؤُوا فَإِنَّ اللّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ {226}
[Pickthal 2:226] Those who forswear their wives must wait four months; then, if they change their mind, lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
وَإِنْ عَزَمُواْ الطَّلاَقَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ {227}
[Pickthal 2:227] And if they decide upon divorce (let them remember that) Allah is Hearer, Knower.
وَالْمُطَلَّقَاتُ يَتَرَبَّصْنَ بِأَنفُسِهِنَّ ثَلاَثَةَ قُرُوَءٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَهُنَّ أَن يَكْتُمْنَ مَا خَلَقَ اللّهُ فِي أَرْحَامِهِنَّ إِن كُنَّ يُؤْمِنَّ بِاللّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَبُعُولَتُهُنَّ أَحَقُّ بِرَدِّهِنَّ فِي ذَلِكَ إِنْ أَرَادُواْ إِصْلاَحًا وَلَهُنَّ مِثْلُ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَلِلرِّجَالِ عَلَيْهِنَّ دَرَجَةٌ وَاللّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكُيمٌ {228}
[Pickthal 2:228] Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.
الطَّلاَقُ مَرَّتَانِ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ وَلاَ يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَن تَأْخُذُواْ مِمَّا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ أَن يَخَافَا أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلاَّ يُقِيمَا حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَلاَ جُنَاحَ عَلَيْهِمَا فِيمَا افْتَدَتْ بِهِ تِلْكَ حُدُودُ اللّهِ فَلاَ تَعْتَدُوهَا وَمَن يَتَعَدَّ حُدُودَ اللّهِ فَأُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ {229}
[Pickthal 2:229] Divorce must be pronounced twice and then (a woman) must be retained in honour or released in kindness. And it is not lawful for you that ye take from women aught of that which ye have given them; except (in the case) when both fear that they may not be able to keep within the limits (imposed by) Allah. And if ye fear that they may not be able to keep the limits of Allah, in that case it is no sin for either of them if the woman ransom herself. These are the limits (imposed by) Allah. Transgress them not. For whoso transgresseth Allah's limits: such are wrong-doers.

to be sexist amongst others?
news to me.. perhaps I should hear better your secular opinion?..
for instance women should be raped while menstruating for in that there is equality..
or screw around during and right after a divorce so if she is pregnant there is no telling who the father is and it will make an excellent Jerry springer show.. etc etc..


pls. do us all a favor and keep your views on women to the sort of broads you frequent at hooters.. No Muslim woman is really interested in learning of your opinion!

all the best

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Italianguy]

I agree with the Airforce that both Christianity and Islam are generally sexist religions, although I do think Christianity is trying to abridge some of the overt sexism within it. Females are being given higher roles in churches, for example.



No! --- A *biased* thread? Really? Who'd of guessed?

It makes you think...

As long as they are not pastors or preists.

[Uthman]

I don't know enough about Christianity to comment on whether it is a sexist religion but Islam is most definitely not a sexist religion. There is no denying that men and women have innate differences, both in terms of their physiology and their psychology. Islam recognises that and assigns appropriate, complementary roles in society to both men and women which cater to the differences in their nature. I highly recommend the following regarding women in Islam:

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...lim-women.html
Women in Islam

[Italianguy]

Christianity is not a sexist religion. It just spells out in details the roll of a woman.

The rest of how the world veiws women is different. I hold traditional Italian values in where some who saw, would say, lets just say, less than kind words about me. But they are the liberal feminist types.

And different cultures also take a play. I have seen it on both sides. No one can deny that some of the cultures in Islam are a little harsh on women, but that does not generalize an entire religion or people.

God bless.

[Uthman]

No one can deny that some of the cultures in Islam are a little harsh on women, but that does not generalize an entire religion or people.

True, but I think it would be more accurate to say some Muslim cultures rather than some of the cultures in Islam since the latter could be interpreted as meaning that oppression of women is sanctioned in Islam which is manifestly not the case.

[Froggy]

I don't know enough about Christianity to comment on whether it is a sexist religion but Islam is most definitely not a sexist religion. There is no denying that men and women have innate differences, both in terms of their physiology and their psychology. Islam recognises that and assigns appropriate, complementary roles in society to both men and women which cater to the differences in their nature. I highly recommend the following regarding women in Islam:

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...lim-women.html
Women in Islam

The problem is that different roles assigned to men and women that may cater to the needs of perhaps even the majority of all people are not suitable for all and might push back the creative potential of individuals different from the norm.

[Italianguy]

Let us look at how Islam and the Bible view women, and see in real Truth how terrible the women's status would be if they were living under a true Christian state that follows the Bible 100%.



1- In the Bible:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim): Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Some Christians claim that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women.

The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men.

Continuing with the article...

Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they're also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days.

So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

I think it's safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses.

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.





2- In Islam:

So how does Islam view women then? Is it any better than the Bible? You bet it is! Let us look at what Allah Almighty said about women in the Noble Quran:

There is a great deal of good in some women: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

Men and women were created for each others, in order to live in peace, harmony and love with each others as husbands and wives: "And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"

Men can not harm their wives: "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"



Prophet Muhammad Commanded Mercy and Kindness to the Wives:

There are literally 10s of Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he is documented to have said:


Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Righteous women are those who are loyal and obedient to their husbands: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (The Noble Quran, 4:34)"

Men can't have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.). (The Noble Quran, 2:222)"

Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"

Women have equal rights for them and against them: "..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

The birth of a female is not a biggest tragedy and the end of the world as it is in the Bible: "When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, Because of the bad news He has had! Shall he retain it On (sufferance and) contempt, Or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) They decide on? (The Noble Quran, 16:58-59)" So considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran.

Also, the Prophet peace be upon him said: Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise. (Translation of Sunan abu Dawud, Book 41, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Number 5128)"

Women have the right for the highest education, unlike what some Muslim fanatics claim: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: "The Prophet said, 'He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Manumission of Slaves, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 723)"

"....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)"

"...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"


3- Conclusion:

As we clearly saw in the Bible, women are considered worthless and defiling to men. Females' birth is even considered a loss and causes double the pollution and dirt in the Bible. The mother becomes double unclean when she gives birth to a female than to a male. How much more humiliation of women do we need to see in the Bible?

And as we clearly saw in Islam, women are considered good. Allah Almighty created both men and women to live together as husbands and wives in peace, love and harmony. Also, considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran. So unlike the Bible, it is not the end of the world when females are born!

I will let you reference the Surah's you forgot....you know...the ones in which allow a husband o beat their wives, or hit them if they get out of line. I am sure you just forgot those ones or ran out of time before you could post them right?

[YusufNoor]

With respect. Thats cherry picking.

I can find verses that respect and subjigate women in any book. I would challeneg you to produce a book where I can't?

Thus:Sura 4: 35, 4: 4.Sura 2:222,2:223 2:229 4: 12 4:177 4:20 4:24 4:34 4:43 4:98 4:117
I havnt even started. I simply realised the enormity of copy and pasting all of the surahs, and thought, Nahh!

My point is that to try and compare and claim superiority by the cherry picking of verses is futile.

Its better surely to accept that
1) Women have their place and its a degree below men
2) They lie chat steal and seduce
3)They are provocative, the inhabitants of hell
4)Their word is worth less, they shall inherit less
5) They prevent prayer if they pass in front of a man, like a donkey would.
6) Yeah, all the above and much more might be "Sexist" in modern terminology. But what does that matter? It's Gods word. That surely transends silly modern human culture on equality?

:sl:


what's up Barney? long time no here!

you have a point, but you're not viewing things with the "proper" mindset!

1) Women have their place and its a degree below me

actually, men have a degree of responsibility above women. that is actually a benefit to the women.

2) They lie chat steal and seduce

you got that from the Qur'an? [it's more kind universal...;D] j/k

3)They are provocative, the inhabitants of hell

women have less responsibilities. sometimes it makes them more irresponsible.not all, just some.

4)Their word is worth less, they shall inherit less

i've think we've been here before. i've suggested some lectures, especially this one, Muslim Women! Are they Oppressed?:

http://www.nazirakoob.com/menk/Vol1.html#Part8

as their word, woman were created from something living, ie, man. men were created from dust. men see things in a more cut and dry manner, while women have alot more mercy in their hearts and this can drive them to do things that "don't seem right to men." they are more mercy driven. therefore a woman gets to confer with other female witnesses to try to report "just the facts." it's not a bad thing.

as far as inheritance goes, let's, break down an example:

a man leave [as the kids portion] $150,000 to 2 kids, son and daughter. the daughter is single. living with the son [BECAUSE he HAS to support if she has no husband or children that are old enough to: which is SO UNFAIR to the woman, right? :p]

the son has a wife an 2 kids.

the split:

son 100,000, the daughter 50,000

to YOU, that is unfair, but let's look at the reality:

sister keeps all $50,000! it's hers to do whatever she wants because: he HAS to support if she has no husband[remember?]

the son has to support everyone, so in effect he has $20,000 to spend on each member of the family because he HAS to support them.

from HIS share:

son $20,000

wife $20,000

sister[who is the daughter] $20,000

kid1 $20,000

kid 2 $20,000

so let's revisit what the split actually breaks down to:

son: $20,000 daughter: $70,000

YOUR OPINION is that is unfair to the daughter,right?

5) They prevent prayer if they pass in front of a man, like a donkey would.

actually, anyone above puberty cuts off your Salaah.

6) Yeah, all the above and much more might be "Sexist" in modern terminology. But what does that matter? It's Gods word. That surely transends silly modern human culture on equality

isn't the sexist part that the man HAS to support the woman? for you, a woman is only equal if she is "free to obey shaytan instead of Allah"

THAT is modern human culture!

btw, it was a pleasant surprise to see you back. i know you aren't intentionally evil, just misguided. so we love you for the sake of Allah!

:wa:

[Predator]

Widows are protected in Islam from their in-laws, but are forced and not protected in the Bible's NT and OT:


We will now see how Islam protects the widows from the mistreatment of her in-laws, while the Bible forces her to be under their control and mercy.



In Islam:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: "Regarding the Divine Verse: "O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness that you may take back part of the (Mahr) dower you have given them." (4:19)

(Before this revelation) if a man died, his relatives used to have the right to inherit his wife, and one of them could marry her if he would, or they would give her in marriage if they wished, or, if they wished, they would not give her in marriage at all, and they would be more entitled to dispose her, than her own relatives. So the above Verse was revealed in this connection. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Prophetic Commentary on the Qur'an (Tafseer of the Prophet (pbuh)), Volume 6, Book 60, Number 103)"

So as we clearly see, Islam in Noble Verse 4:19, clearly prevents the in-laws from trying to control and abuse the widows. Before Islam, widows were basically enslaved to their in-laws. They had no control over any of their inheritance, and they were in many times married off to their former husband's brothers or relatives. Islam came and ended all of that, and lifted the status of women and gave them liberty and rights.



In the Bible's NT and OT:

The Bible has absolutely no regard for women what so ever! Polygamy is allowed in both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. Let us look at what the Bible says about widows:

"If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 25:5)"

It would be nice for the widow to marry her husband's brother, especially if they had a good relationship. But what if they couldn't stand each others? Why does she have to be forced to marry him and be under her husband's family's control and mercy?

Let's not forget about how bad mother in-laws can be, especially toward the wives. The Bible clearly forces the widowed wives, who lived with or near their husbands' families, to continue living under the control and mercy of their in-laws even after their husbands' deaths. It is clear that there is no liberty and freedom of choice granted to women.

[Predator]

No one can deny that some of the cultures in Islam are a little harsh on women, but that does not generalize an entire religion or people.

Islam Honours and protects the women .The Bible culture is Harsh on women

The Wife's Submission To Her Husband According To The New Testament

The Bible teaches that a husband should have authority over his wife...

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,


However, what kind of submission are we talking about here?...

1 Peter 3:5-6

5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

So aren't the women of today also supposed to follow this example and call their husbands their master?


It is good that the New Testament teaches that a wife should obey her husband but you can kind of get the impression that it takes it a little bit too far...

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The wife should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING? Isn't that a little bit too extreme? Paul is saying that the wife should submit to the husband as the Church does to Christ. Now since Christians believe that Christ is God does that mean that the wife should obey her husband as if she is obeying God and give him the same rights?

You can see a similar problem here.


In Islam there are limits when it comes to obedience to people...

Surah 4:135

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do.


So if a husband orders his wife to do something wrong she must not listen to him and obey him in EVERYTHING just like the New Testament says

[barney]

:sl:


what's up Barney? long time no here!

you have a point, but you're not viewing things with the "proper" mindset!



actually, men have a degree of responsibility above women. that is actually a benefit to the women.



you got that from the Qur'an? [it's more kind universal...;D] j/k



women have less responsibilities. sometimes it makes them more irresponsible.not all, just some.



i've think we've been here before. i've suggested some lectures, especially this one, Muslim Women! Are they Oppressed?:

http://www.nazirakoob.com/menk/Vol1.html#Part8

as their word, woman were created from something living, ie, man. men were created from dust. men see things in a more cut and dry manner, while women have alot more mercy in their hearts and this can drive them to do things that "don't seem right to men." they are more mercy driven. therefore a woman gets to confer with other female witnesses to try to report "just the facts." it's not a bad thing.

as far as inheritance goes, let's, break down an example:

a man leave [as the kids portion] $150,000 to 2 kids, son and daughter. the daughter is single. living with the son [BECAUSE he HAS to support if she has no husband or children that are old enough to: which is SO UNFAIR to the woman, right? :p]

the son has a wife an 2 kids.

the split:

son 100,000, the daughter 50,000

to YOU, that is unfair, but let's look at the reality:

sister keeps all $50,000! it's hers to do whatever she wants because: he HAS to support if she has no husband[remember?]

the son has to support everyone, so in effect he has $20,000 to spend on each member of the family because he HAS to support them.

from HIS share:

son $20,000

wife $20,000

sister[who is the daughter] $20,000

kid1 $20,000

kid 2 $20,000

so let's revisit what the split actually breaks down to:

son: $20,000 daughter: $70,000

YOUR OPINION is that is unfair to the daughter,right?



actually, anyone above puberty cuts off your Salaah.



isn't the sexist part that the man HAS to support the woman? for you, a woman is only equal if she is "free to obey shaytan instead of Allah"

THAT is modern human culture!

btw, it was a pleasant surprise to see you back. i know you aren't intentionally evil, just misguided. so we love you for the sake of Allah!

:wa:

Heya!

Yup, its grossly sexist for a man to "have to support " women. Sexism works both ways.
For men to be "responsible for women" is sexist.

So I would agree with you on the one point and say that it supports the other!

[Italianguy]

Islam Honours and protects the women .The Bible culture is Harsh on women

The Wife's Submission To Her Husband According To The New Testament

The Bible teaches that a husband should have authority over his wife...

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,


However, what kind of submission are we talking about here?...

1 Peter 3:5-6

5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

So aren't the women of today also supposed to follow this example and call their husbands their master?


It is good that the New Testament teaches that a wife should obey her husband but you can kind of get the impression that it takes it a little bit too far...

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The wife should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING? Isn't that a little bit too extreme? Paul is saying that the wife should submit to the husband as the Church does to Christ. Now since Christians believe that Christ is God does that mean that the wife should obey her husband as if she is obeying God and give him the same rights?

You can see a similar problem here.


In Islam there are limits when it comes to obedience to people...

Surah 4:135

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do.


So if a husband orders his wife to do something wrong she must not listen to him and obey him in EVERYTHING just like the New Testament says

Thats fine, believe what you want to:D I am not bothered by your one sidedness.

God bless.

[Supreme]

Thats fine, believe what you want to:D I am not bothered by your one sidedness.

God bless.

I think his one sidedness in these matters is truly only there to convince and reassure himself.

[Uthman]

Let me remind members of forum rule #9 (I know the reference by heart now):

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)

[Italianguy]

Let me remind members of forum rule #9 (I know the reference by heart now):

Beef will not be tolerated in any forum. Differences in opinion are expected, but please debate respectfully. (Beef are comments made for the purpose of insulting somebody else with negative intent, looking for a negative reaction, or blatantly insulting somebody)

Sorry bro, I will not comment on this thread anymore.

God be with you.

[Predator]

Thats fine, believe what you want to I am not bothered by your one sidedness.

The below is must watch for people like you who tend think that Islam oppresses women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRs7Us-a6CU

[Supreme]

The below is must watch for people like you who tend think that Islam oppresses women

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRs7Us-a6CU

Italianguy nor myself ever stated anywhere we believe Islam is a sexist religion. However, you seem to believe that defending Islam against claims of sexism involves attacking Christianity. It's like you've gone 'Oh yeah, we're sexist- but look at those Christians! They're far more sexist than us!'

[Trumble]

Surely the important issue here is not so much what the Qur'an and Bible say, but how that is interpreted and, particularly in the case of the vast majority of Christians, ignored, in the modern world? I'd point out in the interests of balance that my own religion isn't entirely free of sexism (or what might be interpreted as sexism) either, particularly in a historical context.

Such judgements can be very hard to make, particularly for 'outsiders', as although religion is often invoked as the reason for alleged sexual discrimination other cultural forces are usually as, if not more, significant.

[glo]

The Wife's Submission To Her Husband According To The New Testament

The Bible teaches that a husband should have authority over his wife...

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,


However, what kind of submission are we talking about here?...

1 Peter 3:5-6

5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

So aren't the women of today also supposed to follow this example and call their husbands their master?


It is good that the New Testament teaches that a wife should obey her husband but you can kind of get the impression that it takes it a little bit too far...

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The wife should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING? Isn't that a little bit too extreme?

You can see a similar problem here.

You need to read the full instruction.
Ephesians 5:25-28 continues:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Equally 1 Peter 3:7 continues with:

Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

The way I read these instructions to husbands and wives is that they complement each other to form the perfect relationship within marriage:
The wife is willing to listen to her husband, and the husband is willing to love his wife and consider her needs.

Speaking generally, both the Qu'ran and the Bible were written in a time and culture which was strongly patriarchal - so no wonder this attitude is sometimes reflected in scripture.

I don't think many people - Muslims or Christians - would suggest that a wife should obey her husband, even if he demands her to do something wrong or something that is against God's instructions. At least I hope not ...!

[glo]

Following on from my previous post, I found this additional information:

Question: "Does a wife have to submit to her husband?"

Answer: Submission is a very important issue in relation to marriage. Even before sin entered the world, there was still the principle of headship (1 Timothy 2:13). Adam was created first, and Eve was created to be a "helper" for Adam (Genesis 2:18-20). At the same time, since there was no sin, there was no authority for man to obey except God’s authority. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, sin entered the world, and then authority was needed. Therefore, God established the authority needed to enforce the laws of the land and also to provide us with the protection we need. First, we need to submit to God, which is the only way we can truly obey Him (James 1:21; 4:7). In 1 Corinthians 11:2-3, we find that the husband is to submit to Christ as Christ did to God. Then the verse says that the wife should follow his example and submit to her husband.

Submission is a natural response to loving leadership. When a husband loves his wife as Christ loves the church (Ephesians 5:25-33), then submission is a natural response from a wife to her husband. The Greek word translated “submit,” hupotasso, is the continuing form of the verb. This means that submitting to God, the government, or a husband is not a one-time act. It is a continual attitude, which becomes a pattern of behavior. The submission talked about in Ephesians 5 is not a one-sided subjection of a believer to a selfish, domineering person. Biblical submission is designed to be between two Spirit-filled believers who are mutually yielded to each other and to God. Submission is a two-way street. Submission is a position of honor and completeness. When a wife is loved as the church is loved by Christ, submission is not difficult. Ephesians 5:24 says, “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” This verse is saying that the wife is to submit to her husband in everything that is right and lawful. Therefore, the wife is under no obligation to disobey the law or God in the name of submission.

Matthew Henry wrote: “The woman was made out of Adam’s side. She was not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.” Believers are to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21). In context, everything in Ephesians 5:19-33 is a result of being filled with the Spirit. Spirit-filled believers are to be worshipful (5:19), thankful (5:20), and submissive (5:21). Paul then follows his line of thought on Spirit-filled living and applies it to husbands and wives in verses 22-33. A wife should submit to her husband, not because women are inferior, but because that is how God designed the marital relationship to function. Submission is not a wife’s being a “doormat” for her husband. Rather, with the help of the Holy Spirit, a wife submits to her husband, and a husband sacrificially loves his wife.

http://www.gotquestions.org/wives-submit.html

[Uthman]

Hi glo,

I don't think many people - Muslims or Christians - would suggest that a wife should obey her husband, even if he demands her to do something wrong or something that is against God's instructions. At least I hope not ...!

That's true. Prophet Muhammad (:saws:) made it abundantly clear when he said:

“There is no obedience [to any creation] in disobedience to Allah.” [Reported by Bukhari and Muslim]

Regards

[جوري]

Another reason why christians never practice Christianity .. for after 'the' god immolates a woman has to keep her mouth shut and is akin to an animal for she is soulless:


"Jesus said that the sole reason God created women in the first place was to provide company and service to men (1 Corinthians 11:9), God determined that men would be lonely living alone, so he created women purely to keep men company and serve their needs (Genesis 2:18-22). Women are therefore completely subordinate to men (1 Corinthians 11:3). It stands to reason, though, that once men enter the Kingdom of Heaven, they will be one with God, and will no longer be lonely and in need of mortal companionship. Thus, the reason behind having women will no longer exist. Women, like the members of the animal kingdom, will fall by the wayside."

"once men reunite with their maker, they will no longer be burdened with the care of women. After all, women were inferior creations from the start. Women are fond of self-indulgence (Isaiah 32:9-11). They are silly and easily led into error (2 Timothy 3:6). They are subtle and deceitful (Proverbs 7:10; Ecclesiastes 7:26). They are zealous in promoting superstition and idolatry (Jeremiah 7:18; Ezekiel 13:17, 23). And they are active in instigating to iniquity (Numbers 31:15-16; 1 Kings 21:25; Nehemiah 13:26). It was the inherent weakness of women that led them to be deceived by Satan (Genesis 3:1-6; 2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Timothy 2:14). Consequently, women were cursed from the start (Genesis 3:16). There is simply no room in heaven for such flawed and inadequate beings."

I really predict that Christianity will become completely obsolete within the next couple of hundred years or be thought of as an astonishing relic of dying gods and soulless women ...

[barney]

To define sexism
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism.

I only have to open the bible at any page to find examples of sexism. It's clearly the work of either fallible and ignorant bronze age men writing the first thing that is politically expedient or that of a malevolent sexist deity.

Its just a product of its time. Its not meant to be for all time , at least thats what christians say these days, now that they have lost the power to torture and kill people into silence!

I have a copy here of Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy. A product of the sexist 1980's. A novel about WW3. I'll flip it open.
OK, Page 441:Some US marines have rescued a young blond haired girl from the evil Russians. The Lt wraps his field jacket around her and covers her blond hair from sight.(So the russians cant see shes a woman....not because her hairs indecent!)
Thus , by picking a random book at a random page, I find something thats got sexism ingrained into its pores.Red Storm Rising though isnt an instruction manual for life, or even a guide for life.


66:5 It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids.

4:43 O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken, till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed. And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith). Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.

24:6 As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;

Now I know there will follow much explainations of such verses, and theres dozens to "explain", but Isn't it just more intellectually honest to say.
"Yes. These verses to modern thought ARE sexist. But god knows best, and we cant argue against them, so its better just to accept them"?

[YusufNoor]

To define sexism
: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism.

I only have to open the bible at any page to find examples of sexism. It's clearly the work of either fallible and ignorant bronze age men writing the first thing that is politically expedient or that of a malevolent sexist deity.

Its just a product of its time. Its not meant to be for all time , at least thats what christians say these days, now that they have lost the power to torture and kill people into silence!

I have a copy here of Red Storm Rising, by Tom Clancy. A product of the sexist 1980's. A novel about WW3. I'll flip it open.
OK, Page 441:Some US marines have rescued a young blond haired girl from the evil Russians. The Lt wraps his field jacket around her and covers her blond hair from sight.(So the russians cant see shes a woman....not because her hairs indecent!)
Thus , by picking a random book at a random page, I find something thats got sexism ingrained into its pores.Red Storm Rising though isnt an instruction manual for life, or even a guide for life.


66:5 It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids.

this one is easy. the woman of Makkah started acting like the women of Madinah. they were getting "lippy" with their husbands AND, as a result or recent conquests, wealth was starting to flow into Madinah. the wives of the Prophet, PBUH, were demanding more "dunya" from him. Umar ibn al Khataab's daughter was one of the Prophet's wives. he heard of the backtalk and he rushed to his daughter to see if she was mistreating the Prophet verbally. she said that she was ans so what? from a personal point of view, Umar reminded his daughter that she wasn't nearly as pretty as Aisha, nor was she loved as much as she was. imar heard the other wives being all noisy and careless and reprimanded them all saying: It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids. for not the first time, Qur'an was revealed EXACTLY as Umar commented. umar status in regard to revelation is that of nearly being or being just short of a Prophet. in fact, Rasulullah commented that if there were to be a Prophet after him, it would have been Umar. as for being believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, that is what the men should be as well. the widows and maids comment just refers to the fact that only 1 of Rasulullahs wives was a virgin at marriage. the purpose of allowing more than 1 wife is so that ALL woman can have a husband, especially widows and older maidens and NOT so that some guy gets to wed 4 nublie little teenagers because he can't keep his johnson in his pants. YES, it is "sexist," but pleas explain how society would work with and iota of sexism.

4:43 O ye who believe! Draw not near unto prayer when ye are drunken,

don't pray when drunk. alcohol was later prohibited.

till ye know that which ye utter, nor when ye are polluted, save when journeying upon the road, till ye have bathed.

maybe if you were drunk, you played with the ladies. best to make wusul before praying. usually we make wuduu before prayer, if you have sex, you must bathe [make wusul]

And if ye be ill, or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have touched women, and ye find not water, then go to high clean soil and rub your faces and your hands (therewith).

if you have sex, either man or woman, you must make wusul before praying, wusul involves water, it's a bath. if you have no water, you can make tayyamun, which is dome using dirt, sand or dust.

Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving.

24:6 As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth;

in the case of infidelity, caught by the spouse, the spouse may testify 4 times against the spouse, as their are no 4 witnesses. at the 4th "witness", the spouse must ask Allah to curse them if they are lying. IF you reply 4 times against 4 times [man or woman], there is no punishment, but the marriage is over and you can never marry that person again.

Now I know there will follow much explanations of such verses, and theres dozens to "explain", but Isn't it just more intellectually honest to say.
"Yes. These verses to modern thought ARE sexist. But god knows best, and we cant argue against them, so its better just to accept them"?

you don't argue against them, you learn why they make sense.

:sl:

morning Barney,

the plain fact that, according to Islam, men and women have different roles is something that you can at anyplace and anytime use YOUR definition of sexist. somehow, Shaytan has convinced you it is a bad thing for the sexes to have different roles. have you been trying to figure out how to biologically make men and women the same? i mean, come on, from your point of view, men out to have their own babies as well, eh?

Yup, its grossly sexist for a man to "have to support " women. Sexism works both ways.
For men to be "responsible for women" is sexist.

consider that and how would society work with out any "sexism"? iirc, you have duaghters? anyway, the ONLY way for their to be no sexism, in your view, would be that if i sleep with a woman [ANY woman, because it would be sexist to say i can't sleep with any woman] and she gets pregnant, then you feel that is just her tough luck and she should have to raise any kids she might have by herself and i have NO responsibility WHATSOEVER! i mean after all, it's her fault that she is a woman, right? to make me "have to support" her [as a woman] is just plain sexist, and it just "sucks to be her" that she can get pregnant at all.

kind of silly, don't you think?

:wa:

[barney]

:sl:

morning Barney,

the plain fact that, according to Islam, men and women have different roles is something that you can at anyplace and anytime use YOUR definition of sexist. somehow, Shaytan has convinced you it is a bad thing for the sexes to have different roles. have you been trying to figure out how to biologically make men and women the same? i mean, come on, from your point of view, men out to have their own babies as well, eh?



consider that and how would society work with out any "sexism"? iirc, you have duaghters? anyway, the ONLY way for their to be no sexism, in your view, would be that if i sleep with a woman [ANY woman, because it would be sexist to say i can't sleep with any woman] and she gets pregnant, then you feel that is just her tough luck and she should have to raise any kids she might have by herself and i have NO responsibility WHATSOEVER! i mean after all, it's her fault that she is a woman, right? to make me "have to support" her [as a woman] is just plain sexist, and it just "sucks to be her" that she can get pregnant at all.

kind of silly, don't you think?

:wa:

Reminds me of the part of Monty Pythons "The life of Brian" where the Jewish terrorist group vote for Ron, a male member, to have the Right to get pregnant even if, through no fault of his own, he couldnt Biologically"!

Women have traditionally held different roles. The key here is TRADITIONALLY.
There are now Woman fighter pilots in the RAF, Russia had them back in the 40's. Women can be and are astronauts. They should be paid as a man, tried as a man, given the same RIGHTS as a man.

The inclusion of a womb does not suddely make her veiw worth less, nor does it give a man headship over his wife, as Christians are taught. It dosnt mean that women should cover their faces in order for men to withold their uncontrollable urge to rape anything not covered. Thats not their responsibility.
If they feel thats what they want to do, then great. If they want to wear a top hat and a tutu in the supermarket, then they have that right.
The right to Drive a car (*cough-Saudi*-cough), the right not to be treated as a second class citizen under the sexist propaganda of, "No Job for a Woman", "Protecting and cherishing a precious flower" or any form of wording which ends in a man under any circumstances to have a divine given right to beat, however lightly , with toothbrushes and gentle taps on the shoulder, (as endless scholars tell us) "their" woman. This by itself is the logical progression of a dark ages morality adapting as best it can. Most learned scholars now wax lyrical about the lightness of the beating , the last resort of it all.

Personally, I think very few beatings happen like that. Ive seen footage of women being beaten,and killed, and I can see western women being abused in the west by callous moronic men, (probably deserving it for going naked all day every day save for painting themselves with wanton signs). But this is prescribed against in law. Not sanctioned in law!

I havnt seen any muslim men, at the very last resources of their patience, after banishing their wife from the bed, and admonishing her, finally cracking, getting a toothbrush and chasing her around the garden tapping her lightly on the shoulder screaming "Youve Really Done it NOW! Look what you MADE me do!!! Be tapped lightly as a last resort into correct behaviour!"

[Predator]

Reminds me of the part of Monty Pythons "The life of Brian" where the Jewish terrorist group vote for Ron, a male member, to have the Right to get pregnant even if, through no fault of his own, he couldnt Biologically"!

Women have traditionally held different roles. The key here is TRADITIONALLY.
There are now Woman fighter pilots in the RAF, Russia had them back in the 40's. Women can be and are astronauts. They should be paid as a man, tried as a man, given the same RIGHTS as a man.

The inclusion of a womb does not suddely make her veiw worth less, nor does it give a man headship over his wife, as Christians are taught. It dosnt mean that women should cover their faces in order for men to withold their uncontrollable urge to rape anything not covered. Thats not their responsibility.
If they feel thats what they want to do, then great. If they want to wear a top hat and a tutu in the supermarket, then they have that right.
The right to Drive a car (*cough-Saudi*-cough), the right not to be treated as a second class citizen under the sexist propaganda of, "No Job for a Woman", "Protecting and cherishing a precious flower" or any form of wording which ends in a man under any circumstances to have a divine given right to beat, however lightly , with toothbrushes and gentle taps on the shoulder, (as endless scholars tell us) "their" woman. This by itself is the logical progression of a dark ages morality adapting as best it can. Most learned scholars now wax lyrical about the lightness of the beating , the last resort of it all.

Personally, I think very few beatings happen like that. Ive seen footage of women being beaten,and killed, and I can see western women being abused in the west by callous moronic men, (probably deserving it for going naked all day every day save for painting themselves with wanton signs). But this is prescribed against in law. Not sanctioned in law!

I havnt seen any muslim men, at the very last resources of their patience, after banishing their wife from the bed, and admonishing her, finally cracking, getting a toothbrush and chasing her around the garden tapping her lightly on the shoulder screaming "Youve Really Done it NOW! Look what you MADE me do!!! Be tapped lightly as a last resort into correct behaviour!"

Suppose two sisters who are twins, and who are equally beautiful, walk down the street. One of them is attired in the Islamic hijab i.e. the whole body is covered, except for the face and the hands up to the wrists. The other sister is wearing western clothes, a skirt or a mini. Just around the corner there is a hooligan or ruffian who is waiting for a catch, to tease a girl. Whom will he tease? The girl wearing the Islamic Hijab or the girl wearing the skirt or the mini? Naturally he will tease the girl wearing the skirt or the mini. Such dresses are an indirect invitation to the opposite sex for teasing and molestation. The Qur’an rightly says that hijab prevents the women from being molested.


Under the Islamic Shariah a man convicted of having raped a woman, is given capital punishment. Many are astonished at this ‘harsh’ sentence. Some even say that Islam is a ruthless, and barbaric religion! I have asked a simple question to hundreds of non-Muslim men. Suppose, God forbid, someone rapes your wife, your mother or your sister. You are made the judge and the rapist is brought in front of you. What punishment would you give him? All of them said they would put him to death. Some went to the extent of saying they would torture him to death. To them I ask, if someone rapes your wife or your mother you want to put him to death. But if the same crime is committed on somebody else’s wife or daughter you say capital punishment is barbaric. Why the double standards?



USA has one of the highest rates of rape

United States of America is supposed to be one of the most advanced countries of the world. It also has one of the highest rates of rape of any country in the world. According to an FBI report, in the year 1990, every day on an average 1756 cases of rape were committed in U.S.A alone. Later another report said that on an average everyday 1900 cases of rapes are committed in USA. The year was not mentioned. May be it was 1992 or 1993. May be the Americans got ‘bolder’ in the following years.

Consider a scenario where the Islamic hijab is followed in America. Whenever a man looks at a woman and any brazen or unashamed thought comes to his mind, he lowers his gaze. Every woman wears the Islamic hijab, that is the whole body is covered except the face and the hands upto the wrist. After this if any man commits rape he is given capital punishment. I ask you, in such a scenario, will the rate of rape in America increase, will it remain the same, or will it decrease?

Implementation of Islamic Shariah will reduce the rate of rapes.
Naturally as soon as Islamic Shariah is implemented positive results will be inevitable. If Islamic Shariah is implemented in any part of the world, whether it is America or Europe, society will breath easier. Hijab does not degrade a woman but uplifts a woman and protects her modesty and chastity


Western society falsely claims to have uplifted women
Western talk of women’s liberalization is nothing but a disguised form of exploitation of her body, degradation of her soul, and deprivation of her honour. Western society claims to have ‘uplifted’ women. On the contrary it has actually degraded them to the status of concubines, mistresses and society butterflies who are employed as mere tools at the hands of pleasure seekers and sex marketeers hidden behind the colourful screen of ‘art’ and ‘culture’.

[Uthman]

The off-topic discussion about capital punishment has been moved to this thread.

[Salahudeen]

hmm does anyone know what the punishment is for rape according to the bible?

[Predator]

hmm does anyone know what the punishment is for rape according to the bible?

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"

Although this Verse from the Bible only talks about virgins, but its the only verse in the entire Bible that talks about raping single women. Not to be biased or anything, but the Bible seems to have quite weird things in it that are quite irrational and quite ridiculous. Deuteronomy 22:28 forces the raped woman to marry her rapist.
Why in the world would any raped female victim want to be in the same town, not the same bedroom !! with her rapist?. This implies that the Bible seems to promote raping of single women:

"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:25)"

This is quite an interesting verse. We see in Deuteronomy 22:28 that if a man rapes a single woman then she will be forced to be his wife, while if a man rapes a married woman or a woman who is spoken for, in Deuteronomy 22:25, then he shall be put to death.

[Predator]

The Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) has given clear instructions about the behaviour of the Muslim army. He observed:

Narrated Anas ibn Malik: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Go in Allah's name, trusting in Allah, and adhering to the religion of Allah's Apostle. Do not kill a decrepit old man, o a young infant, or a child, or a woman; do not be dishonest about booty, but collect your spoils, do right and act well, for Allah loves those who do well. (Sunan Abu Dawud , Book 14, Number 2608)

So great is the respect for humanly feelings in Islam that even the wanton destruction of enemy's crops or property is strictly forbidden. The righteous Caliphs followed closely the teachings of Allah and those of His Apostle in letter and spirit the celebrated address which the first Caliph Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) gave to his army while sending her on the expedition to the Syrian borders is permeated with the noble spirit with which the war in Islam is permitted. He said:


Whereas in the Bible



Numbers 31:17-18

Now therefore KILL every male among the little ones, and
KILL every woman (female) that hath known man by lying
(having sex) with him.But keep ALIVE for yourselves all the GIRLS and all the
women who are VIRGINS."

There was no saliva test for virginity , the only way for those Jewish soldiers to find out whether a woman was a virgin to rape and verify it himself


31:35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

31:40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD's tribute was thirty and two persons.

What is God gonna do with 32 raped and ravished women

In a Book of God , God giving instruction that you verify whether the women is a virgin or not. God uttering this filth and dirt , kill every little child male or female . Only young girls you must keep and they too should not know a man intimately



Noble Quran Verse 5:32 "...if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people..."

In this Noble Verse we clearly see that Allah Almighty honors all the innocent souls that He created. Killing any innocent soul is so hated by Allah Almighty that He considers it as a crime against all of Mankind. According to the bible however in below verse in Hosea 13:16 , innocent pregnant women and unborn babies have to be killed to fullfill Gods punishment.


Gods Punishment in the Bible: Pregnant Women will be ripped open!

Hosea 13:16 (New Living Translation) - The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

Ezekiel 23:47(King James Version)

47: And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire.

[AlbanianMuslim]

What an absurd accusation to be making. Human nature disrespects and degrades women. Women degrade women. Men degrade women.
ISLAM respects, elevates and dignifies women. Period.

[barney]

You need to read the full instruction.
Ephesians 5:25-28 continues:


Equally 1 Peter 3:7 continues with:


The way I read these instructions to husbands and wives is that they complement each other to form the perfect relationship within marriage:
The wife is willing to listen to her husband, and the husband is willing to love his wife and consider her needs.

Speaking generally, both the Qu'ran and the Bible were written in a time and culture which was strongly patriarchal - so no wonder this attitude is sometimes reflected in scripture.

I don't think many people - Muslims or Christians - would suggest that a wife should obey her husband, even if he demands her to do something wrong or something that is against God's instructions. At least I hope not ...!

Hey Glo

I dont think it's a matter of roles. People are people and a relationship is richer if there is equal respect. Thats impossible to acheive in reality, but does that mean it shouldnt be a goal?

Restricting women or men to certain roles based on history is an awful concept. It simply stagnates the species. Even back in the Bronze age women could have had the equality they have today in secular societies. it is purely a matter of the will of the people.

Islam made womens conditions somewhat better than they had been before. It staggers the beleif in humanity that it took till the 1900's to bring in the right to vote or equal pay or women in buisnesses.
Why did it take so long? Well because societies are almost exclusivly patriarchal. Judeism has its Patriarchs in Abraham, Moses and all. Christianity is patriarchal, but with some nods to Mary in catholicism, John Frumism isnt Jane frumism, Mormonism wasnt founded by Joanne Smith.

It's my assertion that the bigoted sexist suppressive attitudes of Man-kind are responsible for such gems as Pauls commands to cover the head and not to speak in church. We can wash these instructions endlessly till they conform kicking and screaming into modernity and civility.

"Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak."
Churning this into "Paul was talking about the spiritual silence, the calm that women should display as an example of contemplation" or <insert your own adaption of some pretty plain speaking!>

Women in the OT are repetitively Barren, dumb, faithless & schemers who's sole skills seem to be leading men astray. Correct me if I'm wrong! Sure theres the odd one like Ruth, but for every one of those theres four or more Delilahs and Lots Daughters. Overall they are otherwise ignored completley!

I find it very hard to understand how any western woman can accept open sexism at its face value. I personally think that paul meant what he said with no need for such wheedling. But that this being the case, Paul like his Brothers in writing were bronze age racist and sexist to the bone.:hmm:

[Italianguy]

Wow, so much controversy over something that should be kept between a husband and wife.

Simple answer,

Parents, raise your children with a good understanding (according to your faith) of the roles of a man and a woman.

Husbands, Be good to your wife! Treat her like a queen! She is your queen! Treat your queen with respect, teat your queen with love, treat your queen to an icecream;DTreat your queen like you would treat your mother. Provide for her a kingdom, provide for her what she needs. Our wives are our future, with out your wife you are just a man...with no children to carry your name! Without our wives we are lonelyimsad

I once heard "Behind every great man is a woman....rolling her eye's";D

Wives, Do whatever you like!.......WHAT? Like i'm going to answer that any other way, yeahhhhh right. I'm trying to stay...OFF the couch:phew

[Predator]

I will let you reference the Surah's you forgot....you know...the ones in which allow a husband o beat their wives, or hit them if they get out of line. I am sure you just forgot those ones or ran out of time before you could post them right?

Islam does not advocate wife-beating, especially to those women who are very nice and meet their responsibilities in general. It speaks about the women who are extremely defiant, rude, disobedient, unbearable, too belittling to their husbands especially in front of people, and would not care for their children.


There are many verses in the Bible that put women under the authority and judgment of men:

1- Man is clearly the ruler and the lord of the woman:
Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.""

I am not saying that a husband is allowed to kill his wife if she defies or reviles him. But certainly, him being her ruler gives him a great deal of power and authority over her. So why should he be forbidden from disciplining her if she gets out of line?


2- The man is allowed to cut the woman's hands if she defends her husband in the wrong way:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

3- The daughter would get burnt alive with fire:
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the *****, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

There are many many other verses that I could dig up and provide, but these should be sufficient enough to prove that men have full authority over women in the Bible.
In fact, the Bible gave certain punishments for beating certain people:
Exodus 21
14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [a] and he does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
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.
26 "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.
Numbers 35
18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
..........
21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
Deuteronomy 19
5 For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life.
The Bible went into many details about many of the hitting scenarios. It even went as far as giving a hypothetical example of a neighbor accidently causing for a tree to fall on his neighbor. Yet,
Never once did the Bible address the beating of wives! Why is that?
In fact, if a man rapes a single girl, which is technically a physical beating and a rape, then his punishment is to marry her:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"
I simply do not see where the Bible truly prohibits wife-beating. It seems clear to me that the Bible looks at the woman as someone who belongs only to her husband and that it is none of anyone's business to know or to care about what really goes on between them. So whether the husband beats his wife or not, it really doesn't matter. This is how I honestly see the Bible's view toward the wife. I am not saying that the Bible encourages wife-beating. But certainly, the Bible Just doesn't care at all about it rather than condemn
Also, Jesus has definitely seen or heard of wife-beating incidents throughout his life in the society that he lived in. I mean, I find it virtually impossible for a hard-headed society that he lived among, who were full of defiance and stubbornness, to not have wife-beating in it. So, Jesus' silence about it also proves that
Jesus too didn't really care at all about it.

Let us look at the following verses from the Bible:
Luke 6
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Luke 6
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
But there is a limit to forgiveness:
Matthew 18
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
A bad wife could run out of the 77 times in a matter of days or weeks.

We also read:
Ephesians 5:32-33
32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Christian men are expected to love their wives as they love themselves, and Christian women are expected to respect their husbands. But what if the wife does not respect nor honor her husband? What if she is an unbearable person? Full of foul words? Stubborn? Disrespectful and defiant to her master and head, her husband?
Yes, the man is expected to be merciful as GOD Almighty is Merciful, and to love his enemies and to do good to them, but what if the wife becomes such an enemy that she is too harmful to the man, his dignity and to their children? What if she doesn't want to take care of the children, nor to feed them? What if she continuously defies the social traditions? What if she constantly insult him and belittle him in front of people? What if she doesn't treat him as her "head"?

Furthermore, we read:
Hosea 3
1 The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."

This verse clearly and indisputably proves that wife-beating to the extremely defiant and disobedient women is allowed, for the following reasons:
1- If one were to love his wife as GOD Almighty loved the Israelites, then this means that he can beat the day lights out of her every time she defies him!
How many, many times did GOD Almighty annihilate the Israelites, as a punishment for them, and caused for their children's heads to be dashed, and their women's pregnant tummies to get ripped open, and for their men to be killed, and for their towns to be utterly destroyed, and for them to be scattered all over the lands, by their enemies, because they defied GOD Almighty?

2- Yes as husband, you must be
Loving and forgiving
Sweet and humble
Open-minded
A person with a very big, loving and forgiving heart
Gentleman
Generous
Tender, loving, fun, passive, and as perfect as you possibly could
with your wife!

But, if she does get waaaayyyy out of line with you, as the Israelites got way out of line with GOD Almighty, then you are permitted to treat her as GOD Almighty treated the Israelites - to punish her! And GOD Almighty annhialated the Israelites when He, the Almighty, decided to go against them.

It is clear that the Bible did not even once addressed the issue of wife-beating, nor husband-beating, while it did address many issues of beatings. It is also clear that the woman is under the control and authority of her husband, and the Bible clearly doesn't care much about what goes on between them.
However, the Bible did command kindness, humbleness and mercy to all people. The Bible also commanded the same to the wives. The Bible limited the forgiveness to 77 times. A bad wife could go through all of them in a matter of weeks or months. But however, the command for the husband to love his wife as GOD Almighty loved Israel only proves that wife-beating is permitted for the women who are defiant, disobedient, belittling to their "heads" and "masters" (their husbands), and stubborn, because GOD Almighty, while He Loved the people of Israel, He also annihilated them many times in the past.
Jesus also existed in a society that had both polygamy and wife-beating in it, and he never condemned any of them.

[Italianguy]

Islam does not advocate wife-beating, especially to those women who are very nice and meet their responsibilities in general. It speaks about the women who are extremely defiant, rude, disobedient, unbearable, too belittling to their husbands especially in front of people, and would not care for their children.


There are many verses in the Bible that put women under the authority and judgment of men:

1- Man is clearly the ruler and the lord of the woman:
Genesis 3:16 "To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.""

I am not saying that a husband is allowed to kill his wife if she defies or reviles him. But certainly, him being her ruler gives him a great deal of power and authority over her. So why should he be forbidden from disciplining her if she gets out of line?


2- The man is allowed to cut the woman's hands if she defends her husband in the wrong way:
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

3- The daughter would get burnt alive with fire:
Leviticus 21:9 "And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the *****, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire."

There are many many other verses that I could dig up and provide, but these should be sufficient enough to prove that men have full authority over women in the Bible.
In fact, the Bible gave certain punishments for beating certain people:
Exodus 21
14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.
15 "Anyone who attacks his father or his mother must be put to death.
16 "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.
17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
18 "If men quarrel and one hits the other with a stone or with his fist [a] and he does not die but is confined to bed,
19 the one who struck the blow will not be held responsible if the other gets up and walks around outside with his staff; however, he must pay the injured man for the loss of his time and see that he is completely healed.
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,
21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
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.
26 "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.
Numbers 35
18 Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death.
..........
21 or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
Deuteronomy 19
5 For instance, a man may go into the forest with his neighbor to cut wood, and as he swings his ax to fell a tree, the head may fly off and hit his neighbor and kill him. That man may flee to one of these cities and save his life.
The Bible went into many details about many of the hitting scenarios. It even went as far as giving a hypothetical example of a neighbor accidently causing for a tree to fall on his neighbor. Yet,
Never once did the Bible address the beating of wives! Why is that?
In fact, if a man rapes a single girl, which is technically a physical beating and a rape, then his punishment is to marry her:
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 22:28)"
I simply do not see where the Bible truly prohibits wife-beating. It seems clear to me that the Bible looks at the woman as someone who belongs only to her husband and that it is none of anyone's business to know or to care about what really goes on between them. So whether the husband beats his wife or not, it really doesn't matter. This is how I honestly see the Bible's view toward the wife. I am not saying that the Bible encourages wife-beating. But certainly, the Bible Just doesn't care at all about it rather than condemn
Also, Jesus has definitely seen or heard of wife-beating incidents throughout his life in the society that he lived in. I mean, I find it virtually impossible for a hard-headed society that he lived among, who were full of defiance and stubbornness, to not have wife-beating in it. So, Jesus' silence about it also proves that
Jesus too didn't really care at all about it.

Let us look at the following verses from the Bible:
Luke 6
34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.
35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Luke 6
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
But there is a limit to forgiveness:
Matthew 18
21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
22 Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.
A bad wife could run out of the 77 times in a matter of days or weeks.

We also read:
Ephesians 5:32-33
32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.
33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Christian men are expected to love their wives as they love themselves, and Christian women are expected to respect their husbands. But what if the wife does not respect nor honor her husband? What if she is an unbearable person? Full of foul words? Stubborn? Disrespectful and defiant to her master and head, her husband?
Yes, the man is expected to be merciful as GOD Almighty is Merciful, and to love his enemies and to do good to them, but what if the wife becomes such an enemy that she is too harmful to the man, his dignity and to their children? What if she doesn't want to take care of the children, nor to feed them? What if she continuously defies the social traditions? What if she constantly insult him and belittle him in front of people? What if she doesn't treat him as her "head"?

Furthermore, we read:
Hosea 3
1 The LORD said to me, "Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes."

This verse clearly and indisputably proves that wife-beating to the extremely defiant and disobedient women is allowed, for the following reasons:
1- If one were to love his wife as GOD Almighty loved the Israelites, then this means that he can beat the day lights out of her every time she defies him!
How many, many times did GOD Almighty annihilate the Israelites, as a punishment for them, and caused for their children's heads to be dashed, and their women's pregnant tummies to get ripped open, and for their men to be killed, and for their towns to be utterly destroyed, and for them to be scattered all over the lands, by their enemies, because they defied GOD Almighty?

2- Yes as husband, you must be
Loving and forgiving
Sweet and humble
Open-minded
A person with a very big, loving and forgiving heart
Gentleman
Generous
Tender, loving, fun, passive, and as perfect as you possibly could
with your wife!

But, if she does get waaaayyyy out of line with you, as the Israelites got way out of line with GOD Almighty, then you are permitted to treat her as GOD Almighty treated the Israelites - to punish her! And GOD Almighty annhialated the Israelites when He, the Almighty, decided to go against them.

It is clear that the Bible did not even once addressed the issue of wife-beating, nor husband-beating, while it did address many issues of beatings. It is also clear that the woman is under the control and authority of her husband, and the Bible clearly doesn't care much about what goes on between them.
However, the Bible did command kindness, humbleness and mercy to all people. The Bible also commanded the same to the wives. The Bible limited the forgiveness to 77 times. A bad wife could go through all of them in a matter of weeks or months. But however, the command for the husband to love his wife as GOD Almighty loved Israel only proves that wife-beating is permitted for the women who are defiant, disobedient, belittling to their "heads" and "masters" (their husbands), and stubborn, because GOD Almighty, while He Loved the people of Israel, He also annihilated them many times in the past.
Jesus also existed in a society that had both polygamy and wife-beating in it, and he never condemned any of them.

Thanks! Glad i don't have to worry about it, my wife never gets out-of-line. :D I could never hit a woman anyway, it's ridiculous!

[barney]

The reason this keeps rolling along as a debate is that the explainations invariably are:

Islam does NOT tolerate wife beating. Women have a cherished and lofty position .....
then a long explaination about this.......Then right at the end, Except in clear cases where there is no alternative, then as a last resort, and it really is a last resort, a man may bring a transgressing woman who dishonours him into correction by lightly tapping her on the shoulder with a toothbrush.

2 points
1) Who actually ever does this? Who chases around the garden their spouse with a toothbrush?
2) Even this level of last resortism and light tapping is sexist. Theres no escaping that. Women have to answer at the end of the day, to men or they will be gently tapped.

[Italianguy]

Hey Glo

I dont think it's a matter of roles. People are people and a relationship is richer if there is equal respect. Thats impossible to acheive in reality, but does that mean it shouldnt be a goal?

Restricting women or men to certain roles based on history is an awful concept. It simply stagnates the species. Even back in the Bronze age women could have had the equality they have today in secular societies. it is purely a matter of the will of the people.

Islam made womens conditions somewhat better than they had been before. It staggers the beleif in humanity that it took till the 1900's to bring in the right to vote or equal pay or women in buisnesses.
Why did it take so long? Well because societies are almost exclusivly patriarchal. Judeism has its Patriarchs in Abraham, Moses and all. Christianity is patriarchal, but with some nods to Mary in catholicism, John Frumism isnt Jane frumism, Mormonism wasnt founded by Joanne Smith.

It's my assertion that the bigoted sexist suppressive attitudes of Man-kind are responsible for such gems as Pauls commands to cover the head and not to speak in church. We can wash these instructions endlessly till they conform kicking and screaming into modernity and civility.

"Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak."
Churning this into "Paul was talking about the spiritual silence, the calm that women should display as an example of contemplation" or <insert your own adaption of some pretty plain speaking!>

Women in the OT are repetitively Barren, dumb, faithless & schemers who's sole skills seem to be leading men astray. Correct me if I'm wrong! Sure theres the odd one like Ruth, but for every one of those theres four or more Delilahs and Lots Daughters. Overall they are otherwise ignored completley!

I find it very hard to understand how any western woman can accept open sexism at its face value. I personally think that paul meant what he said with no need for such wheedling. But that this being the case, Paul like his Brothers in writing were bronze age racist and sexist to the bone.:hmm:

Those are some bold words to say about Paul and his brothers:hmm:

My wife doesn't speak during prayer and keeps her whole head coverd,(not just the top of the head like some other women), during all services. She does this though, buy choice and because it is written that way and shldn't be changed to fit modern societies needs to be liberal. I would agree with her. We do however attend a newer non-denominational church, so the way I dress and the fact that she will not speak and covers her head is always a topic for others, but I am not there for socializing anyway.

I do however see some younger men wearing hats in church, and i have brought it to the pastors attention....he said he will look into it:hmm:? Men are not supposed to wear hats in the church or praying!

I have also noticed the church changing overall. Women are dressing provactivley and men are just there to see thier buddies:hmm:.

I am starting to think i need to be back in a Catholic or Orthodox church?

[Grace Seeker]

It's my assertion that the bigoted sexist suppressive attitudes of Man-kind are responsible for such gems as Pauls commands to cover the head and not to speak in church. We can wash these instructions endlessly till they conform kicking and screaming into modernity and civility.

"Let the women keep silent in the churches." That surely is direct and specific enough for all needs. He then adds explanatorily: "For it is not permitted to them to speak."

It is direct and specific, but was it given as a universal instruction to all women in all times and places? Or was it particularlized for a certain given time and place? I submit to you that it is the latter, and not intended to be used as a polemic on how men and women in other settings are supposed to relate to one other.

But you are right that it is the bigoted sexist suppresive attiduces of Man-kind that are responsible for these gems. Whether or not Paul was himself bigotted and sexists, or if he just thought that this was the best advice to a given situation, I don't think you can say from a single verse of scripture.

When I look at the larger picture, I see evidence of both in Paul's life. The arguments that he is a bigotted sexists have been well put forth, so let me share the other side. Paul included women in his own ministry, repeatedly wrote to them personally and thanked them for what they did to assist him and even applauded one one (Phoebe) for her role as a deaconess (i.e. female deacon) of the church. That's a far cry from the way some see Paul as excluding women from any role of leadership in the life of the church.

If we leave Paul, we find that Jesus is even more inclusive of women. His acceptance of the ministries of Mary and Martha, his response to Mary Magdaline, opennes to the Samaritan woman by the well all indicate that he did not himself practice the bigoted, sexist, suppressive standards that were common in his day. Indeed, many women have found in the life and ministry of Jesus a cause celeb for a liberation theology of radical feminization (see Rosemary Reuther for one).

So while you will certainly find in the Bible a way of looking at women that is not as equitable as one encounters in present day western culture, I believe it is inaccurate to try to paint a monolithic portrait of the Bible view of women as one that denigrates them. That simply isn't supported by the totallity of the evidence. Those who say otherwise do so based on isolated texts (and often misconstrued ideas as to what even those texts are about) and not the whole picture.

[barney]

Hi Grace. Nice to see you again :)

Paul may have well thought that it was the best advice at the time. I'm sure he did. Not even the Greeks were progressive enough in those days to allow Women to vote or take positions of leadership, but at least they could go and worship Jupiter freely.

I see Pauls teachings as a product of his times.
This said, its facinating as an atheist to see the Modern Church of 2010 ripping itself to bits quite literally over women bishops and gay marriges or even gayness. Sure there are the original texts, Cover thy head, stone gays to death in front of the whole community. Its taken the church millenia to water this down to fit with modernity and secularism and it still isnt fixed!
The catholic church debated last week for days, and finally was divinely inspired to announce that peadophillia was a sin that god disaproved of. Really? well hey! Thanks for telling us Mr Ratzinger. I kinda figured that out decades ago without any hand-wringing! He wasnt inspired to apologise for the Church's systematic covering up of such acts amongst its clergy. Mayby in 2350 eh?

The point being is that religions are slaves to their scriptures and the scriptures although containing a few gems,(Sermon on the mount/Golden rule etc) are laced with embarrasment for any human beleiver with dignity.No matter; how much longer will those of faith struggle to square the circle of racism/sexism/intolerance that has no place in our world of today.

Italianguy, Yup Its strong condemnation of Paul, but how else could it be interpreted? Paul was a freedom loving campaigner for womens rights, but just chose to order covering of heads and silence in church? You wife I would support to the end to wear her scarf in church if she wills it. She may even think that she is somehow pleasing god by this. I would simply question, as I do, how this is possibly pleasing to any deity that squares up with modernity? I would further raise my ever skeptical eyebrow that we should 1900 years on be following doctrines based on one guys claims of visions any more than we would give credence to a more modern day prophet

[Grace Seeker]

The point being is that religions are slaves to their scriptures and the scriptures although containing a few gems,(Sermon on the mount/Golden rule etc) are laced with embarrasment for any human beleiver with dignity.No matter; how much longer will those of faith struggle to square the circle of racism/sexism/intolerance that has no place in our world of today.

Paradoxically, I'm going to agree with you that religions are "slaves" to their scriptures. But I don't think the Catholic Church would. They would argue that the Church existed before the scriptures and that it was the Church that produced what we now have and call the New Testament. So, far from being slaves of it, they are creators and interpretors of it.

As for myself, there are indeed places in the scripture that I wince when I read. But again, I am reminded that not all of scripture is meant to be understood as universally applicable. Nor was it ever intended that it should be. When Amos cried out, "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies," it wasn't God saying that all religious feasts and assemblies were bad, but in the context of the injustice that was being perpetrated in the name of religion that he would not accept their offerings at that time. So, the cry is levelled at a particular situation, and the more universal principal "to do justice and love mercy" must be gleaned from that context to be applied in other situations.

The problem is that sometimes people only look at the words, and then try to make them rather than the thought behind them universally applicable. This is my objection to those who favor a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, you probably remember the thread I started years ago to ask questions about Islam. I began with what I thought was a rather innocuous question about music in Islam. Well, I found out it was anything but an innocous question. I've since reached the conclusion, that if Muhammad were to be alive today, he would probably accept and utilized music just as he did in a few instance at weddings in his own life. But, I don't think we'll find many Muslims agreeing with that today, because, as you so well said, religions become slaves of their scriptures. But, I would argue it need not be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we throw scripture away either. They are our foundation documents. But I find learning to interpret scripture to be as much art as it is science. With science there is the notion that there is always a right answer, but with art there is room for continued inspiration. Since, I believe in a living God, I prefer to think of scripture and its interpretation as both needing to be inspired.

[Grace Seeker]

When I look at the larger picture, I see evidence of both in Paul's life. The arguments that he is a bigotted sexists have been well put forth, so let me share the other side. Paul included women in his own ministry, repeatedly wrote to them personally and thanked them for what they did to assist him and even applauded one one (Phoebe) for her role as a deaconess (i.e. female deacon) of the church. That's a far cry from the way some see Paul as excluding women from any role of leadership in the life of the church.

In response to the above statement I've been asked the following question:

May I ask? What is the difference between allowing woman to be a deacon and forbid her from speaking in the church?....aren't both roles are in the church?

The difference is that I don't think that Paul actually was forbiding women from speaking in the church. Yes, in certain limited circumstances he gave that counsel, but I don't believe that this was meant to be understood by Christians as a general principle. And the reason I say that is because Paul himself didn't live by that priniciple as evidence by his co-ministry with many different women in the church across the Mediterreanean basin. I believe that though who cite the few passages where Paul did tell women to be silent as if this is a rule for all women in all circumstances are twisting Paul's message to ends that he never intended.

[`Abd al-Azeez]

can any christian explain these two verse of the bible??

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NIV)

[barney]

Paradoxically, I'm going to agree with you that religions are "slaves" to their scriptures. But I don't think the Catholic Church would. They would argue that the Church existed before the scriptures and that it was the Church that produced what we now have and call the New Testament. So, far from being slaves of it, they are creators and interpretors of it.

As for myself, there are indeed places in the scripture that I wince when I read. But again, I am reminded that not all of scripture is meant to be understood as universally applicable. Nor was it ever intended that it should be. When Amos cried out, "I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies," it wasn't God saying that all religious feasts and assemblies were bad, but in the context of the injustice that was being perpetrated in the name of religion that he would not accept their offerings at that time. So, the cry is levelled at a particular situation, and the more universal principal "to do justice and love mercy" must be gleaned from that context to be applied in other situations.

The problem is that sometimes people only look at the words, and then try to make them rather than the thought behind them universally applicable. This is my objection to those who favor a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. For instance, you probably remember the thread I started years ago to ask questions about Islam. I began with what I thought was a rather innocuous question about music in Islam. Well, I found out it was anything but an innocous question. I've since reached the conclusion, that if Muhammad were to be alive today, he would probably accept and utilized music just as he did in a few instance at weddings in his own life. But, I don't think we'll find many Muslims agreeing with that today, because, as you so well said, religions become slaves of their scriptures. But, I would argue it need not be.

Now, I'm not suggesting that we throw scripture away either. They are our foundation documents. But I find learning to interpret scripture to be as much art as it is science. With science there is the notion that there is always a right answer, but with art there is room for continued inspiration. Since, I believe in a living God, I prefer to think of scripture and its interpretation as both needing to be inspired.

Pity I Repped you so recently, because this is a refreshingly honest post.

The obvious answer to me is, Christians need a new Bible. A modern Testemant, written by someone today who feels just as "Divinely Inspired" as Paul did. A discarding of the Ridiculous old testament, an acceptance that Jesus was a good and great teacher, but fallible and not a god. A man who left a pattern to build on for the future.
I know all these ideas have been floated in christianity in the past and only really stopped being floated when the heads voicing them were removed from the neck.

Mayby rather than keeping printing different ways of "happy is the man who dasheth the infants head against the wall" and Elishas Bears, struggling to make them peaceful and fluffy, we should start all over again.
Choose a new Messiah and dispense with the need to frenzidly attribute miracles to them.

[Danah]

In response to the above statement I've been asked the following question:

The difference is that I don't think that Paul actually was forbiding women from speaking in the church. Yes, in certain limited circumstances he gave that counsel, but I don't believe that this was meant to be understood by Christians as a general principle.

Like?
Do you have any idea of what kind of circumstances those might be?

[Froggy]

Are women allowed to speak in mosques? Can they become imams and so on?
One think I noticed is that Judaism has female prophets whereas Islam doesn't.

[Grace Seeker]

can any christian explain these two verse of the bible??

1 A day of the LORD is coming when your plunder will be divided among you.

2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NIV)

What's to explain? They prophetically speak of a judgment being brought against Israel for her unfaithfulness to the covenant she made with Yahweh. It is also understood by many to go on to refer to a last times scenario with a great climatic battle after which God will set all things in their proper place.

[Grace Seeker]

Like?
Do you have any idea of what kind of circumstances those might be?

Based on my background reading of the circumstances of the early church, I understand that life in Greece imposed certain expectations on all women -- be they Jew, Christian, Roman, or native inhabitant. And that place was low, very low. In Corinth, the commercial crossroads of 1st century Greece, women were stereotypically placed in one of two categories: (1) the chaste and virtuous women led a secluded life and largely confined themselves to running the household and the children, (2) women who presented themselves in public were known for loose morals. This was so much the case that Sophocles is quoted to have said, "Silence bestows grace upon a woman." Paul's words, encouraging silence among the women of this major Greek city, would have served to protect their reputation in much the same way that wearing the hijab protects the reputation of women in Islam today.

In addition, education was another area in which Greek women were kept down. Though Greek is known for its great philosophers, you'll note that none of them are women. Women were discouraged by their culture from becoming educated. As a result men would engage in conversations that, not by intellect but by practice, were over the heads of most women, who were then dependent on their husbands for explanation. As attendance at services in Greece is likely to have been in the format where women sat separately from men (customary in Jewish synagogues of the time), women in attendance may have had questions to ask of their husbands and shouted them out to them in the midst of the service. We don't know this to be the case, but Paul's letter to the church in Corinth indicates a congregation that seemed to lack in ettiquette in many other ways, and so this is not unreasonable speculation. In that context Paul might have had cause to tell women to be quiet in the service and ask these questions of their husbands at home.

And then I suspect that by the time Paul is writing to the church in Rome, where we see his most adamant affirmation of the role of women in ministry, that he may have undergone some personal growth as well from his earlier correspondence with Corinth. Rabbinic Jewish culture (and Paul was thoroughly educated in rabbinic schools) was filled with sayings such as: "As to teaching the law to a woman one might as well teach her impiety!" or that to teach a womans was the equivalent of "casting pearls before swine." The Talmud even lists among the plagues of the world "the talkative and the inquisitive widow and virgin who wastes her time in prayers." According to custom (not God's law) it was even forbidden to speak to a woman on the street.

Paul would have not been immuned to this poisioning of his mind. And it is out of that context that he wrote to the Corinthians. But, again, I think this is mostly in response to the peculiar situation that we see in Corinth. In Philippi and Rome (both later letters), we see a different Paul. And I suspect that this is because Paul allowed his experience to help educate him. As one who was arguing that Gentiles had as much of a place in the Church as did Jews, and given the productive help of women that came alongside of him in ministry, I suspect that this may have mollified Paul on this topic over time to see that women are also as much a part of the church as men are. Add to that, the churches in Philippi and Rome were not the quarrelsome church that Corinth was, and a letter to Corinth gets different treatment than would be applied other places and in other times.

[zana]

christians and muslims do think the same?

[barney]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence? Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt. :D

[Grace Seeker]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence?

Guidance, but not dictation. Christians may be directed by the Holy Spirit, even inspired, but they still retain their own essential character that God both uses and sometimes must work through (or inspite of) to communicate his message.

Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Much worse has been said about God. After all he created us with free will and then left us prey to temptation at the same time. Some have gone so far as to blame God for all the sins of humanity because he didn't create us as little automans that simply do his bidding without any thoughts of our own. My response is that he did create such things as well, they are called trees and rocks.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt. :D

Or, it may be that like with so much of Paul he simply didn't see a reason to get into the relationships between men and women any more than he did between slaves and masters, parents and children. He made a few comments, such as husbands and wives be submissive to each other, out of reverence for Christ. But his focus seems to have beren more on the "reverence for Christ" part.

Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, c. 1906) proposed that Paul had a "status quo theory" with regard to human entanglements, that Chrisitians are to "remain in whatever external condition they were in when they became believers." Schweitzer proposes that this theory is stated by Paul in general terms in 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 20 ("Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." and "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.") and applies that to things such as circumcision in vs. 18 ("Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."). The reason is because these various status us "circumcision or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, mean nothing in the light of his understanding of the immediate the new creation that occurs for all who are in Jesus Christ and the new world order that he is bringing with his (soon, althought apparently somewhat delayed) return.

Schweitzer recognizes that such a position may sound like a mere expedient, perhaps a compromised arrived at under the pressures of missionary experience, but he insists that we are dealing with a logical and "necessary inference" from Paul's fundamental convictions that "from the moment that a man [or woman for our discussion] is in-Christ his whole being is [to be] completely conditioned by that fact.... If in spite of this he begins to make alternations in his natural condition of existence, he is ignoring the fact that his being is hence for conditioned by the being-in-Christ, and not by anything else connected with his natural existence" (Mysticism, pp. 194-195).

Note: According to Schwietzer, when Paul spoke of "being in Christ", it means having died and risen with again with Christ as more than just a metaphor, but a real event that happens on the metaphysical plane of existence. This process began with baptism, and led the knowing of one's self as a being who is raised above the sensuous, sinful, and transient world, and already belonging to the transcendent world to come.

If that's how one views one's self, one could hardly care about some of the things that other ("natural" or "fleshly") people in this world would care about.

[Italianguy]

Wasnt Paul supposed to have been operating under divine guidence? Jesus manifested himself in front of him, gave him a mission. To let him just operate using his own judgement is at the very minimum, gross negligence.

Paul could have written
"Women are equal to men, they may take part in all aspects of church life and in society. Shed your old dusty ideas about them for they are too made in Gods image, God abohors to see his creations treated like dirt beneath mens feet"

But he didn't writr that, so we can't change it to fit our needs.

Or something similar: I would Imagine a divinely inspired speech would be better than a drunken Yorkshiremans off the cuff attempt. :D

Anything is better than that

[barney]

Guidance, but not dictation. Christians may be directed by the Holy Spirit, even inspired, but they still retain their own essential character that God both uses and sometimes must work through (or inspite of) to communicate his message.


Much worse has been said about God. After all he created us with free will and then left us prey to temptation at the same time. Some have gone so far as to blame God for all the sins of humanity because he didn't create us as little automans that simply do his bidding without any thoughts of our own. My response is that he did create such things as well, they are called trees and rocks.




Or, it may be that like with so much of Paul he simply didn't see a reason to get into the relationships between men and women any more than he did between slaves and masters, parents and children. He made a few comments, such as husbands and wives be submissive to each other, out of reverence for Christ. But his focus seems to have beren more on the "reverence for Christ" part.

Albert Schweitzer (The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, c. 1906) proposed that Paul had a "status quo theory" with regard to human entanglements, that Chrisitians are to "remain in whatever external condition they were in when they became believers." Schweitzer proposes that this theory is stated by Paul in general terms in 1 Corinthians 7:17 & 20 ("Each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches." and "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him.") and applies that to things such as circumcision in vs. 18 ("Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised."). The reason is because these various status us "circumcision or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, mean nothing in the light of his understanding of the immediate the new creation that occurs for all who are in Jesus Christ and the new world order that he is bringing with his (soon, althought apparently somewhat delayed) return.

Schweitzer recognizes that such a position may sound like a mere expedient, perhaps a compromised arrived at under the pressures of missionary experience, but he insists that we are dealing with a logical and "necessary inference" from Paul's fundamental convictions that "from the moment that a man [or woman for our discussion] is in-Christ his whole being is [to be] completely conditioned by that fact.... If in spite of this he begins to make alternations in his natural condition of existence, he is ignoring the fact that his being is hence for conditioned by the being-in-Christ, and not by anything else connected with his natural existence" (Mysticism, pp. 194-195).

Note: According to Schwietzer, when Paul spoke of "being in Christ", it means having died and risen with again with Christ as more than just a metaphor, but a real event that happens on the metaphysical plane of existence. This process began with baptism, and led the knowing of one's self as a being who is raised above the sensuous, sinful, and transient world, and already belonging to the transcendent world to come.

If that's how one views one's self, one could hardly care about some of the things that other ("natural" or "fleshly") people in this world would care about.

Grace . You are always a competant debater. you take the time to think it through.

1) rocks are not sentinant
2)Then Paul missed an oppotunity that Yaweh(tiny desert god) had already foreseen, thus Yaweh is culpable.
3)Sweitzer is attempting to explain human progress by a discarding of literalism. I would agree and call this "Shedding of the unneccesery and impossible" The addition of Jesus the Carpenter isnt a requirement

[Grace Seeker]

Then Paul missed an oppotunity that Yaweh(tiny desert god) had already foreseen, thus Yaweh is culpable.

You won't be alone in reaching that conclusion. After all, given our human imperfections, if we can't say, "The devil made me do it", then at least we can blame our creator. Which gets back to presupposing that God's sovereignty extends to everything that we do. Barney, you scare me, you're beginning to sound a lot like John Calvin.

[mog]

Revelation 14:4 (Amplified Bible)

4These are they who have not defiled themselves by relations with women, for they are [[a]pure as] virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These are they who have been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from among men as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

[AhlaamBella]

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

Why is it still used and printd in Bibles? And does that mean that Christianity was wrong 1st time round and needed to give it another try with a new book? Rules in Chrstianity always seem to changing. Gets terribly confusing :heated:

[Pygoscelis]

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

If the Old Testament isn't Christianity then why do I more often hear about the ten commandments than the sermon on the mount? And why all the hate for homosexuality?

[Italianguy]

Why is it still used and printd in Bibles? And does that mean that Christianity was wrong 1st time round and needed to give it another try with a new book? Rules in Chrstianity always seem to changing. Gets terribly confusing :heated:

I think what he is trying to say is that there couldn't have been Christians or Christianity before Jesus Christ. The defeniton of Christian is follower of Christ. Jesus Christ came after the Old Testament was written. Thus meaning there were no Christians at the time of the old testament. The Old Testament spoke of Jesus though. The new testament, other wise known as the New Convenant, came after Jesus time on earth.

MAybe thats what he meant?? I cold be wrong.....I usually amimsad

[Italianguy]

If the Old Testament isn't Christianity then why do I more often hear about the ten commandments than the sermon on the mount? And why all the hate for homosexuality?

Off topic...self deleted

[Supreme]

What do you mean hate for homo's? We don't hate them, we must pray they will repent and stop sinning! I won't get near them....wouldn't want to catch homo'itis...

Not only was that mean, it was also offensive, uneducated, insenstive and completely uncalled for.

I mean come on...it is clear it wasn't meant to be that way! And it's a disqusting abomination of God's intentions for us as pertaining to a relationship between man and woman!

The age old argument of what's natural. Flying on a plane isn't natural. Eating processed food isn't natural. In fact, if you want natural, then hey, let's all run around stark naked with spears hunting animals and each other whilst sitting by the camp fire at nights telling folklore. That's 'natural'.

[جوري]

What do you mean hate for homo's? We don't hate them, we must pray they will repent and stop sinning! I won't get near them....wouldn't want to catch homo'itis..!

You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic beliefs unrefined beliefs.

to condemn an act = hate for the individual
refined morals = need to look for a loophole to make degenerate behavior more acceptable
beliefs in things that are beyond scientific explanations = fairy-tales
good-manners= antiquated social graces
folks dismissing them for their incessant vulgarity= they are logical and others just can't deal with it..

the faster you reach this conclusion the better off you'll feel!

all the best

[Italianguy]

Not only was that mean, it was also offensive, uneducated, insenstive and completely uncalled for.


The age old argument of what's natural. Flying on a plane isn't natural. Eating processed food isn't natural. In fact, if you want natural, then hey, let's all run around stark naked with spears hunting animals and each other whilst sitting by the camp fire at nights telling folklore. That's 'natural'.

It was wrong of me to be vulgar but i don't pretend to care how homosexualls and atheists , agnostics feel about religion, they are all equall. It is my duty to tell the about God, but if they refuse to recieve the word...it's on their head not mine.

[Italianguy]

You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic beliefs unrefined beliefs.

to condemn an act = hate for the individual
refined morals = need to look for a loophole to make degenerate behavior more acceptable
beliefs in things that are beyond scientific explanations = fairy-tales
good-manners= antiquated social graces
folks dismissing them for their incessant vulgarity= they are logical and others just can't deal with it..

the faster you reach this conclusion the better off you'll feel!

all the best

Your right as usuall Ms. Skye. I can't understand them, i really don't? It's hard for me to immagine denying our creator. The fact that they do, even after knowing of His existance, is beyond me?? How do they do it?

Thanks for the reply.

P.s. How have you been? You were a little down on yourself shortly ago. I pray God is making things easier on you. God bless.

[Supreme]

You must remember that atheists aren't very evolved.. in the evolutionary scale, they are still stuck back at ape.. so they have monolithic beliefs unrefined beliefs.

Which evolutionary scale are you using?

Again, I'd ask you to research a topic before commenting on it. But my advice falls on deaf ears...

[Uthman]

This thread isn't about homosexuality - it's about the presentation of women in the Bible and the Qur'an. Let's return to the topic please. :)

And while we're at it, let's discuss the topic respectfully.

[mog]

Islam Honours and protects the women .The Bible culture is Harsh on women

The Wife's Submission To Her Husband According To The New Testament

The Bible teaches that a husband should have authority over his wife...

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1

Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,


However, what kind of submission are we talking about here?...

1 Peter 3:5-6

5For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands, Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

So aren't the women of today also supposed to follow this example and call their husbands their master?


It is good that the New Testament teaches that a wife should obey her husband but you can kind of get the impression that it takes it a little bit too far...

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

The wife should submit to their husbands in EVERYTHING? Isn't that a little bit too extreme? Paul is saying that the wife should submit to the husband as the Church does to Christ. Now since Christians believe that Christ is God does that mean that the wife should obey her husband as if she is obeying God and give him the same rights?

You can see a similar problem here.


In Islam there are limits when it comes to obedience to people...

Surah 4:135

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well- acquainted with all that ye do.


So if a husband orders his wife to do something wrong she must not listen to him and obey him in EVERYTHING just like the New Testament says

Ephesians 5 (Amplified Bible)

Ephesians 5
1THEREFORE BE imitators of God [copy Him and follow His example], as well-beloved children [imitate their father].

2And walk in love, [esteeming and delighting in one another] as Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, a [a]slain offering and sacrifice to God [for you, so that it became] a sweet fragrance.(A)

3But immorality (sexual vice) and all impurity [[b]of lustful, rich, wasteful living] or greediness must not even be named among you, as is fitting and proper among saints (God's consecrated people).

4Let there be no filthiness (obscenity, indecency) nor foolish and sinful (silly and corrupt) talk, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting or becoming; but instead voice your thankfulness [to God].

5For be sure of this: that no person practicing sexual vice or impurity in thought or in life, or one who is covetous [who has lustful desire for the property of others and is greedy for gain]--for he [in effect] is an idolater--has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

6Let no one delude and deceive you with empty excuses and groundless arguments [for these sins], for through these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of rebellion and disobedience.

7So do not associate or be sharers with them.

8For once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of Light [lead the lives of those native-born to the Light].

9For the fruit (the effect, the product) of the Light or [c]the Spirit [consists] in every form of kindly goodness, uprightness of heart, and trueness of life.

10And try to learn [in your experience] what is pleasing to the Lord [let your lives be constant proofs of what is most acceptable to Him].

11Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead [let your lives be so in contrast as to] [d]expose and reprove and convict them.

12For it is a shame even to speak of or mention the things that [such people] practice in secret.

13But when anything is exposed and reproved by the light, it is made visible and clear; and where everything is visible and clear there is light.

14Therefore He says, Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall shine (make day dawn) upon you and give you light.(B)

15Look carefully then how you walk! Live purposefully and worthily and accurately, not as the unwise and witless, but as wise (sensible, intelligent people),

16Making the very most of the time [buying up each opportunity], because the days are evil.

17Therefore do not be vague and thoughtless and foolish, but understanding and firmly grasping what the will of the Lord is.

18And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but ever be filled and stimulated with the [Holy] Spirit.(C)

19Speak out to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, offering praise with voices [[e]and instruments] and making melody with all your heart to the Lord,

20At all times and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.

21Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One).

[B]22Wives, be subject (be submissive and adapt yourselves) to your own husbands as [a service] to the Lord.

23For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is the Head of the church, Himself the Savior of [His] body.

24As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,

27That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].

28Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

29For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,

30Because we are members (parts) of His body.

31For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.(D)

32This mystery is very great, but I speak concerning [the relation of] Christ and the church.

33However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [[f]that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and [g]that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly]. [I Pet. 3:2.]

Colossians 3:18-21 (Amplified Bible)

18Wives, be subject to your husbands [subordinate and adapt yourselves to them], as is right and fitting and your proper duty in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives [be affectionate and sympathetic with them] and do not be harsh or bitter or resentful toward them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this is pleasing to the Lord.

21Fathers, do not provoke or irritate or fret your children [do not be hard on them or harass them], lest they become discouraged and sullen and morose and feel inferior and frustrated. [Do not break their spirit.]

Titus 2:1-8 (Amplified Bible)

Titus 2
1BUT [as for] you, teach what is fitting and becoming to sound (wholesome) doctrine [the character and right living that identify true Christians].

2Urge the older men to be temperate, venerable (serious), sensible, self-controlled, and sound in the faith, in the love, and in the steadfastness and patience [of Christ].

3Bid the older women similarly to be reverent and devout in their deportment as becomes those engaged in sacred service, not slanderers or slaves to drink. They are to give good counsel and be teachers of what is right and noble,

4So that they will wisely train the young women to be [a]sane and sober of mind (temperate, disciplined) and to love their husbands and their children,

5To be self-controlled, chaste, homemakers, good-natured (kindhearted), adapting and subordinating themselves to their husbands, that the word of God may not be exposed to reproach (blasphemed or discredited).

6In a similar way, urge the younger men to be self-restrained and to behave prudently [taking life seriously].

7And show your own self in all respects to be a pattern and a model of good deeds and works, teaching what is unadulterated, showing gravity [having the strictest regard for truth and purity of motive], with dignity and seriousness.

8And let your instruction be sound and fit and wise and wholesome, vigorous and [b]irrefutable and above censure, so that the opponent may be put to shame, finding nothing discrediting or evil to say about us.

1 Peter 3 (Amplified Bible)

1 Peter 3
1IN LIKE manner, you married women, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate yourselves as being secondary to and dependent on them, and adapt yourselves to them], so that even if any do not obey the Word [of God], they may be won over not by discussion but by the [godly] lives of their wives,

2When they observe the pure and modest way in which you conduct yourselves, together with your [a] reverence [for your husband; you are to feel for him all that reverence includes: to respect, defer to, revere him--to honor, esteem, appreciate, prize, and, in the human sense, to adore him, that is, to admire, praise, be devoted to, deeply love, and enjoy your husband].

3Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] [b] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes;

4But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God.

5For it was thus that the pious women of old who hoped in God were [accustomed] to beautify themselves and were submissive to their husbands [adapting themselves to them as themselves secondary and dependent upon them].

6It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].

7In the same way you married men should live considerately with [your wives], with an [c]intelligent recognition [of the marriage relation], honoring the woman as [physically] the weaker, but [realizing that you] are joint heirs of the grace (God's unmerited favor) of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered and cut off. [Otherwise you cannot pray effectively.]

8Finally, all [of you] should be of one and the same mind (united in spirit), sympathizing [with one another], loving [each other] as brethren [of one household], compassionate and courteous (tenderhearted and humble).

9Never return evil for evil or insult for insult (scolding, tongue-lashing, berating), but on the contrary blessing [praying for their welfare, happiness, and protection, and truly pitying and loving them]. For know that to this you have been called, that you may yourselves inherit a blessing [from God--that you may obtain a blessing as heirs, bringing welfare and happiness and protection].

10For let him who wants to enjoy life and see good days [good--whether apparent or not] keep his tongue free from evil and his lips from guile (treachery, deceit).

11Let him turn away from wickedness and shun it, and let him do right. Let him search for peace (harmony; undisturbedness from fears, agitating passions, and moral conflicts) and seek it eagerly. [Do not merely desire peaceful relations with God, with your fellowmen, and with yourself, but pursue, go after them!]

12For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous (those who are upright and in right standing with God), and His ears are attentive to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who practice evil [to oppose them, to frustrate, and defeat them].(A)

13Now who is there to hurt you if you are [d]zealous followers of that which is good?

14But even in case you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, [you are] blessed (happy, to be envied). Do not dread or be afraid of their threats, nor be disturbed [by their opposition].

15But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.(B)

16[And see to it that] your conscience is entirely clear ([e]unimpaired), so that, when you are falsely accused as evildoers, those who threaten you abusively and revile your right behavior in Christ may come to be ashamed [of slandering your good lives].

17For [it is] better to suffer [unjustly] for doing right, if that should be God's will, than to suffer [justly] for doing wrong.

18For Christ [the Messiah Himself] died for sins once [f]for all, the Righteous for the unrighteous (the Just for the unjust, the Innocent for the guilty), that He might bring us to God. In His human body He was put to death, but He was made alive in the spirit,

19In which He went and preached to the spirits in prison,

20[The souls of those] who long before in the days of Noah had been disobedient, when God's patience waited during the building of the ark in which a few [people], actually eight in number, were saved through water.(C)

21And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

22[And He] has now entered into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with [all] angels and authorities and powers made subservient to Him.

[mog]

Revelation 14:4 (Amplified Bible)

4These are they who have not defiled themselves by relations with women, for they are [[a]pure as] virgins. These are they who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. These are they who have been ransomed (purchased, redeemed) from among men as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.

The Old Testament is NOT Christianity!

And it should be noted that this group of men do not appear until the 'Last Days' of the 'End Times'!

[mog]

Why is it still used and printd in Bibles? And does that mean that Christianity was wrong 1st time round and needed to give it another try with a new book? Rules in Chrstianity always seem to changing. Gets terribly confusing :heated:

The 'Old Testament' is historical and introduces the ancient Israelites to the 'Law and Commandments' of the 'Old Covenant' that constitute Judaism!

It also contains 'Prophecy' about the 1st. & 2nd. Coming of JESUS CHRIST!

The 'New Testament' is historical but reveals the change from the 'Old Covenant' to the 'New Covenant' of the SPIRIT which is in force now!

And contains further 'Prohecy' about the 'End Times' and the 'Last Days'!

[Grace Seeker]

If the Old Testament isn't Christianity then why do I more often hear about the ten commandments than the sermon on the mount?

I'm just glad to learn that you're going someplace where you hear any sort of sermon. Seems that there might be hope for you after all. ;D

[Grace Seeker]

And it should be noted that this group of men do not appear until the 'Last Days' of the 'End Times'!

No. These are the men who have been gleaned from All Times and RE-appear in the Last Days.

[جوري]

someone pls remove the adverts. and spam.
This thread is about the subjugation of women in christianity and why they were considered akin to animals, not 'because we are members and parts of his body'
from subjugation to the macabre..

the macabre can have its own section under pagan christian practices, eating their god and drinking his blood!

:w:

[mog]

someone pls remove the adverts. and spam.
This thread is about the subjugation of women in christianity and why they were considered akin to animals, not 'because we are members and parts of his body'
from subjugation to the macabre..

the macabre can have its own section under pagan christian practices, eating their god and drinking his blood!

:w:

You make no sense!

What you are referring to is 'symbolic'!

[جوري]

You make no sense!

What you are referring to is 'symbolic'!

It doesn't matter whether symbolic or not? The thread is of biblical views of women not the symbolic eating of your god vs. actual eating of your god.. as if symbolism in this case would make any difference!

[Supreme]

Interestingly, my pastor went through the roles of women in church today. He reaffirmed what I already knew- that women are equal, and that they play key roles in the household. He also gave the different roles women have in society, although he didn't elaborate a great deal on this.

[mog]

It doesn't matter whether symbolic or not? The thread is of biblical views of women not the symbolic eating of your god vs. actual eating of your god.. as if symbolism in this case would make any difference!

Then please reread this:

http://www.islamicboard.com/1299095-post68.html

[جوري]

Then please reread this:

http://www.islamicboard.com/1299095-post68.html

Why are you referring me to the same spam?

[mog]

Why are you referring me to the same spam?

So you are narrow minded and hardly observing the teachings!

Your claim of 'spam' is just deflection!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-prophet.html

Patience
The Prophet said: 'No one can give a better or more abundant gift than patience.' (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)

[جوري]

So you are narrow minded and hardly observing the teachings!

Your claim of 'spam' is just deflection!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-prophet.html

Patience
The Prophet said: 'No one can give a better or more abundant gift than patience.' (Sahîh Bukhârî, Sahîh Muslim)

A deflection from what? Do you understand what this topic is about?
you seem to only hang on to one hadith.. what does patience have to do with meandering the topic?
If you wish to discuss other aspects of christianity you may open a thread for it, and try to familiarize yourself with the rules of the forum in FAQ, so we aren't constantly creating posts that are far strayed from purpose..

[mog]

A deflection from what? Do you understand what this topic is about?
you seem to only hang on to one hadith.. what does patience have to do with meandering the topic?
If you wish to discuss other aspects of christianity you may open a thread for it, and try to familiarize yourself with the rules of the forum in FAQ, so we aren't constantly creating posts that are far strayed from purpose..

Of course I understand the topic! The clue is in it's title, "How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women"

Sorry if you don't like the assertions about the bible and women as stated in the opening post, to be proved wrong!

[جوري]

Of course I understand the topic! The clue is in it's title, "How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women"

Sorry if you don't like the assertions about the bible and women as stated in the opening post, to be proved wrong!

How have you proved any of this wrong?


"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman." ~St. John Chrysostom

"Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders." ~St. Augustine

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law." ~Tertullian

"Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman." ~St. Clement of Alexandria

At the Council of Macon in 585 A.D., Bishops voted if women have immortal souls. The measure passed by one vote only.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing
1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."

[MMohammed]

I dont have much knowledge but would like to say that women had no value until Islam came and through Prophet(S.A), the value of women rose.And if you say its not about value, then you can apply those rules in your life(from Quran) and see how they are true compared to Bible.And in Islam, men and women are given equal status.Indeed, Bible have been much changed and Quran is yet in its pure form and you can prove yourself that these things are true(christians or unbelievers.Try to implement something before fighting).
Fighting here means arguing

[Supreme]

I think the fact that the second most important figure in Christianity after Jesus, the Virgin Mary, proves that Christianity is a far cry from a religion repressive to women. The fact that a billion Catholic and two hundred million Orthodox Christians venerate Mary, a female, with images, hymns and prayers in honour of her proves that, although Christianity may seem slightly out of date with 21st century feminism and liberalism in terms of women's rights, a woman is still held dear to the heart of millions of Christians, above all other men in the religion bar Jesus.

[جوري]

well since Mary is a mother to god it is only logical that she is a goddess.. how do women kind compare to a goddess?

[Supreme]

well since Mary is a mother to god it is only logical that she is a goddess.. how do women kind compare to a goddess?

Whoah, who said anything about a goddess. Let's keep the topic on track please!

[جوري]

Whoah, who said anything about a goddess. Let's keep the topic on track please!

That would be the logical sequence of the birth of a god?

[Supreme]

That would be the logical sequence of the birth of a god?

Again, you seem to be diverting the topic. If you have a point to raise about my assertion that Mary is the second most important figure from Christians, and that Christianity cannot therefore be sexist, then by all means, do. Posting spam will only result in a closed topic!

[جوري]

Again, you seem to be diverting the topic. If you have a point to raise about my assertion that Mary is the second most important figure from Christians, and that Christianity cannot therefore be sexist, then by all means, do. Posting spam will only result in a closed topic!

It is not a diversion, it is a serious query, how is a woman who is a 'mother to god' compare to womankind-- the bible and various saints thereafter seem to have a very negative view of women.. If Mary is exempt it is obviously not a reflection on womankind in general.. but one who is viewed as a goddess a 'mother of a god'

all the best

[barney]

It is not a diversion, it is a serious query, how is a woman who is a 'mother to god' compare to womankind-- the bible and various saints thereafter seem to have a very negative view of women.. If Mary is exempt it is obviously not a reflection on womankind in general.. but one who is viewed as a goddess a 'mother of a god'

all the best

Jesus was from the Line of david.
The "Line" is a Patriarchal line. Its father to son. Jesus who was "Born of woman" is listed in the lineup as being the son of mary who's husband was Joseph.
Now Joseph might have been of the line of David, although the geneologys differ hugely , thus either one of them or all of them (My Bet is on all of 'em) are made up. Lets say he was of that line, thus the father was Joseph the Carpenter. Where Yaweh fits into the deal is anyones guess!

[جوري]

Jesus was from the Line of david.
The "Line" is a Patriarchal line. Its father to son. Jesus who was "Born of woman" is listed in the lineup as being the son of mary who's husband was Joseph.
Now Joseph might have been of the line of David, although the geneologys differ hugely , thus either one of them or all of them (My Bet is on all of 'em) are made up. Lets say he was of that line, thus the father was Joseph the Carpenter. Where Yaweh fits into the deal is anyones guess!

Half the time I really don't understand what you are saying.. and the other half, I really don't need your input.


all the best

[barney]

Half the time I really don't understand what you are saying.. and the other half, I really don't need your input.


all the best

So which half is this occassion? :D

just to clarify.
The Bible says that Jesus was of the line of david. That means he is a normal human being. Not a god.

[Italianguy]

Jesus was from the Line of david.
The "Line" is a Patriarchal line. Its father to son. Jesus who was "Born of woman" is listed in the lineup as being the son of mary who's husband was Joseph.
Now Joseph might have been of the line of David, although the geneologys differ hugely , thus either one of them or all of them (My Bet is on all of 'em) are made up. Lets say he was of that line, thus the father was Joseph the Carpenter. Where Yaweh fits into the deal is anyones guess!

Hello, dancing dinosaur

Question: "What is YHWH? What is the tetragrammaton?"

Answer: The ancient Hebrew language that the Hebrew Scriptures were written in did not have vowels. In the original Hebrew, God’s name is given as "YHWH." This is known as the tetragrammaton. Because of the lack of vowels, Bible scholars debate how the tetragrammaton “YHWH” was pronounced.

Contrary to what some Christians (and at least one cult that uses this name) believe, “Jehovah” is probably not the Divine Name revealed to Israel. Due to the Jewish fear of accidentally taking God’s Name in vain (Leviticus 24:16), they basically quit saying it out-loud altogether. Instead, when reading, they substituted the actual tetragrammaton (which is only the consonants of the Divine Name “YHWH” since Hebrew is not usually written with vowels included) with the word Adonai (Lord). Even in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) the translators substituted Kurios (Lord) for the Divine Name. Eventually the vowels from Adonai (“Lord”) or Elohim (“God”) found their way into the consonants YHWH, thus forming “YaHWeH.” But this does not mean that was how God’s Name was originally pronounced.

Any number of vowel combinations are possible, and the Jews are as uncertain of the real pronunciation as are Christians. “Jehovah” is actually a much later (probably 16th century) variant in Latin. Here, the “Y” is substituted with a “J” (Hebrew does not even have a “J” sound), and the “W” with a “V,” plus another vowel combination, resulting in “JeHoVaH.” This vowel combination is composed of the abbreviated forms of the imperfect, the participle, and the perfect of the Hebrew being verb (English “is”) - thus the meaning of Jehovah could be said to be "he who will be, is, and has been."

So, what is God's name and what does it mean? The most likely choice for how the tetragrammaton was pronounced is "Yahweh" or something very similar to that. The name "Yahweh" refers to God's self-existence. "Yahweh" is linked with how God described Himself in Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM.' This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" God's name is a reflection of His being. God is the only self-existent / self-sufficient Being in the universe. Only God has life in and of Himself. That is the essential meaning of the tetragrammaton / YHWH / Yahweh.

[جوري]

So which half is this occassion? :D

just to clarify.

a little of both, especially when I am under the weather and my computer is taking two hours to buffer a movie of which I was only able to watch 16 minutes worth!

The Bible says that Jesus was of the line of david. That means he is a normal human being. Not a god.

I agree that the creation of Jesus is like that of the creation of Adam!

all the best

[barney]

Thanks for that Italianguy. Yeah , i spent a little time myself looking into it. The ancient tribal egyptian god of Ywh seems to have been carried with the small band of jewish exiles over to Cannan, if the idea of an exodus holds any water.

Interestingly i heard Rabbi Bloom talking about the translation of I am what i am. He said it was actually I will be what I will be".

I prefer I Yam what I Yam. Much more Popeye like.

[barney]

a little of both, especially when I am under the weather and my computer is taking two hours to buffer a movie of which I was only able to watch 16 minutes worth!


I agree that the creation of Jesus is like that of the creation of Adam!

all the best

Good luck with the computor. (Or computer)

I would say that Jesus is probably a historical figure. Adam , not so much!

[MMohammed]

So which half is this occassion? :D

just to clarify.
The Bible says that Jesus was of the line of david. That means he is a normal human being. Not a god.

From wikipedia:
Jesus as divine

In mainstream Christianity the title of Son of God is used to describe Jesus as a divine being and a member of the Trinity. This is expressed, for instance, in the Nicene Creed, which refers to Jesus as God's only Son, true God from true God, who took human form in the flesh. This view interprets the New Testament as referring to or implying the deity of Jesus in, for example, Hebrews 1:8, which quotes Psalm 45:6 as addressing him as God, and in John 8:58, where Jesus states, "Before Abraham was, I am", seen in this view as referencing God's name "I am", revealed in Exodus 3:14. Also in John 5:18, John writes "but he [Jesus] was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God".
[edit] Jesus as godly

Another view is that, in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus styled himself the Son of God in the same sense as a righteous person was sometimes referred to as a son or child of God (though not the son of God), as in Wisdom 2:18. Since New Testament books present Jesus as without sin,[12] those who hold the first view, that of Jesus as divine, can hold this view too, but not as an exclusive interpretation.
[edit] Christians as children of God

See also: Divine filiation.

In the Gospel of John, the author writes that "to all who believed him and accepted him [Jesus], he gave the right to become children of God" [John 1:12]. The phrase "children of God" is used ten times in the New Testament.[13] To these can be added the five times, mentioned above, in which the New Testament speaks of "sons of God". The New Testament speaks of no individual Christian as it speaks of Jesus, as the son of God, not just a son of God.

And this line:
Once, a paralytic man was presented before Jesus for healing (Luke 5:17-26), and Jesus said, “Man, thy sins are forgiven thee” (Luke 5:20). And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? (Luke 5:21). But Jesus (God in flesh) knew their thoughts and queried,
What's God in flesh?

[MMohammed]

Good luck with the computor. (Or computer)

I would say that Jesus is probably a historical figure. Adam , not so much!

That's what christians believe.
When you say Adam is not a historical figure, you mean that he isn't greater than Jesus.
He was the first Prophet and the first man on this earth.
And if you say that why do we see Prophet Mohammed(S.A) as greater then Adam, then he was the last and the chosen Prophet of Allah and that's why he was for all tribes and not only one tribe.
And Allah knows better why He sent Prophet(S.A) at last, but once the injury becomes severe, something big has got to be done and that's the reason why Prophet(S.A) was sent at last, if he was sent first, the world had been again in ignorance.
Read this:


Jesus, being born of a virgin, became human and lived among us. God was with us in human flesh. (Matthew 1:23; John 1:14)



Jesus was in the world, and the world was made by Jesus, but people did not know Jesus as God. (John 1:10)

Jesus forgave sins! (Matthew 9:2-6; Mark 2:5-10)
No normal human being, neither Prophet can forgive sins.Its alone in God's hand.

Read this too:
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-god.htm
and this:
http://www.everystudent.com/features/faith.html

[barney]

That's what christians believe.
When you say Adam is not a historical figure, you mean that he isn't greater than Jesus.
He was the first Prophet and the first man on this earth.
And if you say that why do we see Prophet Mohammed(S.A) as greater then Adam, than he was the last and the chosen Prophet of Allah and that's why he was for all tribes and not only one tribe.
And Allah knows better why He sent Prophet(S.A) at last, but once the injury becomes severe, something big has got to be done and that's the reason why Prophet(S.A) was sent at last, if he was sent first, the world had been again in ignorance.
Read this:


Jesus, being born of a virgin, became human and lived among us. God was with us in human flesh. (Matthew 1:23; John 1:14)



Jesus was in the world, and the world was made by Jesus, but people did not know Jesus as God. (John 1:10)

Jesus forgave sins! (Matthew 9:2-6; Mark 2:5-10)
No normal human being, neither Prophet can forgive sins.Its alone in God's hand.

Umm, I think you got the wrong end of the stick there. I meant Adam wasnt a historical figure, in that he was a metaphor for the first humans. In other words, wether 6 ft tall or 90, he diddnt exist. Evidence for this being evolution.

[MMohammed]

Are you saying that he didn't exist?
That's wrong.
Even christianity says that he existed and was the first human being.
As you are an atheist, can you prove that Adam(A.S) didn't exist?
And if I am correct, how does evolution proves that?
Read this:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/...AskAboutIslamE
and this:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm
They may give you the clear answer to evolution

[barney]

Are you saying that he didn't exist?
That's wrong.
Even christianity says that he existed and was the first human being.
As you are an atheist, can you prove that Adam(A.S) didn't exist?
And if I am correct, how does evolution proves that?
Read this:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/...AskAboutIslamE
and this:
http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm
They may give you the clear answer to evolution

Yeah, Christianity is wrong as well. Its not their fault, the ancient bronze age thinkers and seers diddnt have the infomation we have. Its like critisising a Flat Earther because they diddnt have the astronomy of the Greeks.

In a very short answer, yes. I can prove Adam diddnt exist as the first man on earth. I cant prove he wasnt a metaphor for one of the first humans or for an early Homo Sapien.

I can prove it by evolution through natural selection which has provided a comprehensive fossil, genetic , social and architectural record. This is a large subject and I suspect that you have already switched off and are thinking about scriptual retorts to it, so I will provide you with a few starters and its your choice. Lovely and awe inspiring subject though.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5076463399298#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lution_fossils

We evolved as a member of the primate family. There thus was no Adam, as there wasnt a first human. The transision was so mindboggleingly gradual that any choice for a first human would have to be random. Naturally both sexes existed at the same time, so no Eve.

The first arguement you will find against it is questioning the carbon dating :)
But I'll leave you to discover a wonderful new world of creationist arguements. Kent Hovind does some good ones about Dinosaurs on the Ark.

If you want a shorter answer then; Adam in Islam was 90 foot tall. Thats pretty much evidence on its own that he was imaginary.:D

[MMohammed]

No, the humans become shorter by time.And I couldn't see anything very impressive or proving in your post rather than it's your "belief".
Read about the history from a good source(Islamic) or some well-knowledged person and then ask something.
And yes, as environment effects on our genes, we can say that we became shorter by environment and its changes.
So you think aligators are in the line of dinosaurs?
That's how we evolved from older people.
And for you, 90 ft. is huuuuge.But if you were in that era, our present height would be weird for you.
Many changes have taken place since Adam(A.S)'s creations.
And according to Islam(or some similar resource), when the adult humans will have heights like the present children(about 4-5 ft.), the judgement will be near.So as you can see, millions of years have been passed and research also shows that humans decreased in height by time, it is proved to be correct.
And there is distinction between us and animals(talking relating to Evolution).
Humans and other animals, reptiles and insects have different classes in science too.
Won't it look dumb if you say the cat will turn into something big which could talk and do intelligent things?
Humans started from human and animals started from animal.Infact man would is the most intelligent creature of all.

[Supreme]

It is not a diversion, it is a serious query, how is a woman who is a 'mother to god' compare to womankind-- the bible and various saints thereafter seem to have a very negative view of women.. If Mary is exempt it is obviously not a reflection on womankind in general.. but one who is viewed as a goddess a 'mother of a god'

all the best

A goddess would imply Mary has some sort of divine power, and the miraculous birth of Christ by no means make her a goddess- one miracle does not make someone divine, as you well know seeing as Prophet Muhammed was not divine in any way. Even though the attitudes of early Christians were hostile to women, I think we as a religion have progressed and passed this discrimination of women from our practises.

[Froggy]

A goddess would imply Mary has some sort of divine power, and the miraculous birth of Christ by no means make her a goddess- one miracle does not make someone divine, as you well know seeing as Prophet Muhammed was not divine in any way. Even though the attitudes of early Christians were hostile to women, I think we as a religion have progressed and passed this discrimination of women from our practises.

But it's still in your books.

[Supreme]

But it's still in your books.

Books? Plural?

[Froggy]

Books? Plural?

Books of the Bible and Catholics have some more I guess, saints, dogmas etc.

[جوري]

A goddess would imply Mary has some sort of divine power, and the miraculous birth of Christ by no means make her a goddess- one miracle does not make someone divine, as you well know seeing as Prophet Muhammed was not divine in any way.

Yes the prophet Mohammed (p) didn't claim to be a god, or a son of God, neither did Jesus by the way.. one can only safely conclude that if a god choose to procreate with, and beget himself he would choose a goddess not a mere soulless woman?

[barney]

No, the humans become shorter by time.And I couldn't see anything very impressive or proving in your post rather than it's your "belief".
Read about the history from a good source(Islamic) or some well-knowledged person and then ask something.
And yes, as environment effects on our genes, we can say that we became shorter by environment and its changes.
So you think aligators are in the line of dinosaurs?
That's how we evolved from older people.
And for you, 90 ft. is huuuuge.But if you were in that era, our present height would be weird for you.
Many changes have taken place since Adam(A.S)'s creations.
And according to Islam(or some similar resource), when the adult humans will have heights like the present children(about 4-5 ft.), the judgement will be near.So as you can see, millions of years have been passed and research also shows that humans decreased in height by time, it is proved to be correct.
And there is distinction between us and animals(talking relating to Evolution).
Humans and other animals, reptiles and insects have different classes in science too.
Won't it look dumb if you say the cat will turn into something big which could talk and do intelligent things?
Humans started from human and animals started from animal.Infact man would is the most intelligent creature of all.

Humans actually grow bigger over time. Look at a medieval doorway?;D
You obviously havnt read about evolution from an independent perspective as all of your answers are clearly responses to creationist websites. This is a fringe beleif amongst 2-3% of scientists, its laughably easy to falsify. You just need to follow the evidence. Evidence is not the Quran by the way, nor the bible. Its the world we live in, and hard facts. "Won't it look dumb if you say the cat will turn into something big which could talk and do intelligent things?" This shows that , as i suspected, i would waste my time trying to help you understand evolution.

I would simply say, try looking at science sometime. It really is quite majestic.

Best wishes.

[Supreme]

Yes the prophet Mohammed (p) didn't claim to be a god, or a son of God, neither did Jesus by the way.. one can only safely conclude that if a god choose to procreate with, and beget himself he would choose a goddess not a mere soulless woman?

In our religion, belief in goddesses is non existant.

Sorry...

[جوري]

In our religion, belief in goddesses is non existant.

Sorry...

just gods who anunciate themselves, procreate with women to beget sons who are also themesleves, suckle as children, dam* the earth for not bearing them fruit as adults, die whilst having silent alter egos and disciples who can't shoulder the responsibility after their death?

Ok I got it!

[barney]

Nope, None of it makes any sense at all today. Completly baffling when we have better answers.

[Supreme]

just gods who anunciate themselves, procreate with women to beget sons who are also themesleves, suckle as children, dam* the earth for not bearing them fruit as adults, die whilst having silent alter egos and disciples who can't shoulder the responsibility after their death?

Ok I got it!

In a nutshell, yes. But no goddesses.

Zombie biscuit gods, blue skinned elephant-gods,Burning bush gods, Chief of the rock-gods given a new facelift.

Nope, None of it makes any sense at all today. Completly baffling when we have better answers.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is how your persistent and generally unwelcome posts regarding others people's beliefs hasn't earned you a ban yet!

[MMohammed]

When you just can't understand it, what can I do.Try asking someone much more knowledgeable than me and if you think I can't understand whats "evolution", and if you are thinking a very intelligent thing(there is no god and animals created themselves), then ask others about it and it will be best for you.
And do you know, today when I was going on the other side of the island, the wind blew and few pieces of wood gathered around and some nails flew away and came near woods and due to the force of wind, they themselves made place in the woods and the wood changed it's shape to boat and then I sat on it and then the wind blew again and pushed my boat to my destination.
And can you prove me that how humans grow bigger?

And I won't argue with you anymore cause I dont have much knowledge and I dont like to boast around.
As I said, talk to someone who knows more about Islam.

[mog]

Gossamer skye;1299657]How have you proved any of this wrong?


"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman." ~St. John Chrysostom

"Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders." ~St. Augustine

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law." ~Tertullian

"Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman." ~St. Clement of Alexandria

At the Council of Macon in 585 A.D., Bishops voted if women have immortal souls. The measure passed by one vote only.

These sayings are NOT scripture! And it comes from false christianity!

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This punishment was eased after the coming of JESUS CHRIST!
And note the punishment for Adam!

Genesis 3:17-19 (Amplified Bible)

17And to Adam He said, Because you have listened and given heed to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it, the ground is under a curse because of you; in sorrow and toil shall you eat [of the fruits] of it all the days of your life.

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you shall return.


Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
You have taken 1 verse out of the contextof the whole chapter!

1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
This is setting out what was happening with regard to head covering and Paul corrected it!

1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (Amplified Bible)

11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;

12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].


1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

Ephesians 5:25-33 (Amplified Bible)

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,

27That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].

28Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

29For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,

30Because we are members (parts) of His body.

31For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.(A)

32This mystery is very great, but I speak concerning [the relation of] Christ and the church.

33However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [[a]that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and [b]that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly]. [I Pet. 3:2.]

Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

Colossians 3:19 (Amplified Bible)

19Husbands, love your wives [be affectionate and sympathetic with them] and do not be harsh or bitter or resentful toward them.

1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing

1 Timothy 2:8-15 (Amplified Bible)

8I desire therefore that in every place men should pray, without anger or quarreling or resentment or doubt [in their minds], lifting up holy hands.

9Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,

10But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God.

11Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.

12I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve;(A)

14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression.(B)

15Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls' salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] [a]through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.


1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."


You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

1 Peter 3 (Amplified Bible)

1 Peter 3
1IN LIKE manner, you married women, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate yourselves as being secondary to and dependent on them, and adapt yourselves to them], so that even if any do not obey the Word [of God], they may be won over not by discussion but by the [godly] lives of their wives,

2When they observe the pure and modest way in which you conduct yourselves, together with your [a] reverence [for your husband; you are to feel for him all that reverence includes: to respect, defer to, revere him--to honor, esteem, appreciate, prize, and, in the human sense, to adore him, that is, to admire, praise, be devoted to, deeply love, and enjoy your husband].

3Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] [b] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes;

4But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God.

5For it was thus that the pious women of old who hoped in God were [accustomed] to beautify themselves and were submissive to their husbands [adapting themselves to them as themselves secondary and dependent upon them].

6It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].

7In the same way you married men should live considerately with [your wives], with an [c]intelligent recognition [of the marriage relation], honoring the woman as [physically] the weaker, but [realizing that you] are joint heirs of the grace (God's unmerited favor) of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered and cut off. [Otherwise you cannot pray effectively.]

8Finally, all [of you] should be of one and the same mind (united in spirit), sympathizing [with one another], loving [each other] as brethren [of one household], compassionate and courteous (tenderhearted and humble).

[جوري]

How do you distinguish false christianity from true Christianity if it all comes courtesy of some vote- how does god eating your sins really makeup for the vileness of what is written against women?
also adding different quotes doesn't address the original quotes or centuries of christian history not just toward women but other people in general!

nice try..

all the best

[جوري]

Humans actually grow bigger over time. Look at a medieval doorway?;D
You obviously havnt read about evolution from an independent perspective as all of your answers are clearly responses to creationist websites. This is a fringe beleif amongst 2-3% of scientists, its laughably easy to falsify. You just need to follow the evidence. Evidence is not the Quran by the way, nor the bible. Its the world we live in, and hard facts. "Won't it look dumb if you say the cat will turn into something big which could talk and do intelligent things?" This shows that , as i suspected, i would waste my time trying to help you understand evolution.

I would simply say, try looking at science sometime. It really is quite majestic.

Best wishes.

It would be really nice if you can stop the verbal bullying and put your money where your mouth is?

In fact God hasn't let us on his secret formula of creation for one who allegedly read the Quran so many times and often poses himself as a sort of Illuminati in all things theological, you always seem to make such a ---- --- out of yourself and one wonders why that is?

مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}

[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation..

amazing ain't it?
you want to believe in rocks that develop lungs after taking upon themselves a few base pairs from some air and some water, and then sprouted wings, and then brains and sentience and separate sexes. pls be my guest.. don't however put pseudo-science out as scientific evidence, nor speak on behalf of the scientific community, you are neither a representative nor a member..
taking a months off to change your status from agnostic to atheist doesn't raise your IQ either .. funny stuff :D

all the best..

[Italianguy]

Gossamer skye;1299657]How have you proved any of this wrong?


"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman." ~St. John Chrysostom

"Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders." ~St. Augustine

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law." ~Tertullian

"Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman." ~St. Clement of Alexandria

At the Council of Macon in 585 A.D., Bishops voted if women have immortal souls. The measure passed by one vote only.

These sayings are NOT scripture! And it comes from false christianity!

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

This punishment was eased after the coming of JESUS CHRIST!
And note the punishment for Adam!

Genesis 3:17-19 (Amplified Bible)

17And to Adam He said, Because you have listened and given heed to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it, the ground is under a curse because of you; in sorrow and toil shall you eat [of the fruits] of it all the days of your life.

18Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you shall return.


Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
You have taken 1 verse out of the contextof the whole chapter!

1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
This is setting out what was happening with regard to head covering and Paul corrected it!

1 Corinthians 11:11-12 (Amplified Bible)

11Nevertheless, in [the plan of] the Lord and from His point of view woman is not apart from and independent of man, nor is man aloof from and independent of woman;

12For as woman was made from man, even so man is also born of woman; and all [whether male or female go forth] from God [as their Author].


1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

Ephesians 5:25-33 (Amplified Bible)

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word,

27That He might present the church to Himself in glorious splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such things [that she might be holy and faultless].

28Even so husbands should love their wives as [being in a sense] their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself.

29For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and carefully protects and cherishes it, as Christ does the church,

30Because we are members (parts) of His body.

31For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.(A)

32This mystery is very great, but I speak concerning [the relation of] Christ and the church.

33However, let each man of you [without exception] love his wife as [being in a sense] his very own self; and let the wife see that she respects and reverences her husband [[a]that she notices him, regards him, honors him, prefers him, venerates, and esteems him; and [b]that she defers to him, praises him, and loves and admires him exceedingly]. [I Pet. 3:2.]

Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

Colossians 3:19 (Amplified Bible)

19Husbands, love your wives [be affectionate and sympathetic with them] and do not be harsh or bitter or resentful toward them.

1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing

1 Timothy 2:8-15 (Amplified Bible)

8I desire therefore that in every place men should pray, without anger or quarreling or resentment or doubt [in their minds], lifting up holy hands.

9Also [I desire] that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with [elaborate] hair arrangement or gold or pearls or expensive clothing,

10But by doing good deeds (deeds in themselves good and for the good and advantage of those contacted by them), as befits women who profess reverential fear for and devotion to God.

11Let a woman learn in quietness, in entire submissiveness.

12I allow no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to remain in quietness and keep silence [in religious assemblies].

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve;(A)

14And it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived and deluded and fell into transgression.(B)

15Nevertheless [the sentence put upon women of pain in motherhood does not hinder their souls' salvation, and] they will be saved [eternally] if they continue in faith and love and holiness with self-control, [saved indeed] [a]through the Childbearing or by the birth of the divine Child.


1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."


You are being selective to prove a your own false biased point! You are making up false doctrine!

1 Peter 3 (Amplified Bible)

1 Peter 3
1IN LIKE manner, you married women, be submissive to your own husbands [subordinate yourselves as being secondary to and dependent on them, and adapt yourselves to them], so that even if any do not obey the Word [of God], they may be won over not by discussion but by the [godly] lives of their wives,

2When they observe the pure and modest way in which you conduct yourselves, together with your [a] reverence [for your husband; you are to feel for him all that reverence includes: to respect, defer to, revere him--to honor, esteem, appreciate, prize, and, in the human sense, to adore him, that is, to admire, praise, be devoted to, deeply love, and enjoy your husband].

3Let not yours be the [merely] external adorning with [elaborate] [b] interweaving and knotting of the hair, the wearing of jewelry, or changes of clothes;

4But let it be the inward adorning and beauty of the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible and unfading charm of a gentle and peaceful spirit, which [is not anxious or wrought up, but] is very precious in the sight of God.

5For it was thus that the pious women of old who hoped in God were [accustomed] to beautify themselves and were submissive to their husbands [adapting themselves to them as themselves secondary and dependent upon them].

6It was thus that Sarah obeyed Abraham [following his guidance and acknowledging his headship over her by] calling him lord (master, leader, authority). And you are now her true daughters if you do right and let nothing terrify you [not giving way to hysterical fears or letting anxieties unnerve you].

7In the same way you married men should live considerately with [your wives], with an [c]intelligent recognition [of the marriage relation], honoring the woman as [physically] the weaker, but [realizing that you] are joint heirs of the grace (God's unmerited favor) of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered and cut off. [Otherwise you cannot pray effectively.]

8Finally, all [of you] should be of one and the same mind (united in spirit), sympathizing [with one another], loving [each other] as brethren [of one household], compassionate and courteous (tenderhearted and humble).

Whattttt? It can't be? Another one who is part of red shift;D Your in the red bro, tell me.....how do you do it? I am interested.

[barney]

It would be really nice if you can stop the verbal bullying and put your money where your mouth is?

In fact God hasn't let us on his secret formula of creation for one who allegedly read the Quran so many times and often poses himself as a sort of Illuminati in all things theological, you always seem to make such a ---- --- out of yourself and one wonders why that is?

مَا أَشْهَدتُّهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}

[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation..

amazing ain't it?
you want to believe in rocks that develop lungs after taking upon themselves a few base pairs from some air and some water, and then sprouted wings, and then brains and sentience and separate sexes. pls be my guest.. don't however put pseudo-science out as scientific evidence, nor speak on behalf of the scientific community, you are neither a representative nor a member..
taking a months off to change your status from agnostic to atheist doesn't raise your IQ either .. funny stuff :D

all the best..

Rocks dont develop lungs. Thats typical of someone who dosnt understand evolution. Nor do Donkeys and frogs produce Fronkeys. This drivel can be expected of creationists. You ought to know some basic biology and genetics? What kind of doctors are they passing these days?

Ahh! but the thing is, your not actually stupid or ignorant, your well read. You have probably looked at the rudiments of evolution and when it started getting scarily in opposition to the Quran. You stopped. Thats fine , your choice.

The thing is, I dont beleive Rocks ever talked or indeed rocks ever will talk, You do. You beleive they will shout out where Jews are hiding in a final battle.
You also beleive that paying special attention to a certain rock will have certain effects. I dont. I think, and indeed logic supports it has no effect.
You beleive that a special Horse once flew, i dont. You beleive that dunking flys in drinks is a cure for illness, you beleive we are surrounded by millions of invisible creatures made from fire. none of these things are to be seen or proved by evidence , they are your faith.

Perhaps you could call science my faith? Its one I require evidence for, but as you once wrote, for the believer, no amount of evidence is needed, whilst for the disbeleiver, no amount of evidence (in god) is enough. Which I would disagree with. I just need some evidence!

Now all those things are fine. Beleive them if it floats your ark. But evolution study has produced billions of pages of mutually buttressing evidence of which examples can be seen all around us.It's agreed upon by a staggering perponderance of scientists.
You could disagree with that,and you will, and you will be wrong again.

I can point to the geological and paleontological evidence.And have done.

Point me to the talking rock. When you can, I'll show you one with lungs.:nervous:

[جوري]

Rocks dont develop lungs. Thats typical of someone who dosnt understand evolution. Nor do Donkeys and frogs produce Fronkeys. This drivel can be expected of creationists. You ought to know some basic biology and genetics? What kind of doctors are they passing these days?

You understand evolution so well why not engage us in a lucid manner instead of referencing us to vague websites on the web, so that when we take them and break things down to a language even you can understand, you wouldn't throw another one of your famous tantrums?

Ahh! but the thing is, your not actually stupid or ignorant, your well read. You have probably looked at the rudiments of evolution and when it started getting scarily in opposition to the Quran. You stopped. Thats fine , your choice.

wow, all that and psychic too? oh pls do tell, what else can you do?

The thing is, I dont beleive Rocks ever talked or indeed rocks ever will talk, You do. You beleive they will shout out where Jews are hiding in a final battle.

were you always a concrete thinker, or still stuck at a Pre-operational Stage?

You also beleive that paying special attention to a certain rock will have certain effects. I dont. I think, and indeed logic supports it has no effect.
You beleive that a special Horse once flew, i dont. You beleive that dunking flys in drinks is a cure for illness, you beleive we are surrounded by millions of invisible creatures made from fire.

Why not put emphasis on what you believe and not what others believe, or are you afraid you'll be ripped into for the stupidities that you subscribe to and cast under the umbrella of 'science'?

Now all those things are fine. Beleive them if it floats your ark. But evolution study has produced billions of pages of mutually buttressing evidence of which examples can be seen all around us.It's agreed upon by a staggering perponderance of scientists.
You could disagree with that,and you will, and you will be wrong again.

Do you have something better to offer than ludicrous claims and logical fallacies?

I can point to the geological and paleontological evidence.And have done.

Generally when you come on with this level bravado, you should introduce a statement in a concise fluid fashion and not a drunkard's fragment if you wish for folks to take anything you say with some semblance of seriousness!

Point me to the talking rock. When you can, I'll show you one with lungs.:nervous:

I think you are better suited for a half a dozen cheap tawdry novels than going into topics clearly over your head and then googling communist era quotes to support your position..

silly dude trix are for kids..

but thanks as always for the hearty guffaw, I really love how you get heated over your convictions...

[barney]

You understand evolution so well why not engage us in a lucid manner instead of referencing us to vague websites on the web, so that when we take them and break things down to a language even you can understand, you wouldn't throw another one of your famous tantrums?


wow, all that and psychic too? oh pls do tell, what else can you do?


were you always a concrete thinker, or still stuck at a Pre-operational Stage?



Why not put emphasis on what you believe and not what others believe, or are you afraid you'll be ripped into for the stupidities that you subscribe to and cast under the umbrella of 'science'?
Do you have something better to offer than ludicrous claims and logical fallacies?

Generally when you come on with this level bravado, you should introduce a statement in a concise fluid fashion and not a drunkard's fragment if you wish for folks to take anything you say with some semblance of seriousness!

I think you are better suited for a half a dozen cheap tawdry novels than going into topics clearly over your head and then googling communist era quotes to support your position..

silly dude trix are for kids..

but thanks as always for the hearty guffaw, I really love how you get heated over your convictions...

Not heated at all! I wasnt the one who started all the ad-hom and strawman smokescreening.We must again agree to disagree.
Not really on thread are we, for a change :)

[جوري]

Not heated at all! I wasnt the one who started all the ad-hom and strawman smokescreening.We must again agree to disagree.
Not really on thread are we, for a change :)

Really? it is us that are bullying people with non-scientific charts, communist era anti-religion quotes and logical fallacies? Your problems go way beyond the help that anyone can offer on this forum.. and I suspect the only folks that have respect for your braying style are other donkeys-- you'll find them congregating on the dawkin's net.!

all the best

[Italianguy]

You understand evolution so well why not engage us in a lucid manner instead of referencing us to vague websites on the web, so that when we take them and break things down to a language even you can understand, you wouldn't throw another one of your famous tantrums?


wow, all that and psychic too? oh pls do tell, what else can you do?


were you always a concrete thinker, or still stuck at a Pre-operational Stage?



Why not put emphasis on what you believe and not what others believe, or are you afraid you'll be ripped into for the stupidities that you subscribe to and cast under the umbrella of 'science'?
Do you have something better to offer than ludicrous claims and logical fallacies?

Generally when you come on with this level bravado, you should introduce a statement in a concise fluid fashion and not a drunkard's fragment if you wish for folks to take anything you say with some semblance of seriousness!

I think you are better suited for a half a dozen cheap tawdry novels than going into topics clearly over your head and then googling communist era quotes to support your position..

silly dude trix are for kids..

but thanks as always for the hearty guffaw, I really love how you get heated over your convictions...

Wooooooooeeeeeeee! LOL Trix are for kids;D

Gotta love em

[barney]

Really? it is us that are bullying people with non-scientific charts, communist era anti-religion quotes and logical fallacies? Your problems go way beyond the help that anyone can offer on this forum.. and I suspect the only folks that have respect for your braying style are other donkeys-- you'll find them congregating on the dawkin's net.!

all the best

Bullying is, when verbal, the use of disparaging arrogant and haughty language. It's spamming posts full of personal attacks and comments about brainpower and the perceived lack of it rather than serious debate. it's snide comments lacking substance. calling names such as "buffoon" "Donkey" etc etc.

I'm utterly immune to such bullying, but though I might point out the sweet irony of it all :D

[جوري]

Bullying is, when verbal, the use of disparaging arrogant and haughty language. It's spamming posts full of personal attacks and comments about brainpower and the perceived lack of it rather than serious debate. it's snide comments lacking substance. calling names such as "buffoon" "Donkey" etc etc.

I'm utterly immune to such bullying, but though I might point out the sweet irony of it all :D

There is no irony when you project.. it is rather sad..but surely there is a support group for folks like you somewhere..

all the best

[barney]

There is no irony when you project.. it is rather sad..but surely there is a support group for folks like you somewhere..

all the best

Yeah, have a good 'un. :statisfie

[Uthman]

Let's get back the topic. :)

What's left of it, anyway.

[Eliphaz]

All abrahamic religions are man-made, ergo all abrahamic religions denigrate women.

I feel that in comparing the Bible (the whole of Christian scripture) with the Qur'an (only part of Muslim belief) is an unfair comparison. What about the ahadith of Bukhari and Muslim?

[Uthman]

I've just deleted another bunch of off-topic posts. Please stick to the topic, otherwise I will close the thread.

[Asiyah3]

Heya!

Yup, its grossly sexist for a man to "have to support " women. Sexism works both ways.
For men to be "responsible for women" is sexist.

So I would agree with you on the one point and say that it supports the other!

Yet ignorant folks can't take a blind bit of notice!

[Italianguy]

All abrahamic religions are man-made, ergo all abrahamic religions denigrate women.

I feel that in comparing the Bible (the whole of Christian scripture) with the Qur'an (only part of Muslim belief) is an unfair comparison. What about the ahadith of Bukhari and Muslim?

Woahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! What did you just say???? All Abrahamic faiths are what!? MAN MADE???:raging:

It's one thing to call out a single person to be sexist, but you went way to far calling our faiths man made!

Am I the only one noticing this?

The Bible and the Qur'an both hold women up high! We are all told tor treat them with love and respect! They are blessed by God to have the ability to have children, something we men will never be able to acheive.....not saying I want to.

Hats off to you ladies!:D You are our future.

God bless.

[جوري]

Am I the only one noticing this?

.

No, but you are the only one that cares :D
can't really jump on every comment made by dissidents!

all the best

[Italianguy]

No, but you are the only one that cares :D
can't really jump on every comment made by dissidents!

all the best

I know you care, I was just trying to make a point. I can't believe they said that:raging:. Thats an outright insult to Christians and Muslims. The worst part is ......God sees that, I pray He missed that one, for the posters sake:phew

God be with you!

[جوري]

I know you care, !

But I really don't

5:105 O you who have attained to faith! It is [but] for your own selves that you are responsible: those who go astray can do you no harm if you [yourselves] are on the right path. Unto God you all must return: and then He will make you [truly] understand all that you were,doing [in life].

[Grace Seeker]

How have you proved any of this wrong?


"Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman." ~St. John Chrysostom

"Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders." ~St. Augustine

"Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live, too. You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law." ~Tertullian

"Let us set our women folk on the road to goodness by teaching them to display submissiveness." "Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman." ~St. Clement of Alexandria

At the Council of Macon in 585 A.D., Bishops voted if women have immortal souls. The measure passed by one vote only.

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Is.3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
1 Cor.11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
1 Cor.14:34-36 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
Eph.5:22-24 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Col.3:18 "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
1 Tim.2:11-15 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing
1 Pet.3:1 "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."

Your first few quotes are not from the Bible. They do illustrate that many of the men who provided leadership in the early church had a low view of women. But they don't prove anything with regard to the Bible.

The other quotes show that indeed there is negative information with regard to women in the Bible. One must ask if this is the whole picture? The answer to that question is that it is NO.

If one were to look at the whole picture would the presentation of women in the Bible seriously change? I believe the answer to that is YES.

So, how should a Christian reading the Bible today understand the role of women? Well, you've already heard how Supreme said his pastor addressed it in worship this past Sunday. I had a similar conversation with a friend yesterday. We all rely on the Bible for presenting our view. But we also continue to wrestle with those who read just the texts you've highlighted. Like you they rely on just a few cherry picked verses and don't take in the whole counsel of God. As a result they seem to have a distorted view of what the Bible has to say about women. Some of those verses have already been provided in this thread for those who choose to read with an open rather than a pre-determined view of things.

[Grace Seeker]

That would be the logical sequence of the birth of a god?

Then you are refusing to deal with the Mary known to Christians, but something you have created and projected onto Christianity. Mary is the God-bearer, but not a goddess. No Christian religion (not even Catholicism) views her that way.

[جوري]

Your first few quotes are not from the Bible. They do illustrate that many of the men who provided leadership in the early church had a low view of women. But they don't prove anything with regard to the Bible.

The other quotes show that indeed there is negative information with regard to women in the Bible. One must ask if this is the whole picture? The answer to that question is that it is NO.

If one were to look at the whole picture would the presentation of women in the Bible seriously change? I believe the answer to that is YES.

So, how should a Christian reading the Bible today understand the role of women? Well, you've already heard how Supreme said his pastor addressed it in worship this past Sunday. I had a similar conversation with a friend yesterday. We all rely on the Bible for presenting our view. But we also continue to wrestle with those who read just the texts you've highlighted. Like you they rely on just a few cherry picked verses and don't take in the whole counsel of God. As a result they seem to have a distorted view of what the Bible has to say about women. Some of those verses have already been provided in this thread for those who choose to read with an open rather than a pre-determined view of things.

Not cherry picking no, it is a matter of how christianity as a religion merely evolves through the ages, from soulless creatures to naked at hooters with a cross necklace..

I am always amazed how you deem some 'saints' worthy and others charlatans through the ages when you can't get a consensus on anything else.

It is very difficult for someone outside of christianity to get past the basic tenets to other aspects of how women or colored people were viewed.

I remember hearing once that God created man in his image and since God is white, black people can't be his children.. certainly the dark history of christianity paints a very different one from this ideal that you wish others would be deceived into believing!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

I remember hearing once that God created man in his image and since God is white, black people can't be his children.. certainly the dark history of christianity paints a very different one from this ideal that you wish others would be deceived into believing!

all the best

There is a dark history to much of human history, Christianis included. But that doesn't make Christianity dark any more than the dark deeds of some Muslims make Islam a dark religion. What if we spent time trying to understand the ideals of both faiths rather than denigrate them based on the actions of those whose behavior either represented them poorly or in name only but not at all in substance? I believe it would produce a better world for all of us.

[جوري]

There is a dark history to much of human history, Christianis included. But that doesn't make Christianity dark any more than the dark deeds of some Muslims make Islam a dark religion. What if we spent time trying to understand the ideals of both faiths rather than denigrate them based on the actions of those whose behavior either represented them poorly or in name only but not at all in substance? I believe it would produce a better world for all of us.

except when the religion itself is seeped in it, and the people are simply in compliance of.

all the best

[barney]

I'm trying to think of a nation or society pre 1900's that ever gave women the respect or freedoms that todays society does?

I'm talking about the right of equal pay, the right to work, to vote, to lead, to travel, to wear what they want when they want,to say what they want when they want, to do what job they want, to be educated, to have their opinions listened to to being a valued member of that society.

Ancient Greece and Rome are often touted as enlightened societys, but they failed in most of the above. Sparta as the worlds first democracy had women in a very powerful position, but they couldnt join the army and there were taboos on doing "mens work".
The "enlightenment" of the 18th century had women as baby producers who had to write under male names if they wanted a stab at success.

The island of Lesbos's myth of girl power is non historical but the
Nagovisi of Bougainvillea in the South Pacific, the Khasi of Meghalaya, India, and the Machinguenga of Peru are some of a tiny handful of matriarchical tribes.

Thus we find that globally, although there are as many goddesses as gods, the religion of the day dosnt actually grant emancipation for women. It is arguable then that only with the secularisation of a society, something that is almost exclusively a modern phenomenon, that this equality can be found.

[جوري]

I'm trying to think of a nation or society pre 1900's that ever gave women the respect or freedoms that todays society does?

I'm talking about the right of equal pay, the right to work, to vote, to lead, to travel, to wear what they want when they want,to say what they want when they want, to do what job they want, to be educated, to have their opinions listened to to being a valued member of that society.

Ancient Greece and Rome are often touted as enlightened societys, but they failed in most of the above. Sparta as the worlds first democracy had women in a very powerful position, but they couldnt join the army and there were taboos on doing "mens work".
The "enlightenment" of the 18th century had women as baby producers who had to write under male names if they wanted a stab at success.

The island of Lesbos's myth of girl power is non historical but the
Nagovisi of Bougainvillea in the South Pacific, the Khasi of Meghalaya, India, and the Machinguenga of Peru are some of a tiny handful of matriarchical tribes.

Thus we find that globally, although there are as many goddesses as gods, the religion of the day dosnt actually grant emancipation for women. It is arguable then that only with the secularisation of a society, something that is almost exclusively a modern phenomenon, that this equality can be found.

if you think women are given the same rights today, you are actually delusional. Consider even the highest paying jobs , women engineers and doctors still make less than their male counterparts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118263/

if you so much as take maternity leave you are already out of equal pay and equal positions, especially during your residency years!

Get back to earth if you can!

[barney]

if you think women are given the same rights today, you are actually delusional. Consider even the highest paying jobs , women engineers and doctors still make less than their male counterparts:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118263/

if you so much as take maternity leave you are already out of equal pay and equal positions, especially during your residency years!

Get back to earth if you can!

Diddnt say women had equality.
I said the equality they had today. If you had been born a Bathuso woman then whats the chances you could have become a Doctor? Your society whatever it is, has given you that right. I would imagine also that you are paid equal to your male colleagues?

It's far from perfect, but its getting there.:D

[جوري]

Diddnt say women had equality.
I said the equality they had today. If you had been born a Bathuso woman then whats the chances you could have become a Doctor? Your society whatever it is, has given you that right. I would imagine also that you are paid equal to your male colleagues?

It's far from perfect, but its getting there.:D

Like stated before, I don't know what you say half the time.. to be given equality is to be given equal pay amongst other things-- the chances of me being a doctor are good at any century, it depends on my drive and desire ..
there were plenty of female surgeons and 'herbalists' during the time of the prophet, those who passed fatwas, those who were scholars etc.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008may11/...men_ulema.html

all the best

[barney]

Like stated before, I don't know what you say half the time.. to be given equality is to be given equal pay amongst other things-- the chances of me being a doctor are good at any century, it depends on my drive and desire ..
there were plenty of female surgeons and 'herbalists' during the time of the prophet, those who passed fatwas, those who were scholars etc.

http://www.twocircles.net/2008may11/...men_ulema.html

all the best

I dont know what i say most of the time, so you have the advantage on me there. ;D

To have equal pay is indeed a requirement for true equality, but more nessecery for humans to not think in terms of "mans role" or "womans role".
Sure childbirth and feedings ,less so feeding these days, are the only real exceptions!

[جوري]

I dont know what i say most of the time, so you have the advantage on me there. ;D

To have equal pay is indeed a requirement for true equality, but more nessecery for humans to not think in terms of "mans role" or "womans role".
Sure childbirth and feedings ,less so feeding these days, are the only real exceptions!

fact is if you have to take some time off for reasons men don't take time off for, you'll be paid less -- for some reason you are under some faulty impression that women want to be treated like men? we don't.. we want to be treated better-- western culture in its inane pursuits has done away with so much common sense, like giving up your seat for an elderly or opening the door to someone with a carriage, or paying for dinner even if the wife makes more money, or carrying someone's bag or luggage, I expect these things as do most women (it is just good manners) .. In general I think your idea of 'equality' is quite skewed.. it doesn't work in the real world, the olympics or with God.. equality doesn't mean sameness. Certainly women can and do play different roles than men or similar in many aspects on their own accord, but it counts just the same in the eyes of God according to Islam even if it doesn't in the real world!..

a man's jihad and woman's jihad might come in different forms.. but the reward is the same!

hope we are clear!

[barney]

Maternity pay seems to work fine. The cost to the employer is balanced by retaining trained experienced staff.

If women want to be treated better than men then Tough!
I agree that opening doors and doffing your hat is archaic and silly. Its actually demeaning to women.
I helped a lass with her buggy up a flight of steps yesterday, but that wasnt because i was a man, it was because she was struggling.A passing woman could have helped just as easily.
Nothing is going to make the sexes purely equal, but we can shed much historical baggage by dropping the Protected Treasure label and replace it with strong independent individual

[جوري]

Maternity pay seems to work fine. The cost to the employer is balanced by retaining trained experienced staff.

you live in a bizarre world of your making. My Friend L, is a brilliant doctor, and her chief resident position went to a moron simply because she was pregnant! So don't tell me how it works fine or all about experienced staff.

If women want to be treated better than men then Tough!

Precisely why you are the sort of man, no woman would be interested in!

I agree that opening doors and doffing your hat is archaic and silly. Its actually demeaning to women.

speak only on behalf of the women you are accustomed to and frequent. Most women prefer excellent manners!

I helped a lass with her buggy up a flight of steps yesterday, but that wasnt because i was a man, it was because she was struggling.A passing woman could have helped just as easily.

glad you have some semblance of humanity left in you!

Nothing is going to make the sexes purely equal, but we can shed much historical baggage by dropping the Protected Treasure label and replace it with strong independent individual

Independence has nothing to do with social graces and the right thing to do, and unfortunately nothing to do with the reality of things..

so pls. spare me with your input.. if you want to speak on behalf of women then get a sex change and pump your body full of hormones, but even then you'd be speaking on behalf of freaks. Don't come and tell me how much better it is now because you view it as such.. you attention and capacity to understand the world around you is almost cartoonish!

[barney]

you live in a bizarre world of your making. My Friend L, is a brilliant doctor, and her chief resident position went to a moron simply because she was pregnant! So don't tell me how it works fine or all about experienced staff.

Precisely why you are the sort of man, no woman would be interested in!

speak only on behalf of the women you are accustomed to and frequent. Most women prefer excellent manners!

glad you have some semblance of humanity left in you!

Independence has nothing to do with social graces and the right thing to do, and unfortunately nothing to do with the reality of things..

so pls. spare me with your input.. if you want to speak on behalf of women then get a sex change and pump your body full of hormones, but even then you'd be speaking on behalf of freaks. Don't come and tell me how much better it is now because you view it as such.. you attention and capacity to understand the world around you is almost cartoonish!

You would fit very well into a 18th century world and do your sisters in humanity a great disgrace. You claim that women are not treated equally, complain that it is so, then dismiss that it should ever be. This is the conclusion a duck hit around the head with a plank might come to if it had consumed quarts of whiskey.

For a cartoon simile I would suggest Cruella D'Ville but without the humour, personality,charm or wit.

[جوري]

You would fit very well into a 18th century world and do your sisters in humanity a great disgrace. You claim that women are not treated equally, complain that it is so, then dismiss that it should ever be. This is the conclusion a duck hit around the head with a plank might come to if it had consumed quarts of whiskey.

For a cartoon simile I would suggest Cruella D'Ville but without the humour, personality,charm or wit.

Your idea of liberation and equality are as advanced as you are (which isn't very).. it is that simple-- as for your personality and wit, well I wouldn't even classify you as cruella's dalmatian..

now take a hike!

[Predator]

Islam has been accused by Hinduism of being a barbaric,misogynist,terrrorist religion, and also accused of subjugating women behind veils and all those allegation.And the more shocking fact is , if you were to visit any social networking site you would find Hindus,Christians making fun of Islam and poor Muslims trying to defend Islam.

The below information can be used as a combat kit against Hindus.


Is Women really Independent according to the Hindu Scriptures ?:

“In childhood must a female be dependent on her father ; in youth, on her husband ; her lord being dead, on her sons ; if she have no sons, on the near kinsmen of her husband ; if he left no kinsmen, on those of her father ; if she have no paternal kinsmen, on the sovereign : a woman must never seek independence.”



- (Institutes of Hindu Law , Ch 5, verse 138 )[Translated by Kenealy ,Watford ,1911] Or the Manu Smriti with diff Translation.



“A wife is not independent with respect to (the fulfillment of) the sacred law.”

- (Gautama Sutra,,Chapter XVIII, verse 1.)[SBE Vol-2 Edited by F.Muller,Sacred Laws of Aryas Part I. Translated by George Buhler, Oxford Clarendon Press ,1879]

“A woman is not independent, the males are her masters. It has been declared in the Veda, ' A female who neither goes naked nor is temporarily unclean is paradise.' ”

- (Vashistha Smriti, Ch V. verse 1) [Translated by Georg Buhler in The Sacred laws of Aryas ,Part II , SBE Vol-2 American Ed, Newyork Christian Litreature Society ,1898.]



“Now they quote also (the following verse): ' Their fathers protect them in childhood, their husbands protect them in youth, and their sons protect them in age; a woman is never fit for independence.' ”

- (Vashistha Smriti, Ch V, verse 2) [Translated by Georg Buhler in The Sacred laws of Aryas ,Part II , Newyork ,Christian Litreature Society ,1898.]


“Women do not possess independence.”

-( Baudhayana Smriti, Prasana 2, Adhayaya 2, Kandika 3, verse 44) [Translated by Georg Buhler in The Sacred laws of Aryas ,Part II , Newyork Christian Litreature Society ,1898]


Many Hindus will be found criticising early Marraige of Ayesha RadiAllah Anha to RasoolAllah Sallal lahu Alayhi wa Sallam , so how do you answer them.


When a Girl is to be Married :


“A girl should be given in marriage before (she attains the age of) puberty. He who neglects it, commits sin.Some (declare, that a girl shall be given in Marriage ) before she wears clothes.”


-(Gautama Smriti,,Chapter XVIII,verses 21-23)[ Sacred Laws of Aryas Part I Translated by George Buhler ,SBE Vol-2 Edited by F.Muller,., Oxford Clarendon Press ,1879]



So when ? When she doesn't even wear Clothes!


“The mother, and the father, and likewise the eldest brother, all these three relatives will go to hell, if before menstruation they neglect to marry the girl.”



- ( Institutes of Parasara , Ch 7, verse 6)[Translated by Krishnakamal Bhattacharya, Baptist Mission Press , Calcutta ,1887]



Elswhere Parashar says :



“When the twelfth year is reached by the female child, if the guardian does not give her away in marriage, her forefathers drink, without interruption, during each succeeding month, whatever blood is passed in her courses.”



- ( Institutes of Parasara Ch 7, verse 5)[Translated by Krishnakamal Bhattacharya, Baptist Mission Press , Calcutta ,1887]





“ A householder shall take a wife (of) equal (caste), who has not belonged to another man and is younger (than himself).”



- ( Gautama Samhita, Ch IV. Verse 1,)[Translated by Georg Buhler ,Sacred Laws of Aryas Part I,Oxford ,Clarendon Press, 1879]



“A maiden who has attained puberty shall wait for three years. After three years (have passed), she may take a husband of equal caste. Now they quote also (the following verses) : ' But if through a father's negligence a maiden is here given away after the suitable age has passed, she who was waiting (for a husband) destroys him who gives her away, just as the fee which is paid too late to the teacher (destroys the pupil).' ' Out of fear of the appearance of the menses let the father marry his daughter while she still runs about naked. For if she stays (in the house) after the age of puberty, sin falls on the father.' 'As often as the courses of a maiden, who is filled with desire, and demanded in marriage by men of equal caste, recur, so often her father and her mother are guilty of (the crime of) slaying an embryo; that is a rule of the sacred law.'”



-(Vashistha Smriti , Ch XVII, verse 67-71) ,)[Translated by Georg Buhler ,Sacred Laws of Aryas Part II,Oxford ,Clarendon Press, 1879]



“Let him give his daughter, while she still goes naked, to a man who has not broken the vow of chastity and who possesses good qualities, or even to one destitute of good qualities ; let him not keep (the maiden) in (his house) after she has reached the age of puberty. He who does not give away a marriageable daughter during three years doubtlessly contracts a guilt equal to (that of) destroying an embryo. Such will be the case if anybody asks her in marriage, and also if nobody demands her. Manu has declared that at each appearance of the menses (the father incurs the guilt of) a mortal sin.”



-( Baudhayana Smriti ,Prasna 4, Adhyaya 1, verses 11-13),)[Translated by Georg Buhler ,Sacred Laws of Aryas Part II,Oxford ,Clarendon Press, 1879]



"Let no maiden suffer the period of maturity to come on without giving notice of it to her relations. Should they omit to give her in marriage, they would be equal to the murderers of an embryo. He who does not give such a maiden in marriage commits the crime of killing an embryo as many times as her period of menstruation passes by without her having a husband. Therefore a father must give his daughter in marriage once (for all), as soon as the signs of maturity become apparent. (By acting) otherwise he would commit a heavy crime. Such is the rule settled among the virtuous.”



- (Narada Smriti Book XII Verses 25-27)[“The Minor Law Books” Translated by Julius Jolly,Oxford ,Clarendon Press, 1889.Sacred Books of East Vol- 33]




Other Books like Manu Smriti are quoted in earlier Posts.



Inheritance for Women in Hindu Scriptures :



“Soma could not bear being drawn for women; making the ghee a bolt they beat it, they drew it when it had lost its power; therefore women are powerless, have no inheritance, and speak more humbly than even a bad man”



-Yajurveda(Taittiriya Sanhita) Khanda VI, Prapathaka 5 ,Hymn 8) [Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith, Harvard University Press,1914]



“Manu divided his property among his sons”



-Yajurveda(Taittiriya Sanhita) Khanda III ,Prapathaka 1 ,Hymn 9 ) [Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith, Harvard University Press,1914]



Manu is the First Man *(according to the Hindu Scriptures) created by Hindu God , like Adam, infact the english word 'Man' is taken from the Sanskrat word 'Manu'.



The above verses are enough as Vedas are the prime scriptures for Hindus but lets prove this through Dharma Shastras too.



“The Veda (says), ' Manu divided his estate among his sons.'”



- ( Baudhayana Smriti ,Prasna II, Adhaaya 2, Khandika. 3, verse 2) [Translated By Georg Buhler, The Christian literature company , Newyork ,1898]



“He should, during his lifetime, divide his wealth equally amongst his sons, excepting the eunuch, the mad man, and the outcast.”



- [Apastamba Smriti ,Prasna II, Patala 6 , Khanda 14 ,verse 1) [Translated by Georg Buhler ,Sacred Laws of Aryas Part I,Oxford ,Clarendon Press, 1879]



What if a Hindu criticizes the Position of women in Islam:

Its common to find Hindus , criticizing the Position of women on Islam , they often quote Da'eef Hadeeth and misinterpret pother Hadeeths so how are you going to answer them?

Here is theTranslation of the Same verse from the Upanishad(Brihaddarayanakaya) which commands the Husbands to beat (with hand and stick )their wife if they disagree to sleep with them.

Violence against women permitted

" If she should not grant him his desire, he should bribe her. If she still does not grant him his desire, he should hit her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her, saying : ‘With power, with glory I take away your glory ! ' Thus she becomes inglorious.’ "

- (Brihad-Arayankaya Upanishad, Adhayaya 6, Brahmana 4, verse 7)[The Thirteen Principal Upanishads,Translated by Robert Ernest Hume, Oxford University Press .1921)]


"If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: "With power and glory I take away your glory." Thus she becomes discredited."

- (Part 6, Ch 4, verse 7 in "The Upanishads - A New Translation" by Swami Nikhilananda )


"If she do not give in, let him, as he likes, bribe her (with presents). And if she then do not give in, let him, as he likes, beat her with a stick or with his hand, and overcome her , saying : ' With manly strength and glory I take away thy glory,'- and thus she becomes unglorious."

-(Brihad-Arayankaya Upanishad, Adhayaya 6 ,Brahmana 4, verse 7) The Upanishads ,Part-2 Translated by F.Max Muller,Oxford Claredon Press,1884

The 3 translations were quoted for those dubious of me mistranslating of misinterpreting the verses.

There are many fools going around and showing their discontent with Islam,due to Islams restrictions on women on politics.Here' how to reply them.

Is a woman consulted by Man ?

"At the time of consultation, let him remove the stupid, the dumb, the blind, and the deaf, talking birds, decrepit old men, women, and infidels, the diseased and the maimed ;"

- (Institutes of Hindu Law , Ch 7 ,Verse 147 )[Translated by Kenealy ,Watford ,1911]

So according to Manusmriti Kings should not consult Women?

How about Purity,a Hindu will find Smritis , claiming women to pure and nothing makes here impure , but then why?

Boycotting women during Menstruation:

"...one should not converse with (a woman) with stained garments (Menses), one should not sit with her, nor eat her food, for she keeps emitting the colour of guilt (menses). Or rather they say, ‘Woman's food is unguent, and therefore one should not accept (from her) unguent , but anything else (can be accepted) at will.'"

-[Yajurveda(Taittiriya Sanhita) Khanda II,Prapathaka 5,Hymn 1 ] [Translated by Arthur Berriedale Keith, Harvard University Press,1914]

Above Vedic citation is enough but lets see what the Puranas say?

“After menstruation the women should be avoided for four days. Their face should not be seen during that time, lest sin should arise in the body.”

-(Garuda Purana, Chapter XV ,verse 7) [Translated by Ernest Wood & S.V. Subrahmanyam, ,Published by Panini Office , Allahabad ,1911]

[Supreme]

Aye, the early books of the Bible originated in (roughly) the same cultural climate as Islam: middle eatern patriarchal structures that regarded women as little more than the valued property of their husbands and/or male relatives: prospective brides were bought and/or traded in for a dozen camels (or a similar price); the Ten Utterances, correctly grouped, count wives among the neighbour's possessions (rather than dividing the "not to covet" laws up into two separate commandments); Deuteronomical rape laws follow the logic of "if you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it"; and so on and so forth.

None of that really justifies Islamic misogynism, of course. It just goes to show how deeply Islam is entrenched in 7th century Arabian culture (as opposed to being associated with the timeless wisdom of a divine being).

[Grace Seeker]

Islam has been accused by Hinduism of being....

Why does a thread that is about the Bible and the Qur'an end up discussing Hinduism?

[Justufy]

I think that the safest answer to this is that the place of women vary according to the interpretations people make of both the qur'ân and the Bible.

[ccc]

may i ask why do you think mohamed married so many wifes and took a 6 year old child as wife and had sex with her at 9 years.Also i read that he married his adoptive son wife.I understand that he probably justifies himself n one way ore another, but excepting that what kind of moral example is that and how can be justified to have sex with children?

[جوري]

I guess the same way 'King David' from your bible justified taking a child concubine on his death bed, and the same way the age of consent up to 1919 in a state such as Delaware was 7 and for the same reasons a 'woman' can be betrothed as an infant in Judaism!


Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"
to give him warmth, but "the king himself had no intercourse with her." Nevertheless, the attitude later manifested by Solomon regarding her indicates that Abishag was viewed as being in the position of wife or concubine of David. As such, by a rule in the ancient East, she would become the property of David's heir at the time of his death.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3

Add a comment
Footnotes

• 1. Talmud Kiddushin 41a.
• 2. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.
• 3. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? | AskMoses.com - Judaism, Ask a Rabbi - Live


this one is from bringhamton.edu
of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,

website

Campaign to Raise the Legal Age of Consent, 1885-1914, Lesson Plan

[Supreme]

Aye, the early books of the Bible originated in (roughly) the same cultural climate as Islam: middle eatern patriarchal structures that regarded women as little more than the valued property of their husbands and/or male relatives: prospective brides were bought and/or traded in for a dozen camels (or a similar price); the Ten Utterances, correctly grouped, count wives among the neighbour's possessions (rather than dividing the "not to covet" laws up into two separate commandments); Deuteronomical rape laws follow the logic of "if you damage the merchandise, you have to buy it"; and so on and so forth.

None of that really justifies Islamic misogynism, of course. It just goes to show how deeply Islam is entrenched in 7th century Arabian culture (as opposed to being associated with the timeless wisdom of a divine being).

No responses?

[جوري]

No responses?

Someone (Muslim) would have to agree with your analysis in order to dignify it with a response.. and no one does so you are a party of one!

[Supreme]

Someone (Muslim) would have to agree with your analysis in order to dignify it with a response.. and no one does so you are a party of one!

As suspected. A diagnosis of severe lack of argument!

[Ramadhan]

Someone (Muslim) would have to agree with your analysis in order to dignify it with a response.. and no one does so you are a party of one!

You are too generous. I would definitely NOT call this "analysis":

None of that really justifies Islamic misogynism, of course. It just goes to show how deeply Islam is entrenched in 7th century Arabian culture (as opposed to being associated with the timeless wisdom of a divine being).

[جوري]

You are too generous. I would definitely NOT call this "analysis":

lol.. I was being cordial!
why do blue fish have wings in 3rd C. BC.. what no response? ;D;D;D
if you accept dying mengods as your saviors I guess anything goes!

:w:

[Uthman]

but excepting that what kind of moral example is that and how can be justified to have sex with children?

Discussed here.

[Supreme]

The difference between Christianity and Islam being, of course, that Christianity has outgrown most of its historical baggage. (Discounting the lunatic fringe, of course.)
Read within the historical context, Jesus was outrageously egalitarian (and not only with regards to gender, either): He freely conversed with women in public places (such as the Samaritan woman at the well), had female followers (who, admittedly, are somewhat neglected by the gospels, but then again, the authors were probably not quite as enlightened as their venerated messiah), objected to the divorce practices of the day (which were outrageous insofar as they allowed men - and ONLY men - to cast out their wives at a whim, like you might discard an old car), and so on and so forth.

Heck, even St. Paul probably wasn't as much of a misogynist as tradition would have it: the genuine epistles not only condemn the practice of treating women as second-class citizens, but also reference female congregation members who are greeted by name (something that, in the context of the times, was outrageously unconventional).

Of course, Christianity lapsed back into the patriarchal zeitgeist within less than a dozen generations, and the middle ages were rife with misogyny. But that cannot detract from the fact that Christianity is considerably more egalitarian than Islam could ever hope to be.

[ccc]

I guess the same way 'King David' from your bible justified taking a child concubine on his death bed, and the same way the age of consent up to 1919 in a state such as Delaware was 7 and for the same reasons a 'woman' can be betrothed as an infant in Judaism!


Abishag Was a young virgin from the town of Shunem, North of Jezreel and Mount Gilboa, in the territory of Issachar. (Jos 19:17-23) She was "beautiful in the extreme" and was chosen by David's servants to become the nurse and companion of the king during his final days.
see 1Ki 1:1-4.
David was now about 70 years of age (2Sa 5:4, 5), and as a result of debilitation he had little body heat. Abishag waited on him during the day, doubtless brightening the surroundings with her youthful freshness and beauty, and at night she "lay in the king's bosom"
to give him warmth, but "the king himself had no intercourse with her." Nevertheless, the attitude later manifested by Solomon regarding her indicates that Abishag was viewed as being in the position of wife or concubine of David. As such, by a rule in the ancient East, she would become the property of David's heir at the time of his death.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

Our Sages state1 that "it is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry.'" It is forbidden for one to marry off his daughter until she is an adult and says 'this is the one I want to marry'!
In ancient (and not so ancient) times however, marriage was often-times celebrated at a rather young age. Although we do not follow this dictum, technically speaking, a girl may be betrothed the moment she is born, and married at the age of three.2 A boy may betroth and marry at the age of thirteen.3

Add a comment
Footnotes

• 1. Talmud Kiddushin 41a.
• 2. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 37:1.
• 3. Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer 43:1.

What is the minimum age of marriage according to Jewish law? | AskMoses.com - Judaism, Ask a Rabbi - Live


this one is from bringhamton.edu
of most states set the age of consent at the age of ten or twelve, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only seven. Women reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least sixteen,

website

Campaign to Raise the Legal Age of Consent, 1885-1914, Lesson Plan

In Bible what David dd is presented as a great sin, not as a model.You can see his cryin after that, his pain when he speaks with the prophet, the only model in that is his cryin of his sins.
2 Samuel 11
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab."

26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD
2 samuel 12:
11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

[جوري]

In Bible what David dd is presented as a great sin, not as a model.You can see his cryin after that, his pain when he speaks with the prophet, the only model in that is his cryin of his sins.
2 Samuel 11
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab."

26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD
2 samuel 12:
11 "This is what the LORD says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD."
Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the LORD show utter contempt, [a] the son born to you will die."

15 After Nathan had gone home, the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

it doesn't really matter how your bible portrays anyone, certainly even god's alleged messengers 'Lut' has sex with his two daughters.. and Jesus as per 'martin luther' was thrice the adulterer..
western secular laws as early as last century had the age of marriage and consent at 7 which is less than it was millenniums ago.. so what can I say, except perhaps familiarize yourself with your bible, with history and with Judaic laws as well the folks you take as gods or messengers before questioning what is 'moral' certainly all you do is paint yourself as an ignoramus with a severe loggerhea problem.

I don't know if you think pasting large compact irrelevant pieces that have nothing to do with the thread are convincing, I think they are classified as spam!

all the best

[Predator]

what kind of moral example is that and how can be justified to have sex with children?

What kind of moral example and mercy does your Lord Jesus set when he ordered the killing of young girls , women and children in the bible and how can that be justified


Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open

And then talk filth and dirt about them like this

Ezekiel chapter 23: 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses

[ccc]

it doesn't really matter how your bible portrays anyone, certainly even god's alleged messengers 'Lut' has sex with his two daughters.. and Jesus as per 'martin luther' was thrice the adulterer..
western secular laws as early as last century had the age of marriage and consent at 7 which is less than it was millenniums ago.. so what can I say, except perhaps familiarize yourself with your bible, with history and with Judaic laws as well the folks you take as gods or messengers before questioning what is 'moral' certainly all you do is paint yourself as an ignoramus with a severe loggerhea problem.

I don't know if you think pasting large compact irrelevant pieces that have nothing to do with the thread are convincing, I think they are classified as spam!

all the best

Secularism is by definition against religion and this has nothing to to with christian doctrine.By the way i am not "western".Judaic aws, if you would be familiarized with the bible and christianity, are not perfect in themselves, they are that kind of laws suitable for the people of those times.If there would be such laws, though i do not know any aw in western countries to allow sex with 9 year girls, they are secular laws, not christian.Before believing in prophets which do not have anything to testify for them excepting the announcement of the coming of false prophets and antichrist, make a little research for the sake of the truth not because your proud and need of self justification.

[جوري]

Secularism is by definition against religion and this has nothing to to with christian doctrine.By the way i am not "western".Judaic aws, if you would be familiarized with the bible and christianity, are not perfect in themselves, they are that kind of laws suitable for the people of those times.If there would be such laws, though i do not know any aw in western countries to allow sex with 9 year girls, they are secular laws, not christian.Before believing in prophets which do not have anything to testify for them excepting the announcement of the coming of false prophets and antichrist, make a little research for the sake of the truth not because your proud and need of self justification.

I know what secular means, I have pointed out that neither under secular nor Judaic or even christian laws was what you personally consider 'immoral' in fact immoral.
As for false prophets why not start with the charlatan saul? or even dissect your bible a little bit for its lewdness and frank scatology before making the leap forward ey?

and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel" (II Sam 16:22). Afterwards, the poor concubines (there were ten of them!) got imprisoned for life (II Sam 20:3).
"and after that thou shalt go in unto her" (Deut 21:13). There are many other places where the graphical phrase "go in" is used.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off..." (Deut 23:1).
"and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets" (Deut 25:11).
"let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love" (Proverbs 5:19).
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him" (Song of Solomon 5:4).
"and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (II Sam 12:11).
"he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts" (Song of Sol. 1:13).
"And they committed *****doms in Egypt; ...there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity" (Ez 23:3).
"to every man a damsel or two" (Judges 5:30)
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12).

Many sexual crimes in the Bible go unpunished:

Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).
A married man who has mistresses is not punished for adultery. Examples: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), David (II Sam 5:13,20). But a woman who has sex outside of marriage is severely punished.
"Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard of it" (Gen 35:22). No mention of any punishment.

Punishment for sexual crimes was sometimes meted to innocent people, or even to the victim:

When a man has sex with a slave girl (yes, slavery is OK), he isn't to be heavily punished, but the girl is (Leviticus 19:20).
The penalty for sex with an animal is to be death not only for the man or woman, but for the poor beast as well (Leviticus 20:15,16).
A woman who doesn't scream when she gets raped is to be stoned. (Deuteronomy 22:24).
******* children are to be punished, and their descendants, too. (Deuteronomy 23:2, Isaiah 14:21).
King David had the hots for Bathsheba. So he had sex with her and then sent her husband off to die in battle. David's punishment, decreed by God, was that all his wives be publicly raped, and his newborn child would die! (II Samuel 11:2 - 12:14) (The men who did the raping presumably were not punished, since they were following God's orders.)
There are many cases where a married man has mistresses and isn't punished for adultery: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), David (II Samuel 5:13,20).
God actually decrees fornication in Deut 28:30, where the punishment for a man's misdeed is that his fiance has sex with another man.
Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, who was pretending to be a *****. No punishment for either of them. (Genesis 38:13-26)
A man may forcibly take a woman from enemy captives and make her his wife, after trying her out. (Deut 21:11-13)
A man is supposed to have sex with his dead brother's widow. If he refuses, he gets publicly humiliated (Deut 25:5-9). Apparently it doesn't matter whether he is already married.
When David was old and infirm, he was brought a young maiden so that he would "get heat" (I Kings 1:1-2). It didn't work.
Ruth, a young widow, acts the harlot to nab a rich husband, as her mother-in-law Naomi instructs her to do (Ruth 3:3-4). The two women are portrayed as righteous.

Lots of scatological phrases.

scatology n.
1 a a morbid interest in excrement. b a preoccupation with obscene literature, esp. that concerned with the excretory functions. c such literature.
2 the study of fossilized dung.
3 the study of excrement for esp. diagnosis.
scatological adj.
[Greek skor skatos ‘dung' + -logy]

Examples:

"that pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, I Kings 14:10)
"that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you" (II Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12)
"And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight" (Ez 4:12).
"Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith" (Ez 4:15).
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."(Malachi 2:3).
"and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ.."(Philipp 3:8).

Read the bible lately? why are the bible thumping christians on this forum such twits?


all the best

[ccc]

What kind of moral example and mercy does your Lord Jesus set when he ordered the killing of young girls , women and children in the bible and how can that be justified


Ezekiel 9:5-7

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open

And then talk filth and dirt about them like this

Ezekiel chapter 23: 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses

again those are the words which the people from those times were able to understand, also when god allows people to make something bad o each other he actually limits a preexistent evil, in he same way we understand the reason for which death was given to man.
the last quotations are again incomplete:
1 Then I heard him call out in a loud voice, "Bring the guards of the city here, each with a weapon in his hand." 2 And I saw six men coming from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with a deadly weapon in his hand. With them was a man clothed in linen who had a writing kit at his side. They came in and stood beside the bronze altar.

3 Now the glory of the God of Israel went up from above the cherubim, where it had been, and moved to the threshold of the temple. Then the LORD called to the man clothed in linen who had the writing kit at his side 4 and said to him, "Go throughout the city of Jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it."

5 As I listened, he said to the others, "Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were in front of the temple.

7 Then he said to them, "Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go!" So they went out and began killing throughout the city. 8 While they were killing and I was left alone, I fell facedown, crying out, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! Are you going to destroy the entire remnant of Israel in this outpouring of your wrath on Jerusalem?"

9 He answered me, "The sin of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' 10 So I will not look on them with pity or spare them, but I will bring down on their own heads what they have done."
you can see what is the reason for they are let o be klled:Those peope from Israel left God, and his is the real death.this death we experience on earth s only separation of soul and body.

[ccc]

I know what secular means, I have pointed out that neither under secular nor Judaic or even christian laws was what you personally consider 'immoral' in fact immoral.
As for false prophets why not start with the charlatan saul? or even dissect your bible a little bit for its lewdness and frank scatology before making the leap forward ey?

and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel" (II Sam 16:22). Afterwards, the poor concubines (there were ten of them!) got imprisoned for life (II Sam 20:3).
"and after that thou shalt go in unto her" (Deut 21:13). There are many other places where the graphical phrase "go in" is used.
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off..." (Deut 23:1).
"and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets" (Deut 25:11).
"let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love" (Proverbs 5:19).
"My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him" (Song of Solomon 5:4).
"and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun" (II Sam 12:11).
"he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts" (Song of Sol. 1:13).
"And they committed *****doms in Egypt; ...there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity" (Ez 23:3).
"to every man a damsel or two" (Judges 5:30)
"and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (Matthew 19:12).

Many sexual crimes in the Bible go unpunished:

Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).
A married man who has mistresses is not punished for adultery. Examples: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), David (II Sam 5:13,20). But a woman who has sex outside of marriage is severely punished.
"Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard of it" (Gen 35:22). No mention of any punishment.

Punishment for sexual crimes was sometimes meted to innocent people, or even to the victim:

When a man has sex with a slave girl (yes, slavery is OK), he isn't to be heavily punished, but the girl is (Leviticus 19:20).
The penalty for sex with an animal is to be death not only for the man or woman, but for the poor beast as well (Leviticus 20:15,16).
A woman who doesn't scream when she gets raped is to be stoned. (Deuteronomy 22:24).
******* children are to be punished, and their descendants, too. (Deuteronomy 23:2, Isaiah 14:21).
King David had the hots for Bathsheba. So he had sex with her and then sent her husband off to die in battle. David's punishment, decreed by God, was that all his wives be publicly raped, and his newborn child would die! (II Samuel 11:2 - 12:14) (The men who did the raping presumably were not punished, since they were following God's orders.)
There are many cases where a married man has mistresses and isn't punished for adultery: Abraham (I Chron 1:32), Reheboam (II Chron 11:21), Saul (II Sam 3:7), Gideon (Judges 8:31), David (II Samuel 5:13,20).
God actually decrees fornication in Deut 28:30, where the punishment for a man's misdeed is that his fiance has sex with another man.
Judah had sex with his daughter-in-law, who was pretending to be a *****. No punishment for either of them. (Genesis 38:13-26)
A man may forcibly take a woman from enemy captives and make her his wife, after trying her out. (Deut 21:11-13)
A man is supposed to have sex with his dead brother's widow. If he refuses, he gets publicly humiliated (Deut 25:5-9). Apparently it doesn't matter whether he is already married.
When David was old and infirm, he was brought a young maiden so that he would "get heat" (I Kings 1:1-2). It didn't work.
Ruth, a young widow, acts the harlot to nab a rich husband, as her mother-in-law Naomi instructs her to do (Ruth 3:3-4). The two women are portrayed as righteous.

Lots of scatological phrases.

scatology n.
1 a a morbid interest in excrement. b a preoccupation with obscene literature, esp. that concerned with the excretory functions. c such literature.
2 the study of fossilized dung.
3 the study of excrement for esp. diagnosis.
scatological adj.
[Greek skor skatos ‘dung' + -logy]

Examples:

"that pisseth against the wall" (I Samuel 25:22, I Kings 14:10)
"that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you" (II Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12)
"And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight" (Ez 4:12).
"Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith" (Ez 4:15).
"Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces..."(Malachi 2:3).
"and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ.."(Philipp 3:8).

Read the bible lately? why are the bible thumping christians on this forum such twits?


all the best

Again, the fact that evl things are presented in bible does not mean anyhing because they are presented as evil and Bible is the book in which is said he story of salvation from evil.

[جوري]

Again, the fact that evl things are presented in bible does not mean anyhing because they are presented as evil and Bible is the book in which is said he story of salvation from evil.

That is all there is when other folks open your bible, and sad especially when committed by alleged holy people.. prophets sent to warn against sins of the flesh for instance shouldn't be hypocrites by getting drunk and sleeping with their daughters.. daughters shouldn't be betrothed without their wish and dying prophets shouldn't be taking concubines!

these are the facts of the matter and that is how your religion and culture are being viewed. scatology and hate filled manifestos.. and I suggest before pointing your finger out of perceived flaws in other religion, that you convene yet again and vote to see what you should re-write in your bible and modernize so the earth isn't 6000 years old and gods don't become dying men and the world doesn't revolve around the earth and women aren't soulless creatures akin to animals.

all the best!

[Grace Seeker]

Hosea 13:16 (King James) Samaria will bear her guilt because she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open

And do you think the women who blew themselves up today in the Moscow subways, only to defend Islam of course not to actually cause terror, were not ripped open or that they were careful to avoid dashing little ones to pieces?

[جوري]

And do you think the women who blew themselves up today in the Moscow subways, only to defend Islam of course not to actually cause terror, were not ripped open or that they were careful to avoid dashing little ones to pieces?

How do you draw similarities against being ripped apart by the will of this sweet self-immolating man/god and folks acting on their own volition? People blowing themselves in a subway aren't the 'book to live by'

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

People blowing themselves in a subway aren't the 'book to live by'

all the best

Good. I'm glad to hear that. The problem is that those who did it thought that they were carrying out the will of Allah. I am convinced that many who have claim to be God's people have mistaken portrayed his will, both in the OT and in the present day.

[جوري]

Good. I'm glad to hear that. The problem is that those who did it thought that they were carrying out the will of Allah. I am convinced that many who have claim to be God's people have mistaken portrayed his will, both in the OT and in the present day.

The 'will of Allah' to kill oneself on a subway isn't mentioned in the Quran, as we see it the will of 'jesus' to rip people apart in the bible!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

I often wonder if christians actually have read their own bible.
Either that they have not read it, or they don't really believe in their own holy book.
Or they secretly acknowledge that their books are filled with errors and contradictions so they have to keep making addendums and creating new definitions and new meanings of the bible according to the fashion of the day.

[جوري]

I often wonder if christians actually have read their own bible.
Either that they have not read it, or they don't really believe in their own holy book.
Or they secretly acknowledge that their books are filled with errors and contradictions so they have to keep making addendums and creating new definitions and new meanings of the bible according to the fashion of the day.

Pride and envy are deadly sins they can't seem to let go of.

2:109 Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed. From selfish envy, after the Truth hath become manifest unto them: but forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplisheth His purpose: for Allah hath power over all things.

:w:

[aadil77]

And do you think the women who blew themselves up today in the Moscow subways, only to defend Islam of course not to actually cause terror, were not ripped open or that they were careful to avoid dashing little ones to pieces?

Pathetic attempt to try and justify it, this is clearly written in your own bible, whereas our Quran has no such verses and explicitly says never to kill non-combatants including women and children.

Can you provide me a verse that says the same in the bible or are you just going to say that you don't follow that particular part of the bible? Theres no way that verse has a meaning out of context.

Seems a bit strange you have to compare the acts of criminals to supposed inspired verses of god in a holy book.

[aadil77]

Again, the fact that evl things are presented in bible does not mean anyhing because they are presented as evil and Bible is the book in which is said he story of salvation from evil.

Whats that supposed to be mean, aren't those 'evil' verses from god?

[Grace Seeker]

I often wonder if christians actually have read their own bible.
Either that they have not read it, or they don't really believe in their own holy book.
Or they secretly acknowledge that their books are filled with errors and contradictions so they have to keep making addendums and creating new definitions and new meanings of the bible according to the fashion of the day.

Not always so secretly. Did I not just state that I think that some of what is expressed in these passages in the reports of the battles of the Jordan and the conquest of Canaan is more the hand of man than the hand of God in the writing?

Pathetic attempt to try and justify it, this is clearly written in your own bible, whereas our Quran has no such verses and explicitly says never to kill non-combatants including women and children.

Are you meaning to state here that you believe as categorically true and never to be abrogated or reinterpreted every single thing that is reported to have been said by Allah in the Qur'an? That there are no discrepencies between Islamic beliefs and practices and the Qur'an itself?

[aadil77]

Are you meaning to state here that you believe as categorically true and never to be abrogated or reinterpreted every single thing that is reported to have been said by Allah in the Qur'an? That there are no discrepencies between Islamic beliefs and practices and the Qur'an itself?

I don't get what you're saying, thats the longest question I've ever read, can cut it down so it makes some sense?

The second part of your question - No there are no discrepencies cause the 'beliefs and practices' come from the Quran, do they not?

And again you've tried to avoid explaining that verse, reading that verse makes me wonder how people can try to ban the Quran as a 'violent book' and not the bible. I can just imagine the US terrorist army has used that verse countless times to go and cause the massacres of muslims innocents they have in iraq and afghanistan.

[Grace Seeker]

Taking your comments in reverse order:

reading that verse makes me wonder how people can try to ban the Quran as a 'violent book' and not the bible. I can just imagine the US terrorist army has used that verse countless times to go and cause the massacres of muslims innocents they have in iraq and afghanistan.

I'm not aware of anyone trying to ban either book. But I suspect that the people who do, read the one they prefer with rose color glasses and the one they don't prefer with a magnifying lens. In other words, it doesn't have anything to do with the content of the books themselves, but the preconceptions of those reading them.

I've also never heard of the US army (which is no more, no less, terroristic than any other army) using any verse from a religious source as their operations manual. And as there is seperation of church and state in the US, and many in the Army have no faith at all, I highly doubt that the US army has turned to that verse or any other verse in the Bible for what they do. Beyond which, the passages speak to the Israelites entering Canaan, not the US army going any place, so even if they read it, it would not apply.

And again you've tried to avoid explaining that verse,

What's to explain? The verse says what it says. I consider the whole idea repugnant and unworthy of God. As I have previously expressed both in this and other threads, I do not consider the Bible to be the dicated word of God, but the product of non-verbal inspiration. As such it is the product of a divine-human synthesis, and anything that includes the human element is going to be imperfect. In cases like this verse, I believe it tends to show the hand of man more than the hand of God in its writing. If you are looking for a defense of the verse, you're going to have to search out someone with a view of the origin of scripture that is more directive than mine is. There are plenty of Christians who would differ from me on this, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

The second part of your question - No there are no discrepencies cause the 'beliefs and practices' come from the Quran, do they not?

Do they?

I know that some things are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all, but rather they come from the Hadith. Other things it seems to me are steeped in tradition and set interpretations of the Qur'an. How does one know that the particular tradition or set interpretation is the right one? The Hadith itself has multiple stories where followers of Islam where trying to enforce their understanding of the Islamic way of life, but had to be corrected by Muhammad (pbuh). If this was true in his time, why should one believe that people no longer do things as their interpretation of what it means to keep Islam that, were he here, the prophet would not still need to correct?

On another thread, I quoted a verse that talks about all those who disobey Allah and his messenger being sent to hell forever, but every Muslim I know believes that though they admit to sins (i.e. disobedience) if one sincerely repents and demonstrates that by living properly thereafter and does the deeds asked by Allah, that Allah who is merciful will except that repentence and those deeds and, though one might have to spend some time being purified in hell that it will not be forever, Allah will still ultimately grant one admission to Janah. Those Muslims who believe thusly (and I'm not saying that they are wrong to believe this), are in fact believing differently than what the Qur'an itself clearly says in the Qur'an (verse 72:23 -- “And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever.”)

I don't get what you're saying, thats the longest question I've ever read, can cut it down so it makes some sense?

You said that my response to the verse from Hosea was an attempt to justify it. It wasn't. I'm not trying to justify or defend that verse in Hosea. Calling it repugnant hardly sounds like an attempt to justify it. But it was an attempt to deflect your outrage over the verse by looking at practices that seem to be condoned similar outrages behaviors as acceptable to be practiced as an expression of Islam. I say this knowing that some Muslims do say that such behavior is not Islamic, yet so enough do so that these behaviors continue unabated and all I see is talk. I don't see anyone actually doing anything to stop it. In the end, complaints to Christians who follow Jesus' reinterpretation of many OT passages -- "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). -- because the OT seems to promote outrageous behavior by Jews 2000-3000 years ago, which Muslims are themselves participating in unadmonished today is the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black.

[aadil77]

Taking your comments in reverse order:

I'm not aware of anyone trying to ban either book. But I suspect that the people who do, read the one they prefer with rose color glasses and the one they don't prefer with a magnifying lens. In other words, it doesn't have anything to do with the content of the books themselves, but the preconceptions of those reading them.

Russians recently after those bombings and Mr Islamophobia - Geert Wilders

What's to explain? The verse says what it says. I consider the whole idea repugnant and unworthy of God. As I have previously expressed both in this and other threads, I do not consider the Bible to be the dicated word of God, but the product of non-verbal inspiration. As such it is the product of a divine-human synthesis, and anything that includes the human element is going to be imperfect. In cases like this verse, I believe it tends to show the hand of man more than the hand of God in its writing. If you are looking for a defense of the verse, you're going to have to search out someone with a view of the origin of scripture that is more directive than mine is. There are plenty of Christians who would differ from me on this, so it shouldn't be hard to find.

Is that verse referring to christians who were commanded to do such things or rather recalling a story where others carried out those acts, who is speaking to who?

I know that some things are not mentioned in the Qur'an at all, but rather they come from the Hadith.

Yes definately, but nothing in the quraan and hadith contradicts

Other things it seems to me are steeped in tradition and set interpretations of the Qur'an. How does one know that the particular tradition or set interpretation is the right one?

There aren't many different interpretations of verses in the quran and if there it will be a minor difference, nothing that will affect fundamentals of our beliefs

The Hadith itself has multiple stories where followers of Islam where trying to enforce their understanding of the Islamic way of life, but had to be corrected by Muhammad (pbuh).

Yes so? That was the prophets purpose to guide people to the right path, you might say well now he isn't here and people still have different interpretations - but that doesn't matter now as they are all minor differences that will not affect someones faith, by the end of the prophets life he had covered everything that needed to be conveyed to let us carry on following islam with correct understanding - he even asks his people if he had done so in his last sermon. We have suffiecient knowledge of islam to practise it properly, minor differences in interpretation are not important.

If this was true in his time, why should one believe that people no longer do things as their interpretation of what it means to keep Islam that, were he here, the prophet would not still need to correct?

Lol I hadn't even read this part but I knew you'd come on to it, see above. Like I said any differences you find now are minor, at the time of the prophet because people were still learning they could have potentially been mislead if they had not been corrected by the prophet, they did not have enough understanding. An example of this is when a group of muslims wanted carry out as many good deeds as possible, they would fast for stupidly long times and just continuely pray and pray, the prophet approached them and told them that this is extremism, by this the prophet stopped this innovation as it wasn't part of his example. Now we have enough knowledge from these instances from his example to follow a correct understanding of islam and this was all by the will of Allah that we were given a good and sufficient enough example by the prophet and message from the Quran so that we can follow islam properly

On another thread, I quoted a verse that talks about all those who disobey Allah and his messenger being sent to hell forever, but every Muslim I know believes that though they admit to sins (i.e. disobedience) if one sincerely repents and demonstrates that by living properly thereafter and does the deeds asked by Allah, that Allah who is merciful will except that repentence and those deeds and, though one might have to spend some time being purified in hell that it will not be forever, Allah will still ultimately grant one admission to Janah. Those Muslims who believe thusly (and I'm not saying that they are wrong to believe this), are in fact believing differently than what the Qur'an itself clearly says in the Qur'an (verse 72:23 -- “And whosoever disobeys God and His Messenger, then surely, for him is the fire of Hell, he shall dwell therein forever.”)

If you read the context of that verse its about disbelief and disbeleivers are sent to hell eternally


You said that my response to the verse from Hosea was an attempt to justify it. It wasn't. I'm not trying to justify or defend that verse in Hosea. Calling it repugnant hardly sounds like an attempt to justify it. But it was an attempt to deflect your outrage over the verse by looking at practices that seem to be condoned similar outrages behaviors as acceptable to be practiced as an expression of Islam. I say this knowing that some Muslims do say that such behavior is not Islamic, yet so enough do so that these behaviors continue unabated and all I see is talk. I don't see anyone actually doing anything to stop it. In the end, complaints to Christians who follow Jesus' reinterpretation of many OT passages -- "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). -- because the OT seems to promote outrageous behavior by Jews 2000-3000 years ago, which Muslims are themselves participating in unadmonished today is the equivalent of the pot calling the kettle black.

That holds no relevance cause nowhere in our Quran scriptures do we have verses promoting such behaviour and knowhere can any verse be found that can even be interpreted to justify such behaviour, so whether or not certain muslims do unislamic things doesn't matter because they are according to islam - unislamic and we have proof for it. You know this yourself bad examples of muslims do not represent islam, but in your case bad examples of christians can represent christianity cause your book gives them an example of commanding murder.

The verses you're quoting now partially contradict with that verse in the OT and that verse can be used for acts of terrorism, doesn't matter whether you think its 'repugnant' its in your holy book and can be freely used for acts of terrorism as it holds no other meaning or context.

This is where christianity fails, you can't even follow the bible fully cause it contradicts itself in many places

[ccc]

i say they are not evil verses.They present the fallen condition of the man, they condemn evil actions, hose are presented not as good actions, they are presented as bad actions.In the old testament is presented the road of humankind to salvation from the sin, but the sin is not valued in any way.When God says he is angry, i do not understand that he s furious and wants heart somebody, those are only human words in which divine realities were expressed.God's angry is only the moment in which god gives us our choice of evil, it is god's love which lets us to choose evil.

[Grace Seeker]

This is where christianity fails, you can't even follow the bible fully cause it contradicts itself in many places

That's sort of the point. Jesus comes and, while not getting rid of the OT in its entirety, does provide a new ethic. The Bible contains all sorts of different types of material: historical narrative, prophetic injunctions, words of wisdom, theological insight, comtemporaneous record of divine utterances, human interpretation of God's intent, revelation of the future events, and more. The material is presented in prose, poetry, parable, metaphor, sometimes as history and sometimes more as legend or heroic tale. In short, one has to be aware that one cannot read all portions of the Bible the same way. Interpreting its meaning in its original context and then applying the text to our modern day lives requires different approaches as one moves from one section of text to another. Because of the multiplicity of authors and the influence of subsequent editors/redactors (especially in the OT) sometimes that is so even within a given story. Sometimes everything is indeed straight forward. But sometimes it isn't. On those occassions it takes a good dealof discernment to know the background of the writing, which is absolutely necessary before drawing any conclusions from it. The passage you referrenced in Deuteronomy is, I believe, one of those that requires some discernment.

You asked above:

Is that verse referring to christians who were commanded to do such things or rather recalling a story where others carried out those acts, who is speaking to who?

Given that the verse you quoted has to do with the Israelits entering into Canaan, a simple basic knowledge of history should have provided that answer that for you. In case you are unaware, the events described in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Dueteronomy took places some 1200 years before the time of Jesus. The verse does not refer to Christians at all. The verse is descriptive of a nation at war. In this case, Israel is the agressor country, fighting to enter a land that they believe God has given to them. But, it is also already occupied, and understandably those people don't want to leave. Conflict is the inevitable result. Israel, believing God has given them this land, moves to take it. My own opinion is that these battle stories are not honest portrayals written contemporaneously, but are written looking back. If they won a battle, they declare it was because the Lord was on their side. If they lost, they declare it was because they had done something to offend God and he was not with them. I also think they project their own human views of how war should be fought on to God. For some, including many Christians, such views with regard to the Bible are to deny its authenticity and integrity completely. I disagree. But if you think so, then so be it. You asked what I thought. And I think that in this part of the story, I see the hand of man in the writing more than I do the hand of God.

Who is speaking to who? The author appears to write as if he understands that God is speaking to the nation of Israel. But, as I said above, I believe that this is really the people of Israel putting words in God's mouth so that they can hear what they want to hear and justify their own actions. That God has a different ethic is seen, I believe, in that Jesus when he comes to earth. Though the ethic of his day claims to be based on the Torah, offers a corective to it. He doesn't eliminate it entirely, but he does call for a more principaled way of living in which it is not just an outward manifestation of holiness accomplished by jumping through certain hoops, while the heart is still unrepentant and unsubmissive. With Jesus there is a call to internalize divine righteousness and to live out of that ethic which first loves God, and then (just as God does) loves others as well.


You suggest that the verse can be used by people to justify terrorism today. Not without doing injustice to the verse. Even if one were to accept that it is actually a divine command for that particular group of people to do what they did, it still applies only to them in that circumstance and no other. To extrapolate from it permission to repeat such things in a different context is not completely an inappropirate use of the text, and (if one is a Christian) specifically contradicted by Christ's more universally applicable teaching on how people are to relate to one another, including one's enemies.

[Zundrah]

Let us look at how Islam and the Bible view women, and see in real Truth how terrible the women's status would be if they were living under a true Christian state that follows the Bible 100%.



1- In the Bible:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim): Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

Some Christians claim that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women.

The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men.

Continuing with the article...

Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they're also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days.

So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

I think it's safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses.

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.





2- In Islam:

So how does Islam view women then? Is it any better than the Bible? You bet it is! Let us look at what Allah Almighty said about women in the Noble Quran:

There is a great deal of good in some women: "O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may take away part of the dower [money given by the husband to the wife for the marriage contract] ye have given them, except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good. (The Noble Quran, 4:19)"

Men and women were created for each others, in order to live in peace, harmony and love with each others as husbands and wives: "And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"

Men can not harm their wives: "...Do not retain them (i.e., your wives) to harm them...(The Noble Quran, 2:231)"

"If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband's part, there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement between themselves; and such settlement is best; even though men's souls are swayed by greed. But if ye do good and practise self-restraint, God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:128)"



Prophet Muhammad Commanded Mercy and Kindness to the Wives:

There are literally 10s of Sayings of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, where he is documented to have said:


Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: "I went to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and asked him: What do you say (command) about our wives? He replied: Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2139)"

Righteous women are those who are loyal and obedient to their husbands: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all). (The Noble Quran, 4:34)"

Men can't have sex with their women during Menses, but they can sleep with them and touch them: "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an Adha (a harmful thing for a husband to have a sexual intercourse with his wife while she is having her menses), therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified (from menses and have taken a bath). And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah has ordained for you (go in unto them in any manner as long as it is in their vagina). Truly, Allah loves those who turn unto Him in repentance and loves those who purify themselves (by taking a bath and cleaning and washing thoroughly their private parts, bodies, for their prayers, etc.). (The Noble Quran, 2:222)"

Maimuna (the wife of the Holy Prophet) reported: "The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) contacted and embraced his wives over the waist-wrapper when they were menstruating. (Translation of Sahih Muslim, The Book of Menstruation (Kitab Al-Haid), Book 003, Number 0579)"

Women have equal rights for them and against them: "..and for women are rights equal to the rights against them but men have a degree over them (in the context of divorce) in what is just. (The Noble Quran, 2:228)"

The birth of a female is not a biggest tragedy and the end of the world as it is in the Bible: "When news is brought to one of them, of (the birth of) a female (child), his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief! With shame does he hide himself from his people, Because of the bad news He has had! Shall he retain it On (sufferance and) contempt, Or bury it in the dust? Ah! what an evil (choice) They decide on? (The Noble Quran, 16:58-59)" So considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran.

Also, the Prophet peace be upon him said: Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri: "The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise. (Translation of Sunan abu Dawud, Book 41, General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab), Number 5128)"

Women have the right for the highest education, unlike what some Muslim fanatics claim: Narrated Abu Musa Al-Ashari: "The Prophet said, 'He who has a slave-girl and teaches her good manners and improves her education and then manumits and marries her, will get a double reward; and any slave who observes Allah's right and his master's right will get a double reward.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Manumission of Slaves, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 723)"

"....Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. (The Noble Quran, 39:9)"

"...Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. (The Noble Quran, 35:28)"

"And among God's signs is this: He created for you mates from amongst yourselves (males as mates for females and vice versa) that you might find tranquillity and peace in them. And he has put love and kindness among you. Herein surely are signs for those who reflect. (The Noble Quran, 30:21)"


3- Conclusion:

As we clearly saw in the Bible, women are considered worthless and defiling to men. Females' birth is even considered a loss and causes double the pollution and dirt in the Bible. The mother becomes double unclean when she gives birth to a female than to a male. How much more humiliation of women do we need to see in the Bible?

And as we clearly saw in Islam, women are considered good. Allah Almighty created both men and women to live together as husbands and wives in peace, love and harmony. Also, considering the birth of females as a bad thing is evil by itself in the Noble Quran. So unlike the Bible, it is not the end of the world when females are born!

In the Catholic church we do not ordain women.

Does Islam allow women to be ordained to work in a Mosque as a teacher?

[Zundrah]

This is where christianity fails, you can't even follow the bible fully cause it contradicts itself in many places

The bible never contradicts itself. It fulfills itself.

[جوري]

In the Catholic church we do not ordain women.

Does Islam allow women to be ordained to work in a Mosque as a teacher?

you can work as a teacher in a mosque yes..my niece attends religion classes at a local mosque taught by two female scholars!

all the best

[Zundrah]

you can work as a teacher in a mosque yes..my niece attends religion classes at a local mosque taught by two female scholars!

all the best

So, like the Pope or a bishop or priest, what is the highest place to be ordained in Islam?

[جوري]

So, like the Pope or a bishop or priest, what is the highest place to be ordained in Islam?

we have scholars in Islam that is the highest level you can get religiously.. you can be a male or female scholar..

all the best..

[Predator]

In the Catholic church we do not ordain women.

Paul makes it clear that women are not allowed to
teach men, and it is the man who is to do the instructing:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded
to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach [didaskein], nor to usurp
authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived,
but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

In other words, Paul behaves like a typical male chauvinist pig and is basically saying , "I'd never let a woman teach man; don't forget it was a woman who was so foolish
that a garden snake was able to trick her." Paul emphasizes in his Corinthians letter that women are not allowed
to teach men--or to have any kind of authority of men, and states in his Timothy letter that the reason for this is
that Adam was first, and since he was not deceived, he is the one who should have authority. Clearly, Paul didn't
want women to teach men anywhere, any time; that's just as perfectly plain as any Christian doctrine can be, but
the plain truth is hard to for some people to see--especially those who embrace evangelical feminism, pretend not
to see what's there for all to see, and deliberately engage in false teaching to promote their own social agenda.

Does Islam allow women to be ordained to work in a Mosque as a teacher?

Islam allows women to be a mufti and teach men ! Read and compare this gift given to
women in islam with the curse given to them (to be in silence and forbidden to teach men) by paul in
christianity. Women in islam were scholars and teached men, see:

http://www.islamfortoday.com/womenscholars.htm
http://www.answering-christianity.co..._education.htm

Women as Mufti and Qadhi
Interpretation of revelation was free of gender restrictions. A woman’s legal opinion (fatwa) was just as valid
and morally binding as the legal opinion of a man. Thus a woman could legitimately be a mufti, a legal expert
whose task it was to communicate legal rules to non-specialists including, at times, judges and other holders of
political power. There was complete agreement among Sunni jurists that women could be mufti. It was as a
result of the law’s acceptance of women as mufti, that a woman could
be a judge in all areas of the law.

[Supreme]

The difference between Christianity and Islam being, of course, that Christianity has outgrown most of its historical baggage. (Discounting the lunatic fringe, of course.)
Read within the historical context, Jesus was outrageously egalitarian (and not only with regards to gender, either): he freely conversed with women in public places (such as the Samaritan woman at the well), had female followers (who, admittedly, are somewhat neglected by the gospels, but then again, the authors were probably not quite as enlightened as their venerated messiah), objected to the divorce practices of the day (which were outrageous insofar as they allowed men - and ONLY men - to cast out their wives at a whim, like you might discard an old car), and so on and so forth.

Heck, even St. Paul probably wasn't as much of a misogynist as tradition would have it: the genuine epistles not only condemn the practice of treating women as second-class citizens, but also reference female congregation members who are greeted by name (something that, in the context of the times, was outrageously unconventional).

Of course, Christianity lapsed back into the patriarchal zeitgeist within less than a dozen generations, and the middle ages were rife with misogyny. But that cannot detract from the fact that Christianity is considerably more egalitarian than Islam could ever hope to be.

[جوري]

Of course, Christianity lapsed back into the patriarchal zeitgeist within less than a dozen generations, and the middle ages were rife with misogyny. But that cannot detract from the fact that Christianity is considerably more egalitarian than Islam could ever hope to be.

Islam has no use for your definition of what 'egalitarian' is and certainly has no hopes to denigrate itself either to denying its edicts for secular proclamation under the guise of 'social equality' when in fact it is anything but, and well, we all collectively know what the scriptures if strictly followed as per your churches and founding fathers of soulless animals women would be akin to being!
I am reluctant to accept anything you attribute to Jesus as having been done by him given the lack of textual integrity amongst other reasons of your remaining texts!

all the best

[جوري]

:sl:
anyone who speaks Arabic will truly appreciate this clip on secularism vs. Islamic jurisprudence and the employment of scientific method early on with cited historical incidents from history..

http://videohat.masrawy.com/view_vid...ype=&category=

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

Paul makes it clear that women are not allowed to
teach men, and it is the man who is to do the instructing:

I've posted in detail in other places explaining how I believe this to be a misreading of Paul. You either missed it, or don't care to learn, not sure which. But what you assert is not what Paul actually set forth as a general rule to be applied in all circumstances, for he himself praises the work and ministry of women in other places, including a woman who served as a deaconness (i.e. a female deacon, which would have been an ordained position). Therefore, I think that it is better to understand these verses to be applied to a particular time and place and not instructive to the church or Christianity as a whole.

[جوري]

did Jesus ordain 'deacons' much less of the female variety?

[Grace Seeker]

did Jesus ordain 'deacons' much less of the female variety?

No. Jesus did not ordain anyone. That was something that the church would initiate later under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Now, that is my protestant view. Our Catholic (and probably Orthodox) friends would disagree with me, and say that he ordained Peter and all of the apostles. We have a difference of opinion within the Christian community on the nature of ordination. Both groups make reasoned arguments, but come out in different places because we begin with some different assumptions.

[جوري]

No. Jesus did not ordain anyone. That was something that the church would initiate later under the direction of the Holy Spirit.

Now, that is my protestant view. Our Catholic (and probably Orthodox) friends would disagree with me, and say that he ordained Peter and all of the apostles. We have a difference of opinion within the Christian community on the nature of ordination. Both groups make reasoned arguments, but come out in different places because we begin with some different assumptions.

so why if the alleged god was in their midst in a physical palpable form to ask all kinds of questions of would a church of any variety instate something such as this under some obscure guidance? How did the 'holy spirit' direct something such as this?

[Supreme]

I am reluctant to accept anything you attribute to Jesus as having been done by him given the lack of textual integrity amongst other reasons of your remaining texts!

all the best

Ah, but that is not the issue at hand. You see, even if Jesus did not engage in the aforementioned egalitarian activities, they still exist in the Gospel accounts, and these accounts are still believed to be true by Christians. The true issue should be whether or not the Christians of this modern age are equally as revolutionary in terms of egilatarianism as Jesus was, or at least was according to the Gospels, and I am satisfied that, in general, they are.

[جوري]

Ah, but that is not the issue at hand. You see, even if Jesus did not engage in the aforementioned egalitarian activities, they still exist in the Gospel accounts, and these accounts are still believed to be true by Christians. The true issue should be whether or not the Christians of this modern age are equally as revolutionary in terms of egilatarianism as Jesus was, or at least was according to the Gospels, and I am satisfied that, in general, they are.

wouldn't it make most sense that if god wanted to leave the universe behind to show up in a small town as a suckling child with an eventual short lifespan that he'd properly guide his worshipers and clear all matters whilst in their midst, and make sure that such matters are clear for all people in all centuries as such we wouldn't have had the hilarity and vulgarity of the dark ages or what followed or preceded?
also why would this god give such a long life to other messengers and cut his messenger life so short as to have to remedy all those ills subsequent to his death and through a man he never appointed as an apostle?

all the best

[Supreme]

wouldn't it make most sense that if god wanted to leave the universe behind to show up in a small town as a suckling child with an eventual short lifespan that he'd properly guide his worshipers and clear all matters whilst in their midst, and make sure that such matters are clear for all people in all centuries as such we wouldn't have had the hilarity and vulgarity of the dark ages or what followed or preceded?
also why would this god give such a long life to other messengers and cut his messenger life so short as to have to remedy all those ills subsequent to his death and through a man he never appointed as an apostle?

all the best

I'm stuggling to understand what, if any, relevance the above pile has to this thread.

[جوري]

I'm stuggling to understand what, if any, relevance the above pile has to this thread.

It digs a little deeper into what your god wants especially as relates to women which from a logical perspective he should have covered while a human on this earth no?

[Supreme]

27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

(Matthew 5:27-30)

1Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3"What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."

This deals with divorce of women and lust of women. I think He did very much address the treatment of women whilst on Earth.

[جوري]

(Matthew 5:27-30)



This deals with divorce of women and lust of women. I think He did very much address the treatment of women whilst on Earth.

want to talk about irrelevance?... in fact you should go back and address the Q's I directly asked of Gene if you were here to interject to save him you seem to have tightened the noose around both your necks and as usual deflected from the point entirely!

and isn't it kind of sad not to be able to get a divorce when stuck in a bad marriage, worst yet an abusive one!

all the best

[Supreme]

want to talk about irrelevance?... in fact you should go back and address the Q's I directly asked of Gene if you were here to interject to save him you seem to have tightened the noose around both your necks and as usual deflected from the point entirely!



all the best

Yes, I wouldn't mind talking about relevance. Every single one of my posts has been relevant to the topic at hand. If by relevance you mean 'answered your questions', then no. I am under no obligation to answer your questions. I am under obligation to discuss the thread topic, and that I am doing.

With regard to your last point, many Christians would interprete divorce as a last option. But at any rate, Jesus did away with the (still practised) Jewish custom of men being able to dispose of wives as one throws out trash.

[Grace Seeker]

so why if the alleged god was in their midst in a physical palpable form to ask all kinds of questions of would a church of any variety instate something such as this under some obscure guidance? How did the 'holy spirit' direct something such as this?

God was not in their midst in a physical palpable state by this time. Jesus had already ascended when the church began to ordain people.

Why did they? Because they saw a need to bring order -- the ordained are those set aside by the church to bring about order through the carrying out of certain set forms of ministries that are recognized by the church.

How did the Holy Spirit direct them? I don't know how they concluded that they were receiving direction from the Holy Spirit, I only know that they testify that they did. Today, when I am similarly similarly asked to recognize or confirm that God has called certain individuals to ordained ministry, I pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance and look to see whether or not they exhibit being equipped with the gifts and graces for the work of ministry. Though I sometimes make mistakes, I have learned that the presence of these gifts and graces is a good confirming sign that the Holy Spirit (who would have been the one who equipped them with these gifts and graces) has also called them into the service for which they have been equipped.

[جوري]

Yes, I wouldn't mind talking about relevance. Every single one of my posts has been relevant to the topic at hand. If by relevance you mean 'answered your questions', then no. I am under no obligation to answer your questions. I am under obligation to discuss the thread topic, and that I am doing.

ROFL, why partake in a topic if you have no desire to answer the posed questions.. surely soliloquies and one sided banter is meant for personal blogs!

With regard to your last point, many Christians would interprete divorce as a last option. But at any rate, Jesus did away with the (still practised) Jewish custom of men being able to dispose of wives as one throws out trash.

Divorce is usually a last option, however we understood from your direct quote that it denotes adultery and committal of sin!

God was not in their midst in a physical palpable state by this time. Jesus had already ascended when the church began to ordain people.

I am talking of the portion when your god was in their midst not after, I think that would be abundantly clear from the direct query!

Why did they? Because they saw a need to bring order -- the ordained are those set aside by the church to bring about order through the carrying out of certain set forms of ministries that are recognized by the church.

I don't care for why they did and why they didn't, I am talking about the things that your god should have directly ordained so folks aren't left after is death in confusion, making women soulless one day and 'deacons' the next!

How did the Holy Spirit direct them? I don't know how they concluded that they were receiving direction from the Holy Spirit, I only know that they testify that they did. Today, when I am similarly similarly asked to recognize or confirm that God has called certain individuals to ordained ministry, I pray for the Holy Spirit's guidance and look to see whether or not they exhibit being equipped with the gifts and graces for the work of ministry. Though I sometimes make mistakes, I have learned that the presence of these gifts and graces is a good confirming sign that the Holy Spirit (who would have been the one who equipped them with these gifts and graces) has also called them into the service for which they have been equipped

I am glad for the honesty of your statement, you don't know and it is in fact that your forefathers and church founders followed their whims about everything from the divinity of a man to pig eating!

thank you and all the best

[Grace Seeker]

It digs a little deeper into what your god wants especially as relates to women which from a logical perspective he should have covered while a human on this earth no?

Skye, I can see why one might look for detailed provisions and answers to a whole host of questions. From our perspective today, it would be nice to have a book with everything we are to do (or not do), say (or not say), believe, think, organize, administer, advocate, or ___(insert verb of your choice)____ spelled out. There are plenty of people who read the Bible looking for just such lists. And, if my time on LI is indicative, the same is true of Islam. But, whether it has to do with how one relates to women or any other aspect of life, I don't believe that such a decision would have been as wise as the choice that God appears to have adopted or providing us with principals, from which we are to draw the particulars of our actions.

Now, I admit that sometimes we have drawn some mighty strange conclusions about God's will as a result. Sometimes those beliefs and the resulting decisions and actions taken have been (IMHO) dead wrong. And sometimes I have been the one who made the wrong decisions. Still, the other alternative would have been for God to use his foreknowledge of the world to come and spell out directions: drive on the right in the USA and on the left in England; it's OK to buy Toyotas from the Japanese in the 1960s and 70s, but be careful in the 2000s; and whether its Duke or Butler he doesn't actually care, God is after all a World Cup fan. Obviously you don't really mean to imply that God should give such specific statements. Not only would they be totally misunderstood in the day in which they were received, but it would produce an unmanagable tome in which we would need guidance to find guidance. So, you also expect not a text of detailed revelations, but principles from which we then use the gifts of logic and the guidance that God continues to give us in order to arrive at what it is that God would will for us at any given time in an every changing world. In the end you're really just arguing for a little more spelling out of those principles.

And that is when we have to recognize that God does indeed know best. He gives us the information he believes we need, and then calls on us to put into practice faith and trust in him in carrying out his will as best we understand it. The process is the same whether one is Christian, Muslim, or the member of any revelatory religion. We may not always know why God has made the choices to reveal what he has or has not revealed. But we trust him. We trust that he has given us enough information to know what his will is and to make the right decisions accordingly. As regards the treatment of women in the life of the Church, I think that God's word actually spells out quite a bit more freedom for women than many care to see. And I believe that the reason they don't (or speaking historically, didn't) see it, is because of sin that distorted their understanding of God's will and thus caused them to seek and practice something different than what God would have had. But, even then, I suspect that they were trying to do the right thing and serve God, however, like the rest of us, were able to do so only imperfectly.

[جوري]

Skye, I can see why one might look for detailed provisions and answers to a whole host of questions. From our perspective today, it would be nice to have a book with everything we are to do (or not do), say (or not say), believe, think, organize, administer, advocate, or ___(insert verb of your choice)____ spelled out. .

al7mdlillah Islam the complete and true religion of Allah swt answers all our questions in a straight and concise fashion!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

I am talking of the portion when your god was in their midst not after, I think that would be abundantly clear from the direct query!

But there was no need for ordination of anyone while Jesus was here. So, the issue did not come up during his time on earth. Additionally, he did leave apostles in charge, and it was their determination that the setting aside of people to particular orders of ministry needed to occur. They had that authority, because he had given it to them.

I don't care for why they did and why they didn't, I am talking about the things that your god should have directly ordained so folks aren't left after is death in confusion, making women soulless one day and 'deacons' the next!

I believe I addressed this above.

First, I don't think that there was any intial confusion.
Second, the chronological order was that women were 'deacons' one day and souless the next. And the reason for the change I believe was that sin was at work in the lives of some of the church's leadership.
Third, there was sufficient guidance available that they should not have made such statements, and that eventually this error was corrected.
Fourth, that it took so long to correct this wrong is something that the Church still needs confess and repent of.

[جوري]

But there was no need for ordination of anyone while Jesus was here. So, the issue did not come up during his time on earth. Additionally, he did leave apostles in charge, and it was their determination that the setting aside of people to particular orders of ministry needed to occur. They had that authority, because he had given it to them.

why didn't Jesus know that he was going to self-immolate and that folks would be in a tizzy after his death?

I believe I addressed this above.

As usual you didn't you completely deflected with a large sermon that had nothing to do with what I directly queried!

First, I don't think that there was any intial confusion.
Second, the chronological order was that women were 'deacons' one day and souless the next. And the reason for the change I believe was that sin was at work in the lives of some of the church's leadership.
Third, there was sufficient guidance available that they should not have made such statements, and that eventually this error was corrected.
Fourth, that it took so long to correct this wrong is something that the Church still needs confess and repent of.

The initial order should have been initiated by 'god' himself since he took the time to show up in Nazareth and all, there is no point in showing up and doing a lesser job than your appointed non godly messengers who preceded you. further I don't think anything was corrected merely an implementation of a separation between church and state gives that illusion of 'correction'!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

al7mdlillah Islam the complete and true religion of Allah swt answers all our questions in a straight and concise fashion!

all the best

Does it answer which school of Islamic jurisprudence is right? Does it answer who was to be the successor of Muhammad (pbuh)? Does it answer whether a citizen of a predominately Muslim country should vote for a democratically elected slate of candidates or follow only the leadership of some other sort of authority? The conversations that I witness among Muslims here, tells me that not everything is cut and dried in Islam. There are different views as to what Allah expects and asks of those who submit to him. All seek to submit to him, but how to do so is not universally agreed upon.

[Grace Seeker]

why didn't Jesus know that he was going to self-immolate and that folks would be in a tizzy after his death?

As usual you didn't you completely deflected with a large sermon that had nothing to do with what I directly queried!

I understood your query to be about why God didn't give better instructions with how women were to be treated. That would imply the giving of detailed instructions about everything. From that flowed the "sermon" as to why I don't think that such a choice would have been the wiser choice and how it was that I believed he left enough guidance as it was. But we aren't told the reason. We, just as you believe, have to accept that God knows best. And we may never know why he made all the specific choices that he did.

[Pygoscelis]

Ah, but that is not the issue at hand. You see, even if Jesus did not engage in the aforementioned egalitarian activities, they still exist in the Gospel accounts, and these accounts are still believed to be true by Christians. The true issue should be whether or not the Christians of this modern age are equally as revolutionary in terms of egilatarianism as Jesus was, or at least was according to the Gospels, and I am satisfied that, in general, they are.

They can only go so far, so long as the dogma of the church holds them back. The holy texts cannonize the view of old and will be there to hold back future generations. Dogma such as "Women are to obey men as men obey the Lord" and "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord" , etc hold back progress to egalitarian society. Other verses such as those teaching you how to treat your slaves, or kill witches kept back earlier progress. Maybe we can at last dump the old testament so ideas such as stoning one's neighbour don't return to the mainstream?

[Justufy]

here is a couple of extracts.
Here are some machismo sayings from the Koran :

iv..34 Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, & because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them & banish them to beds apart; and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.

v.6... And if ye are sick on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have contact with women & ye find not water, then go to clean high ground & rub your faces & your hands with some of it...

xxxiii. 32-33 O ye wives of the Prophet! Ye are not like any other women. If ye keep your duty (to Allah), then be not soft of speech lest he in whose heart is a disease aspire to you, but utter customary speech And stay in your houses. Bedizen not yourselves with the bedizenment of the time of ignorance. Be regular in prayer, & pay the poor due, & obey Allah & His Messenger...

Equally, in numerous Hadiths on which are based the Islamic laws we learn of the woman' s role - to stay at home, to be at the beck & call of man, to obey him (which is a religious duty,) to assure man a tranquil existence. Here are some examples:

_____ If it had been given me to order someone to prostrate themselves in front of someone other than God, I would surely have ordered women to prostrate themselves in front of their husbands... A woman cannot fulfill her duties towards God without first having accomplished those that she owes her husband.

_____ The woman who dies & with whom the husband is satisfied will go to paradise.

_____ A wife should never refuse herself to her husband even if it is on the saddle of a camel.

_____ Hellfire appeared to me in a dream & I noticed that it was above all peopled with women who had been ungrateful. "Was it towards God that they were ungrateful?" They had not shown any gratitude towards their husbands for all they had received from them... Even when all your life you have showered a woman with your largesse she will still find something petty to reproach you with one day, saying, "You have never done anything for me."

_____ If anything presages a bad omen it is: a house, a woman, a horse.

_____ Never will a people know success if they confide their affairs to a woman.Al -Ghazali (1058 - 1111), whom Professor Montgomery Watt describes as the greatest Muslim after Muhammad, in his " The Revival Of The Religious Sciences," defines the woman' s role:

"She should stay at home & get on with her spinning, she should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbours & only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband & respect him in his presence & his absence & seek to satisfy him in everything; she must not cheat on him nor extort money from him; she must not leave her house without his permission & if gives his permission she must leave surreptitiously. She should put old on clothes & take deserted streets & alleys, avoid markets, & make sure that a stranger does not hear her voice or recognise her; she must not speak to a friend of her husband even in need... Her sole worry should be her virtue, her home as well as her prayers & her fast. If a friend of her husband calls when the latter is absent she must not open the door nor reply to him in order to safeguard her & her husband's honour. She should accept what her husband gives her as sufficient sexual needs at any moment "...She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband's sexual needs at any moment." The great theologian then warns all men to be careful of women for their, "guile is immense & their mischief is noxious; they are immoral & mean spirited." "It is a fact that all the trials, misfortunes & woes which befall men come from women," moaned Al Ghazali.

[Grace Seeker]

They can only go so far, so long as the dogma of the church holds them back. The holy texts cannonize the view of old and will be there to hold back future generations. Dogma such as "Women are to obey men as men obey the Lord" and "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord" , etc hold back progress to egalitarian society. Other verses such as those teaching you how to treat your slaves, or kill witches kept back earlier progress. Maybe we can at last dump the old testament so ideas such as stoning one's neighbour don't return to the mainstream?

I don't think the problem is so much with the existence of the OT, but with the lack of the abiltiy of some to discern that the ethic of the OT has been superceded by Jesus' reinterpretation of what it means to keep Torah and the giving of his own new commandment on top of the old.

In other places, the problem has to do with the way people have misstated what is actually taught, and (probably without realizing it) have thereby changed its meaning. For instance, you yourself did such a thing in writing:

Dogma such as "Women are to obey men as men obey the Lord"

If you were attempting to provide a quote from scripture, you missed the mark. It appears to be an amalagmation of several verses from Ephesians 5. But, if read in context, they actually don't subject women any more than it does men, for the whole section in which it is contained begins with this overarching principle that is to guide all of the relationships that are discussed: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Ephesians 5:21).

[freethinking]

They can only go so far, so long as the dogma of the church holds them back. The holy texts cannonize the view of old and will be there to hold back future generations. Dogma such as "Women are to obey men as men obey the Lord" and "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord" , etc hold back progress to egalitarian society. Other verses such as those teaching you how to treat your slaves, or kill witches kept back earlier progress. Maybe we can at last dump the old testament so ideas such as stoning one's neighbour don't return to the mainstream?

when you state the Dogma of the Church holds them back, which Church are you referring to? Jesus siad two or three people gathered together in my name is a church and there are millions of churches around the world, I presume you atre talking about the catholic or orthodox church only, whreas an increasing number of Christians are real christians having a personal relatrionship with God
Bo5th male and female and we have female and male preachers and worship leaders.
God bless you to know God

[Pygoscelis]

when you state the Dogma of the Church holds them back, which Church are you referring to?

Any church who established a holy book (or other dogma), cannonizing within it the moral views of their age, and then continue to adhere to its dictates today.

[freethinking]

Any church who established a holy book (or other dogma), cannonizing within it the moral views of their age, and then continue to adhere to its dictates today.

ok So you are not referring to modern Charismatic Churches Good

Bless you

[Grace Seeker]

ok So you are not referring to modern Charismatic Churches Good

Bless you

Yeah, I think he is. Don't they in effect also rely on the work of those who have gone before them in determining, and then accepting as established the particular holy book which they use? If they didn't, then each charismatic church would feel free to create their own set of scriptures just as Skye alleges Christians do anyway.
(And, sadly, I know of a few charismatic groups, I won't call them churches, who have done so. But that's another issue altogether.)

[Pygoscelis]

If the followers of it get their moral values from the Bible or some other book (such as the mormons with the book of mormon, etc) rather than from internal reflection, empathy, etc, then yes I do mean them. Cannonizing the moral view of yesterday impedes progress towards the moral view of today. If your moral values come from a bunch of bronze age sheep herders, you are not going to be equipped for the ethical landscape of the modern world.

[freethinking]

Yeah, I think he is. Don't they in effect also rely on the work of those who have gone before them in determining, and then accepting as established the particular holy book which they use? If they didn't, then each charismatic church would feel free to create their own set of scriptures just as Skye alleges Christians do anyway.
(And, sadly, I know of a few charismatic groups, I won't call them churches, who have done so. But that's another issue altogether.)

I believe that Charismatic Churches have deepper understanding of scripirure and throw off the " religious rituals of the earler dominat Church which retins these practises, for example, where in the Bible does it tell us to pray to Mary or the saints? Jusus himself never even called her mother, rather " woman". Where does the Hail mary prayer come from?
I accewpt that not all XCharismatic Churches are free from ritualism particular largr ones which is why I believe that small Churches are more dynamic and in Tune with God's Holy Spirit.
Bless you

[Supreme]

Define 'Charismatic Church'. Is it an organization, like the Catholic or Anglican churches, or is it just a group of churches who loosely are referred to as charismatic?

[Woodrow]

Define 'Charismatic Church'. Is it an organization, like the Catholic or Anglican churches, or is it just a group of churches who loosely are referred to as charismatic?

The Charismatic Movement became very popular in the 1950s- 1960s or so. It was/is a movement or method of worship and not limited to any denomination. Even the Catholics had/have some churches considered Charismatic.

Charismatic Movement
Advanced Information

The Charismatic Movement is an expression used to refer to a movement within historic churches that began in the 1950s. In the earlier stages the movement was often termed "neo Pentecostal"; in more recent years it has frequently been referred to as the "charismatic renewal" or the "charismatic renewal movement." Therefore, participants are usually described as "charismatics."

On the American scene it is possible to date significant charismatic beginnings to the year 1960 with the national publicity given to certain events connected with the ministry of Dennis Bennett, at that time Episcopal rector in Van Nuys, California. Since then there has been a continuing growth of the movement within many of the mainline churches: first, such Protestant churches as Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian (early 1960s); second, the Roman Catholic (beginning in 1967); and third, the Greek Orthodox (about 1971). The charismatic movement has affected almost every historic church and has spread to many churches and countries beyond the United States. This continuing growth has resulted in a multiplicity of national, regional, and local conferences, the production of a wide range of literature, and increasing attention to doctrinal and theological questions both within and outside the movement. The challenge to the churches may be seen in the fact that since 1960 well over one hundred official denominational documents, regional, national, continental, and international, on the charismatic movement have been produced.

The immediate background of the charismatic movement is "classical Pentecostalism" dating from the early twentieth century, with its emphasis on baptism with (or in) the Holy Spirit as an endowment of power subsequent to conversion, speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of this baptism, and the continuing validity of the spiritual gifts (charismata) of 1 Cor. 12:8 - 10. Because of such distinctive emphases these early "Pentecostals", as they came to be called, found no place in the mainline churches (they either freely left or were forced out) and thus founded their own. As a result there gradually came into being such "classical" Pentecostal denominations as the Assemblies of God, the Pentecostal Holiness Church, the Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), the Church of God in Christ, and the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

The charismatic movement, while related historically and doctrinally to classical Pentecostalism, has largely stayed within the historic church bodies or has spilled over into interdenominational church fellowships. In neither case has there been any significant movement toward the classical Pentecostal churches. Hence today the charismatic movement, despite its "classical" parentage, exists almost totally outside official Pentecostal denominations.

Special Emphases.
Particular emphases are reflected variously in the charismatic movement.

Baptism with the Holy Spirit
There is common recognition of baptism with the Holy Spirit as a distinctive Christian experience. It is viewed as an event wherein the believer is "filled with" the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. Baptism with the Holy Spirit is understood to result from "the gift of the Holy Spirit," wherein the Spirit is freely "poured out," "falls upon," "comes on," "anoints," "endues" the believer with "power from on high." This event / experience is the moment of initiation into the Spirit - filled life. Spirit baptism is said to occur either at the time of conversion (through repentance and forgiveness) or subsequent thereto. Baptism with the Holy Spirit, accordingly, is not identified with conversion. It is viewed as a being filled with the Holy Spirit that brings about powerful witness to Jesus Christ. Through this Spirit baptism the exalted Christ carries forward his ministry in the church and world.

The gift of the Holy Spirit wherein Spirit baptism occurs is understood as an act of God's sovereign grace. Accordingly, the gift may be received only through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of the gift and the baptism. Participants in the charismatic movement emphasize the centrality of Christ (not the Holy Spirit) and the unique instrumentality of faith in him. It is the same Christ who through his life, death, and resurrection saves and forgives the lost who also through his exaltation to "the right hand of the Father" sends forth the Holy Spirit upon the redeemed. So it is by the same faith that both turning from sin and empowering for ministry are to be received from him. Charismatics generally hold that conversion and the gift of the Spirit, though both received by faith, may or may not happen at the same time.

The book of Acts is viewed as exhibiting two patterns: a separation (however brief or long) between conversion and the gift of the Holy Spirit (the original 120, the Samaritans, Saul of Tarsus, and the Ephesian twelve), and a simultaneous reception of both (the centurion household in Caesarea). Hence, it is by way of faith, not necessarily at the initial moment, that the gift of the Spirit is received.

Participants in the charismatic movement also frequently point to the pattern of Jesus' own life, which includes both his conception by the Holy Spirit and the later descent of the Holy Spirit upon him. Jesus was therefore both born of the Spirit as Savior and anointed with the Spirit as he began his ministry. So it is said that correspondingly there is needed both a birth of the Spirit for salvation and an anointing of the Spirit for ministry in his name.

This leads to the emphasis of charismatics on such matters as prayer, commitment, and expectancy as the context for the gift of the Holy Spirit. So it was with Jesus' life leading up to the descent of the Spirit; also with the 120 disciples who waited in the upper room prior to Pentecost; likewise a number of others according to several additional accounts in the book of Acts. Prayer preceding the reception of the Holy Spirit particularly stands out in the accounts of the Samaritans, Saul of Tarsus, and the centurion household in Caesarea. Seeing a similar pattern in the life of Jesus, the original disciples, and the early church, many charismatics affirm that in a spirit of prayer, commitment, and expectancy they were visited by the Holy Spirit. Such an event, it is claimed, did not occur by dint of human effort, not through some work beyond faith; rather it happened to those who in faith were open to receive what God had promised to give.

Whereas the basic purpose of Spirit baptism is power for ministry and service, charismatics speak of a number of effects. Since it is the Holy Spirit who is given (not something he gives), many speak primarily of a strong sense of the reality of God, the Holy Spirit dynamically present, bearing witness to Jesus Christ and glorifying the Father. There is testimony to an enhanced sense of the Scriptures as the written Word of God, since the same Holy Spirit who inspired them fully is now said to be moving freely in the lives of the believers. Many charismatics also testify to an abounding joy, a deeper assurance of salvation, a new boldness for witness to Jesus Christ, and an enriched fellowship with other Christians. On this last point, one of the most noticeable features of the charismatic movement is the sense of koinonia that binds them together not only in a local fellowship but also across ancient denominational barriers. Accordingly, many claim that the charismatic movement is the true fulfillment of the Lord's prayer to the Father "that they may all be one" (John 17:21).

.
Speaking in Tongues
In the charismatic movement speaking in tongues, glossolalia, occupies a significant place. Speaking in tongues is generally understood to be communication with God in language that is other than one known to the speaker. A person does the speaking, that is, he freely uses his vocal apparatus, but it is claimed that the Holy Spirit gives the utterance. It is viewed as transcendent speech by the enabling of the Holy Spirit.

Speaking in tongues is considered by some charismatics to be the miraculous utterance of an unlearned foreign language (so in classical Pentecostalism). This is claimed, first, on the basis of the narrative in Acts 1, that since the Scripture says that the disciples "began to speak in other tongues" and "each one heard them speaking in his own language," the disciples must have been speaking the languages or tongues of the listeners. Second, there is the frequently given testimony that on many occasions people have heard their own language spoken by someone who was totally ignorant of what he was saying. However, many charismatics hold that the otherness of tongues is qualitative rather than quantitative, that "other tongues" are not natural (i.e., human languages) but spiritual. Accordingly, if someone says that he heard a person speaking in his own language, this is viewed as occurring because the Holy Spirit immediately interpreted what was said (hence it was not a hearing of but a hearing in one's own language).

From this perspective there is no difference between the tongues referred to in Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 12 - 14. The former were not foreign languages and the latter ecstatic speech; both are utterances of the Holy Spirit that can be understood only when interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Charismatics who have embraced this understanding of "other tongues" believe that it best harmonizes the biblical witness, that it retains the spirituality of tongues, and that it accords with the empirical fact that there are no concrete data (for example, from the study of recordings of tongues) of an unknown language being spoken.

The essential charismatic claim about glossolalia is that this is the vehicle of communication par excellence between man and God. It is the language of transcendent prayer and praise. In tongues there is speech to God which goes beyond the mental into the spiritual. Charismatics frequently state that in tongues there is a fulfillment of the intense desire to offer total praise to God not only with the mind but also with the heart and spirit. Therein one goes beyond the most elevated of earthly expressions, even "hosannas" and "hallelujahs", into spiritual utterance: the praise of God in language given by the Holy Spirit. In the regular life of prayer tongues are said to occupy a primary place.

Such prayer is identified with praying in the spirit or with the spirit, which, since it is not mental, can be done at all times. This spiritual prayer does not intend to eliminate mental prayer, i.e., prayer with the understanding, but to afford the continuous undergirding and background for all conceptual prayer. The ideal is prayer with the spirit and with the mind (in that order). Where prayer passes into praise it may likewise be singing with the spirit and singing with the mind. For the charismatic movement at large singing in the spirit, singing in tongues, occupies an important place, particularly in situations of community worship. Therein both words and melody are free expressions believed to be given spontaneously by the Holy Spirit. This, often combined with more usual singing, is seen as the apex of worship: it is the worship of God in psalms and human and (climatically) spiritual songs.

Speaking in tongues is understood to be not irrational but suprational utterance. It is not the forsaking of the rational for the nonsensical, hence gibberish, but the fulfillment and transcendence of the rational in the spiritual. Charismatics are not disturbed by linguists who claim that glossolalia has no observable language structure, for if such were the case, speaking in tongues would not be spiritual but rational speech. Further, speaking in tongues is not viewed as ecstatic utterance, in the sense of uncontrolled, highly emotional, perhaps frenzied activity. While containing a strong emotional (even a rational) element, glossolalia runs deeper than the emotions. Both reason (or mind) and emotions are aspects of the human psyche (psyche), whether on the conscious or subconscious level. Speaking in tongues is thus understood to be transpsychical; it belongs to the realm of the spirit (pneuma).

Most persons in the charismatic movement view speaking in tongues as directly connected with the event of Spirit baptism. The Scriptures in Acts which specifically record speaking in tongues (2:4; 10:46; 19:6) state that it occurred with persons who had just received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Glossolalia in Acts therefore is closely linked with Spirit baptism, as an immediately ensuing activity. Hence, most charismatics believe that there can be no speaking in tongues without prior Spirit baptism (this is the opposite of saying that there can be no Spirit baptism without speaking in tongues). The reason would seem to follow from the very nature of baptism in the Spirit: a fullness of the Spirit that overflows into transcendent prayer and praise. Granted this fullness, the outpouring of the Spirit, glossolalia may be expected. Further, according to Acts when speaking in tongues occurred, the Scriptures state or imply that everyone present did so. Thus charismatics generally conclude that speaking in tongues is not limited to some, but is the province of all. Also these very tongues may thereafter become an ongoing part of the life of prayer and worship.

Such tongues are sometimes called "devotional tongues," and are viewed as an important part of the prayer life of the Spirit - baptized believers.

In addition to viewing glossolalia as a concomitant of Spirit baptism and belonging to the Spirit filled life, most charismatics affirm that though one may speak in tongues as a consequence of Spirit baptism, he may not have "the gift of tongues" for ministry in the body of believers. This is based not on Acts but on 1 Cor. 12, where Paul depicts tongues as one of several manifestations of the Holy Spirit for the common good.

In this situation tongues are to be spoken as the Spirit apportions, by the few not the many, and only when there is one present to interpret. Though all may be able to speak in tongues (Paul's expressed desire), not all are so directed by the Holy Spirit. The phenomenon of tongues is the same, whether in Acts or 1 Cor., whether in the life of prayer or in the body of believers; it is addressed not to men but to God. However, the practice of tongues is said to be quite different in that what belongs to the life of the Spirit filled believer is not necessarily exercised by him in the Christian fellowship.

Finally, there are those in the charismatic movement who place little emphasis on speaking in tongues. They do not disregard glossolalia, or by any means rule it out, but, focusing almost entirely on 1 Cor. 12 - 14, view speaking in tongues as only one of several manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Hence if one does not speak in tongues, this does not signify any lack of Spirit baptism; it is only that the Holy Spirit has not apportioned to such a person that particular gift. Such a view, based more on the distribution of gifts in 1 Cor. than the association of glossolalia with Spirit baptism in Acts, is obviously quite different from what has previously been described. Accordingly, to many other charismatics this failure to relate glossolalia primarily to the gift of the Spirit as its concomitant and as an ensuing expression in the life of prayer and praise is to overlook the basic purpose of tongues.

Spiritual Gifts
By definition the charismatic movement is concerned with charismata, the Greek term for "gifts of grace." Everywhere throughout the charismatic movement there is the claim that all the charismata, or charisms, mentioned in Scripture are, or should be, operational in the Christian community. Whereas in large sectors of Christendom many of the gifts have been viewed as belonging only to first century Christianity, the charismatic movement stresses their continuing importance. Many charismatics prefer the name "charismatic renewal" to "charismatic movement" to lay emphasis on a renewal of the gifts in our time.

It is generally recognized that the biblical charismata include a wide range of gifts as described in Rom. 12:6 - 8; 1 Pet. 4:10 - 11; and 1 Cor. 12 - 14. (The word "charisma" is also used in Rom. 1:11; 5:15 - 16; 6:23; 1 Cor. 1:7; 7:7; II Cor. 1:11; 1 Tim. 4:14; II Tim. 1:6; "charismata" in Rom. 11:29.) All these gifts, charismatics hold, should be functional in the body of Christ. The focal point of charismatics, however, is 1 Cor. 12 - 14, especially 12:4 - 11. They suggest a number of reasons for this:

* (1) These suggest a number of reasons for "the manifestation of the Spirit," hence have a unique importance as the direct expression and action of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual gifts, accordingly, make for a dynamic, vital community life.
* (2) The spiritual gifts are "power tools" for the upbuilding of the community. Each one functioning properly is essential to the full life of the body.

* (3) The exercise of the spiritual charismata by all makes for total ministry. It is not just the few (e.g., pastors, elders, deacons) who are to be channels for the Spirit's manifestation, but each person in the community.
* (4) A body of Christians in which spiritual gifts, along with other gifts and ministries, are operating is a community of spontaneity in worship, dynamism in ministry, and rich fellowship with one another.
* (5) It is through the exercise of these spiritual gifts that the church comes alive to "high voltage" Christianity: an extraordinary sense of the exalted Lord's presence in the Spirit moving powerfully among his people.

A profile on charismatic understanding of the spiritual gifts would include the following. All the gifts of the Spirit are viewed as extraordinary, supernatural, and permanent. The spiritual charismata as described in 1 Cor. 12:8 - 10 are not arranged in a hierarchy so that "word of wisdom" is the highest and "interpretation of tongues" the least. The greatest gift at a given time is that which edifies most. All the spiritual gifts, especially prophecy (the direct utterance of God to his people in their own language), are earnestly to be desired (1 Cor. 14:1); thus an attitude of "seek not" about any gifts is a violation of God's intention for his people. The gifts of the Spirit, because of their high potency and possible abuse, need to be carefully ordered. Abuse, however, does not call for disuse but proper use. The spiritual gifts will not cease until we see him "face to face"; then they will be no longer needed for the edification of the community. Love is the "way" of the gifts, without love they profit nothing, and love will endure forever.

A word should be added about the relation of baptism with the Holy Spirit to the gifts of the Spirit. Charismatics often state that baptism in the Spirit is initiation into the dynamic dimension; the gifts of the Spirit are dynamic manifestation. Hence baptism with the Spirit is for living in power and glory; the spiritual charismata are works of power and glory. Many charismatics affirm that whenever Spirit baptism occurs, the gifts, which are already resident in the Christian community, become all the more freely and fully exercised.

Finally, charismatics generally recognize that spiritual gifts cannot substitute for spiritual fruit. The fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, etc. (Gal. 5:22), represent the maturation of the believer in Christ. The most immature believer, if he is open to the Holy Spirit, may be Spirit filled and exercising extraordinary gifts, and yet have experienced little of the Spirit's sanctifying grace. Such a person needs all the more to grow up into Christ.

Evaluations
Outside evaluations of the charismatic movement vary today from outright rejection to mixed acceptance. The more than one hundred official denominational documents earlier mentioned demonstrate on the whole an increasing openness, but with reservations, to many of its features.

Critics of the theology of the charismatic movement have expressed disagreements variously.

* (1) Baptism with the Holy Spirit: some hold that it is improper, biblically and theologically, to refer to this as an experience possibly subsequent to conversion; others claim that whereas Spirit baptism may be a second experience, the primary purpose is not empowering but sanctification.
* (2) Speaking in tongues: some do not recognize glossolalia as having any longer a connection with Spirit baptism (the book of Acts being viewed as transitional) but consider it as only a lesser gift of the Holy Spirit available to some, or no longer available at all.
* (3) Spiritual gifts: some divide the spiritual gifts into "temporary" and "permanent," claiming that the former have been withdrawn whereas the latter continue; tongues and prophecy in particular are said to have ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture. It is apparent from such criticisms that much more theological work needs to be done.

J R Williams

(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
Charismatic: D J Bennett, The Holy Spirit and You; L Christenson, Speaking in Tongues and Its Significance for the Church; S Clark, Baptized in the Spirit and Spiritual Gifts; H M Ervin, These Are Not Drunken As Ye Suppose; M Harper, Power for the Body of Christ; K McDonnell, ed., The Holy Spirit and Power: The Catholic Charismatic Renewal; J Rea, The Layman's Commentary on the Holy Spirit; R P Spittler, ed., Perspectives on the New Pentecostalism; L J Cardinal Suenens, A New Pentecost? J R Williams, The Era of the Spirit, The Pentecostal Reality, and The Gift of the Holy Spirit Today; A A Hoekema, Holy Spirit Baptism; J F MacArthur, The Charismatics: A Doctrinal Perspective; J R W Stott, The Baptism and Fullness of the Holy Spirit.

The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject present

SOURCE: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/charisma.htm

It seems to be the most visible form of Christianity seen by non-Christians. Many of those called Evangelicals or Fundamental are Charismatic. They may be in the minority, but they are very visible especially to non-Christians.

[freethinking]

If the followers of it get their moral values from the Bible or some other book (such as the mormons with the book of mormon, etc) rather than from internal reflection, empathy, etc, then yes I do mean them. Cannonizing the moral view of yesterday impedes progress towards the moral view of today. If your moral values come from a bunch of bronze age sheep herders, you are not going to be equipped for the ethical landscape of the modern world.

I do try to practice internal reflection upon Profound Spiritual Truths but increasingly Praise be to God, I am increasingly being educated By Gods Beautiful Holy Spirt whom I love.
I also understand highly now, Allelulia, that Turth is much more depper understood ONLY by the Gift of God through His Glorious HOLY GHOST, I Praise You GOD.

I know in my heart now how much God loves us, as he gave us brains (much more than simple human logic to appreciate all the beautiful creative things in this world which are ALL from God including all the arts, Natural wonders ( the greatest ART), the limited yet amazing incredible knowledge we have about the macro universe as well as the micro world which is almost like another universe and our incredible human bodies and Mind to recognise ALL THIS, but Much more than that!

We are an example of a Trinity! For we are made of Flesh Soul and Spirit. The spirit is our executive decision making aspect of how we live our lives.
When you truely open your heart to God, God will transform you to make it all easier already in this universe at Your pace.!
This is my understanding to date:

The Bible in a Grape Seed


It is incredibly hard to understand using Unsophisicated Human ,Logic and primitive science on the BIG questions of Life

Until one begins to recognise the Clean spirit within and ask God to send the Holy Spirit to help you to develop Spiritually and read the Words of the Bible and understand them Spiritually it is much harder to understand this amazing Awesome Incredible story of Love from our Creator and of giving us the All Powerful Gift we can use in the spiritual battles we can Always win against evil with God In our Hearts

God Bless you all and me too!

[Supreme]

The Charismatic Movement became very popular in the 1950s- 1960s or so. It was/is a movement or method of worship and not limited to any denomination. Even the Catholics had/have some churches considered Charismatic.

SOURCE: http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/charisma.htm

It seems to be the most visible form of Christianity seen by non-Christians. Many of those called Evangelicals or Fundamental are Charismatic. They may be in the minority, but they are very visible especially to non-Christians.

Thank you Woodrow, I think my church may be considered 'charismatic'. We sing, dance and jump to worship music provided by guitars and Hillsong, and we speak in tongues. I think the emphasis on the Holy Spirit is also there. Although, I would argue that they are not the most visible form of Christianity to non-Christians, at least not here in Britain. I'd say the most visible form of Christianity in Britain is the Church of England, with old, beautiful stone churches, elderly vicars that deliver boring sermons and an assotrment of hymns and carols from centuries ago. That was my perception of Christianity before I converted.