How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

[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, 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