women rights in the bible! (mature!)

[knivesl]

Cometh The Inquisitor

As for Son of Solomon. Dude, it's between a man and his wife. it's supposed to be rather sensual and 'x-rated'. The whole point of marriage is basically sex (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

yeah but why would they bother putting a sexual love letter in the bible unless there was a deeper more prophetic meaning to it

Jesus is our lover and we are his beloved his bride God wants us to feel that way about Him so he put that letter on solomons heart with full intent of it being placed in His Word  

[Jedediah Smith]

Cometh The Inquisitor

you all bash these ideas and you fail to even look at what they say! Shame be upon you.

Yeah, the Bible has a pretty bad women's rghts track (deuter. 22:28-29)

This passage doesn't violate women rights. If you look closely, in Deu 22:25, man raping a woman is a result of death of the rapist. In Deu 22:28, the woman is yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent.

Cometh The Inquisitor

deuter. 25:11-12

(Verse 11) his "shameful" parts, which through shame are hidden, and modesty forbids to express in proper terms; and such is the purity of the Hebrew language, that no obscene words are used in it; for which reason, among others, it is called the holy tongue. This immodest action was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore was to be severely punished, as follows.

(Verse 12) Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Mat 5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, "eye for eye", Exo 21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off.

Cometh The Inquisitor

1 corinthians 14:34-35

Common objection is that Paul is only referring to wives because in verse 35, it uses 'ιδιους ανδρας' meaning 'their husband.' Also, its directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches. Perhaps it was a common Church tradition, during the early Church.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Yeah, women are basically treated as lower then men. and yes, you still get the short end of the proverbial stick in the new testament. All I can say is, sucks to be you. A woman's status is because of God cursing Eve (and all women) in genesis.

I disgree, I believe there is no lower class for women in the Church. However, in the marriage union, women need to follow their husbands orders but they must be reasonable.

Cometh The Inquisitor

As for Son of Solomon. Dude, it's between a man and his wife. it's supposed to be rather sensual and 'x-rated'. The whole point of marriage is basically sex (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

The literal form of Song of Solomon would bring assumptions of sexual poetry. However, the terminology and grammar used in Song of Solomon, its quite symbolic and it could possibly refer to the Church.  

[knivesl]

Jedediah Smith

Cometh The Inquisitor

As for Son of Solomon. Dude, it's between a man and his wife. it's supposed to be rather sensual and 'x-rated'. The whole point of marriage is basically sex (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

The literal form of Song of Solomon would bring assumptions of sexual poetry. However, the terminology and grammar used in Song of Solomon, its quite symbolic and it could possibly refer to the Church.

i

that is exactly what i was saying i said it on the front page as well as the top of this page and i will say it again jesus the lover and we are his beloved if the song of solomon was only ment to be a sexual poem then it would not have been put in the word of God which is completely God breathed and if the song of solomon wasnt God breathed then what is it doing in there  

[ioioouiouiouio]

knivesl

yeah but why would they bother putting a sexual love letter in the bible unless there was a deeper more prophetic meaning to it

Is an example for the love between a husband and wife not enough?

[EDIT]what I am saying is that, while I do believe that Song of Solomon can be used as a very metaphorical text (in reference to the church and Jesus), this does not automatically stop it from having a more literal meaning (love peotry between husband and wife).  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Jedediah Smith

This passage doesn't violate women rights. If you look closely, in Deu 22:25, man raping a woman is a result of death of the rapist. In Deu 22:28, the woman is yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent.

Then why, might I ask, is it still translated as rape, when a much more suitable word is available?

Quote:

(Verse 11) his "shameful" parts, which through shame are hidden, and modesty forbids to express in proper terms; and such is the purity of the Hebrew language, that no obscene words are used in it; for which reason, among others, it is called the holy tongue. This immodest action was done partly out of affection to her husband, to oblige his antagonist to let go his hold of him; and partly out of malice and revenge to him, to spoil him, and make him unfit for generation, and therefore was to be severely punished, as follows.

(Verse 12) Which was to be done not by the man that strove with her husband, or by any bystander, but by the civil magistrate or his order. This severity was used to deter women from such an immodest as well as injurious action, who on such an occasion are very passionate and inconsiderate. Our Lord is thought to refer to this law, Mat 5:30; though the Jewish writers interpret this not of actual cutting off the hand, but of paying a valuable consideration, a price put upon it; so Jarchi; and Aben Ezra compares it with the law of retaliation, "eye for eye", Exo 21:24; which they commonly understand of paying a price for the both, &c. lost; and who adds, if she does not redeem her hand (i.e. by a price) it must be cut off.

I was refering more to the fact that no such law exists for men.

Quote:

Common objection is that Paul is only referring to wives because in verse 35, it uses 'ιδιους ανδρας' meaning 'their husband.' Also, its directed against a practice which seems to have prevailed in this church at Corinth, allowing women to preach and teach in it; and this being a disorderly practice, and what was not used in other churches. Perhaps it was a common Church tradition, during the early Church.

Irrelavent. If someone has something good to say then not being able to say it based off of their gender is most definatly sexist.

Quote:

I disgree, I believe there is no lower class for women in the Church. However, in the marriage union, women need to follow their husbands orders but they must be reasonable.

But when a woman is not married then she is considered her father's, thusly needing to submit to him in the place of here husband.

Quote:

The literal form of Song of Solomon would bring assumptions of sexual poetry. However, the terminology and grammar used in Song of Solomon, its quite symbolic and it could possibly refer to the Church.

see my answer in the previous post.  

[Jedediah Smith]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Jedediah Smith

This passage doesn't violate women rights. If you look closely, in Deu 22:25, man raping a woman is a result of death of the rapist. In Deu 22:28, the woman is yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as Deu 22:25 where a different word from this is there used; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in Exo 22:16 but not without her consent.

Then why, might I ask, is it still translated as rape, when a much more suitable word is available?

Yes, the Hebrew could backup the definition of rape. However, if the victim was raped, she could marry the rapist by her consent (v2 cool . If the woman chooses not, then the rapist would face death for his actions (v25).

Cometh The Inquisitor

I was refering more to the fact that no such law exists for men.

Oh, I see sweatdrop That I'm not sure of, I would have to search.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Irrelavent. If someone has something good to say then not being able to say it based off of their gender is most definatly sexist.

I agree, its sexist. However it doesn't have to be practiced today because Paul is speaking about the Corinthian culture. For example, women had to wear head coverings to demonstrate their submission to their husbands. In todays culture, men & women wear wedding rings to show submission to their spouse. In America, no one follows the Corinthian culture anymore.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Quote:

I disgree, I believe there is no lower class for women in the Church. However, in the marriage union, women need to follow their husbands orders but they must be reasonable.

But when a woman is not married then she is considered her father's, thusly needing to submit to him in the place of here husband.

However, the father has different authority position than the husband.  

[Gamja]

I don't like it how I go to some of these "anti-Christian" websites that claims that the Bible is wrong...blah blah blah... When I look at their responses, they're all completely misleading and one-sided (their side!). And those sites also fail to take emails from Christians who do have the ability to contradict whatever they say...

And I agree with Jebediah and knivesl...  

[jamesthelittle]

I have to agree that I feel like I, as a Christian, was raked through the coals about lies. There is no true place to begin to defend one's self since they did not allow a place to email comments back. It is slanderous to say that Christianity caused pornography and rape. Simplest defense of Christianity and women's rights are look at Jesus. Jesus was all for women's rights. Look at the story of the woman at the well, look at the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery...the list goes on and on.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Jedediah Smith

Yes, the Hebrew could backup the definition of rape. However, if the victim was raped, she could marry the rapist by her consent (v2 cool . If the woman chooses not, then the rapist would face death for his actions (v25).

...

that's so annoying. Why can't God make things easier. xd

Quote:

I agree, its sexist. However it doesn't have to be practiced today because Paul is speaking about the Corinthian culture. For example, women had to wear head coverings to demonstrate their submission to their husbands. In todays culture, men & women wear wedding rings to show submission to their spouse. In America, no one follows the Corinthian culture anymore.

oi wey. Culture issues. Though what you say definately has merit.  

[William Che King]

What, are you against women's rights?
In the Bible, there are a lot of strong women in faith, Queen Esther being an obvious one. They were all stronger than the men around them.
Would they be mentioned if women were without the same benefits as men?  

[Gambol]

As for the church and not letting women to speak:

From what I know, the early church had a practice that males would sit on one side of the room while women would sit on the other. Since men were only allowed to formally speak in church, they would ask questions in an orderly fashion to the preacher/whoever. But, whenever women had questions to ask about certain Scripture, they'd holler it across the room in the middle of service to their husbands.

This, apparently, was pretty disorderly.

Thus, Paul's telling the women to save their questions for later - when they're in their homes, and can talk to their husbands without disturbing the peace.  

[William Che King]

Cometh The Inquisitor

you all bash these ideas and you fail to even look at what they say! Shame be upon you.

Yeah, the Bible has a pretty bad women's rghts track (deuter. 22:28-29, deuter. 25:11-12, 1 corinthians 14:34-35, to name a few). Yeah, women are basically treated as lower then men. and yes, you still get the short end of the proverbial stick in the new testament. All I can say is, sucks to be you. A woman's status is because of God cursing Eve (and all women) in genesis.

As for Son of Solomon. Dude, it's between a man and his wife. it's supposed to be rather sensual and 'x-rated'. The whole point of marriage is basically sex (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

Your beliefes/knowledge of the Bible...scares me...  

[ioioouiouiouio]

William C. Wonka

Your beliefes/knowledge of the Bible...scares me...

I fail to see why either of the two would be scary. Neither I, nor my beliefs are in any position to cause harm to you or anyone you know (unless you happen to live in San Diego, which I doubt). They also, I might add, have been shown just where my beliefs were flawed and have adjusted my theology accordingly.

And knowing the bible isn't scary. It's important to being a christian.  

[MrsMica]

Gambol

As for the church and not letting women to speak:

From what I know, the early church had a practice that males would sit on one side of the room while women would sit on the other. Since men were only allowed to formally speak in church, they would ask questions in an orderly fashion to the preacher/whoever. But, whenever women had questions to ask about certain Scripture, they'd holler it across the room in the middle of service to their husbands.

This, apparently, was pretty disorderly.

Thus, Paul's telling the women to save their questions for later - when they're in their homes, and can talk to their husbands without disturbing the peace.

That sounds right because orthodox Jews still practice a similar churching experience, with the men and women separated from each other. It would follow naturally that any early Christian practices stemmed from their Jewish bretheren, since they at the time would have considered themselves "true Jews" who understood that Christ fufilled Jewish prophesy.  

[Silent Expressor]

Cometh The Inquisitor

As for Son of Solomon. Dude, it's between a man and his wife. it's supposed to be rather sensual and 'x-rated'. The whole point of marriage is basically sex (1 Corinthians 1:1-9)

I couldnt agree more with what I bolded, Song of Solomon from what I understand is actually between Soloman and one of his concubines which he fell in love with (i could be wrong) Solomon had a lot of wives and even more concubines im not sure of the exact number at this moment but this book is basically between a man and his beloved (which depending on the version you read it will actually say man and beloved). The part of what you said that I Italicized I couldnt disagree more, Marriage isnt just sex, its growing with another person and the two of you trying to understand each other more. Marriage may be one part sex but you have to look at every angle of it.