How the Bible and the Quran seriously view women

[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.com/karim/womens_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]

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_video.php?viewkey=82f899c4269d5199c196&page=&viewtype=&category=

 

[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?