Debunking Abrahamic Religions
"So yes, I...am happy to be treated the same way women were in the Bible."
Astute readers will spot that my quote begins "So yes, " meaning it is a conclusion or, in other words, John is up to his usual practice of plucking lines selectively out of context to make them appear to say things they do not.Readers are welcome to visit my blog MandM and view the context as to why John has singled me out in this way. Use our John W. Loftus label.To be clear I was not speaking to John's dishonest and false version of Biblical teaching on the treatment of women, as he well knows.
Madeleine I linked to the page for the context. There's nothing selective about this nor dishonest. Astute readers already know what to do. The immediate context had to do with these two passages:Deuteronomy 22:23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the girl because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. You must purge the evil from among you. Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives. But in attempting to answer them you went way beyond what was required. YOU said you like being treated as women were in the Bible. Yes or no? Does that apply to more than the immediate context or not? You can correct yourself now if you wish.BTW: Did you read the link under the word "ignorant" in my post?
Eph 5:25 "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."Sounds like a pretty good deal for women especially when one considers that Christ died for those whom he loved.And what is so bad about the Deut. 22 law? If a girl can simply scream out if she is in a crowded city to avoid being violated but chooses to conceal the act, then isn't she a part of the problem? Sure the penalty sounds harsh but few would die because the fear of breaking them would thwart crime. Do you propose a better system? If it is anything like the present American justice system with overcrowded jails and continual repeat offenders, then you can save your energy by not answering.
If a woman is threatened with a knife, told she will be killed if she screams out, and does not scream out, there will always be a Christian to say , and I quote 'isn't she a part of the problem'?Madeleine resorts to calling John's quoting the Bible as a 'dishonest and false version'.She praises the Biblical treatment of women.John Loftus quotes the Biblical treatment of women.It seems that the Bible is for praising, not quoting.Mark Sanford also knows about the Biblical treatment of women.If you cheat on your wife, simply point out that the people God most favoured did the same thing.
Astute readers may know what to do John, but Steven Carr illustrates my point.Steven said that "she [referring to me] praises the Biblical treatment of women" and then he immediately linked my praise of this treatment of women with your interpretation of it.Precisely what I said would happen. Hence, the need for context.[Steven, that highlighted underlined bit in blue is a hyperlink and it takes you to the original context.]
Oh and John, if you wanted people to read my comment in context and not twisted, in light of your interpretation, you would never have written the blog post in the first place. The context you wrote this post in is supposed to make me look "backward," "incredibly ignorant." Don't pretend otherwise.
Oh obnoxious one, but you ARE backward and incredibly ignorant!Did you read throught that link? According to the Biblical mileu you shouldn't even be arguing against me in public since I'm a man, but instead step aside and have your husband defend you since you are his property. LOLHere's more, this time from the NT:Biblical references promoting female inferiority:1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9: "For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV) This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. Many theologians have concluded that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul's execution. If the latter is true then the epistle's many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are: 1 Timothy 2:11-15: "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home. 1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male. 1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV) Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop. Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage. 1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands
So now Madeleine claims I should not write this post, eh? On what grounds? I linked to what she said and the whole context is there for anyone interested in reading it. No, she's just an angry women, angry at God for her circumstances in life. Angry because I called her out on her utter ignorance.And I gave her a chance here to tell us differently since I commented there alerting her to this post. Madeleine has a chance to deny that she meant what she said. Again, she said: "So yes, I...am happy to be treated the same way women were in the Bible." What kind of contect is needed she can surely fill in if she didn't mean what she said which went beyond what was called for in responding to me.Are you now saying you do not like being treated the way women were treated in the Bible? Just say so here and now.
I think, Madeleine, it is important to note that you are dealing with people who are in a deep disgust of anything Christian. How did this thing start, only God knows.These are the same people who were former christians, and it's appaling to see when they talk of biblical slavery as the most disgusting thing now when they didn't see it that way then, when they were still christians. The thing we can learn here is that their consiousness is deeply blunted by their hatred with anything Christian such that they are no longer level headed, nor rational as they expound, ad nauseum.They no longer see the honorary treatment of slaves as per Moses creed to the jews, contrary to surrounding tribes where you would rather wish be dead than to be a slave in those tribes. Their conscious is totaly impervious to exemplary teachings of the Apostles regarding the subject. A critic may respond by claiming that why didn't God forbid altogether slave owning; but that is dishonest given that Slavery was a big industry of the time. It is an equivalent of cheaper labour as per our 21st century civilization.The same goes for women treatment in the bible. It is true that the bible explicate some gender details that could be interpreted as Male Supremacism and female denigration when viewed from this point in time, but that is what I call a dim-witted approach towards biblical theology regarding the matter. John loves to say that an atheist case is cumulative and I dont see why a Christian case could not be said to be cumulative. There are so many areas where women came on top in the Jewish setting of the Old Testament times, as was the case of Deborah, Ruth, Esther, Abigail and many others. Why does John not interprete Madeleine statement this way? Well, I havent read the link John gave, but I've been here at DC enough to recognize that skeptics are here for nothing but to spew their anger for anything christian, and even worse, when they vent their angry emotions with empty rhetoric filled with nothing but intellectual dishonesty.
EDSONThey no longer see the honorary treatment of slaves as per Moses creed to the jews....THE HOLY BIBLEExodus 21"If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. If somebody hits 'his property' so hard that it takes a couple of days for the slave to get back up (!), they are not to be punished.And Edson calls this law 'honourable treatment'.Amazing!
edson said..."They no longer see the honorary treatment of slaves as per Moses creed to the jews, contrary to surrounding tribes where you would rather wish be dead than to be a slave in those tribes. Their conscious is totaly impervious to exemplary teachings of the Apostles regarding the subject. A critic may respond by claiming that why didn't God forbid altogether slave owning; but that is dishonest given that Slavery was a big industry of the time. It is an equivalent of cheaper labour as per our 21st century civilization."So much for the supposed morality that the faithful try suggesting we receive from Some God,it seems this morality is much more likely to be human orientated as it seems to change a long the way .So much for the God that they try suggesting is the same yesterday today and tomorrow as well.
Don't forget the new covenant versus the old covenant. Our model is to be how Jesus treats His bride, the church.
I see this old covenant v. new covenant claim crop up from time to time, and I suppose I need to read more apologist handwaving to figure this out... but why would a creature such as God need a new covenant? Why not get it right the first time? Sounds more like a human artifice to me, changing the rules to suit the Christian leaders at the time.And as far as Madeleine's claims about context, pointing to someone who may have taken a quote out of context even with all the contextual links intact does not invalidate the original post. Your conclusion should stand on it's own as your belief, and interested readers can check the context easily to see why you think women should be held in an inferior position to men.
Steven Carr wrote: If a woman is threatened with a knife, told she will be killed if she screams out, and does not scream out, there will always be a Christian to say , and I quote 'isn't she a part of the problem'?Steven, you created a new set of circumstances and applied the wrong law. If the damsel has no recourse, then she shall be freed. The idea of a damsel being forced without recourse is illustrated here:Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.If you want to abide by the absolute “letter of the law” then perhaps you missed your calling as a Pharisee.We can see a perfect application of the law and the ultimate “judge” enacted in the New Testament where Jesus dispersed the accusers of the woman caught in adultery by demanding that those persons without sin first cast a stone at her.
John Loftus wrote: According to the Biblical mileu you shouldn't even be arguing against me in public since I'm a man, but instead step aside and have your husband defend you since you are his property. John, if you are a “man”, then why on Earth are you picking on a woman? If you want to portray yourself as “Indiana Jones” (your photo suggests so) you’ll need to change your character. Until then your aurora will always be that of an embittered old man who missed his calling and uses women to measure his philosophical prowess. Even in the Biblical context, I can’t remember any Pharisees who spent long hours debating with women.
Deu 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.That says 'in the field', yet Alan in his original post talked only about 'in the city'Goalposts - to the left, quick march!Here was I making the mistake of discussing what Alan actually posted about a woman being raped in the city, and it turns out he was actually thinking about a different law all the time.How foolish I was!Of course, the Bible explains the punishment rapists must endure.Deuteronomy 22If 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. I'm sure Alan and Madeline will be along soon to tell us that only divine wisdom could produce a law of such wonderful justice that it forces rapists to marry the girl they raped.
Steven, I can quickly see why the Bible is so abhorrent to you. Your strict legalistic interpretations of it are abhorrent. Look at the great flexibility afforded here in the Old Testament law:Mark 2:25-27 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.Why do you think judges were necessary in the Old Testament if the law stood on its own?Thus far I haven't seen any takers on my previous challenge: "Do you propose a better system? If it is anything like the present American justice system with overcrowded jails and continual repeat offenders, then you can save your energy by not answering."Being critical of a system that you have never experienced, and doing so from a position of heightening failure (American justice system 2009) doesn't win you any awards.As for women not having any say in whom they marry:Gen 24:57-58 And they said, We will call the damsel, and enquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go.Steven Carr wrote: …a law of such wonderful justice that it forces rapists to marry the girl they raped.Wouldn’t it be nice to travel back in time and see how an actual case was handled and if any exceptions were made? Since you can’t, your consolation is that the worst possible outcome was mandated. Please don’t tell me this is what you’re banking on for not serving God.He that is good for making excuses is seldom good for anything else. - Benjamin Franklin
ALANWhy do you think judges were necessary in the Old Testament if the law stood on its own?CARRThis is idiotic. You need judges to hand out sentences.I prophesied that Alan would be along to tell us that there is nothing wrong with laws forcing rapists to marry the girls they raped.This gift of prophecy is sometimes a burden to me....
Very intelligent question, Jeff! I'm glad you asked that. It's b/c He won't mess with our free will. It was Adam & Eve's choice to follow God's rule or disobey it. sure, God had the power to make us into automations/robats, but that's not how He is. He's not a dictator/tyrant. The fact that He knew beforehand how humans were going to act and still chose to make us how we are is very telling about God's personality.
Alan wrote: Why do you think judges were necessary in the Old Testament if the law stood on its own?Steven Carr wrote: This is idiotic. You need judges to hand out sentences.Exactly. And to interpret and apply laws accordingly.Steven Carr wrote: I prophesied that Alan would be along to tell us that there is nothing wrong with laws forcing rapists to marry the girls they raped.As a critic sitting in the judgment seat (and prophet), you still have not offered a better solution. In some cultures today, once a virgin has been raped, she is shunned by society and remains unmarried all of her days. She pines away as an “untouchable”. This is really sad. In such societies, I would love to see action taken against such damnable perpetrators by having them pay money to the father and require at least an offer of marriage and make the law stick such that he can’t divorce her later. Wait a minute… isn’t this what the Biblical law provides? Steven, I’m afraid that something even more sinister may be happening here. If you interpret the law in the worst possible light, then you may succumb to justifying your own sinful actions. Additional considerations:If a law forces rapists to marry their victims, then perhaps the number of rapes will decline to near zero. What’s more, if the law requires rapists to pay fifty shekels of silver to the father, this could indeed equate to the death penalty if the rapist hasn’t saved toward his bride’s future. Thus, we have narrowed down the field of rapists who marry their victims to only those who have saved for their “brides” future. If the girl happens to be ugly, he is required to marry her anyway. Again, this stipulation will help narrow the field further since potential rapists will be motivated to think before acting. Thirdly, if one “selects” his wife through means of rape, then he’ll never be able to divorce her even if “she” turns out to be a transvestite. The law is putting so many roadblocks into the potential rapist’s path, and causing him to think, I would guess most potential rapists would opt for the easier path of waiting for a willing partner. Thus, such a society could easily exceed the American society in quality by many fold. In America, if a woman is raped, often the rapist is nurtured in a prison and the possible resulting child is killed. Why not kill the rapist and let the child live? Often, another woman is victimized as soon as the rapist is released.Steven, I honestly don’t think you have thought through your criticisms as evidenced by your failure to articulate a superior system of law. I’m not advocating the idea, but often one’s assumptions about a girl not wanting to marry her rapist are wrong: Girl wants to marry her 'rapist'
Alan still defending laws forcing rapists to marry the girl they have raped....Rape, of course, only being proved if a man hears a woman scream. Otherwise the woman is an adulterer and must be stoned to death.Madeleine will be along soon to say the Biblical treatment of women is fantastic and a divinely inspired lesson to us all.
If Alan is representative of moral Biblical thinking, I fear for those that claim that "moral high ground" -- seems pretty swamplike to me!Again with the women as property theme -- pay the FATHER for sullying his property. Right.And your solutions would just ensure that any rich enough man could rape whichever woman he wants to own -- oh sorry, "marry" -- pay the fee, and then she's trapped for life. Swell society you'd have there! Glad ours isn't built on those values.
Alan: Girl marries rapist??!!Can't you see this is in the news because it's so strange and unusual? If it was the norm, it wouldn't have a worldwide article written about it.
Steven Carr quotes Exodus 21 and concludes "If somebody hits 'his property' so hard that it takes a couple of days for the slave to get back up (!), they are not to be punished." Demonstrating, once again, my first point that readers who are not astute will not notice the context. He clearly did not click the link to my site and read the detailed exposition of why it is utterly incorrrect to interpret Exodus 21 that way. He prefers to ignorantly quote things with no idea as to where they come within a book. The passage is about murder. It does not speak to assault. Assault of indentured servers is dealt with in a nearby passage - if you cause a bruise you are to let the person completely off the debt they owe you (the reason why they had consented to serve you). Of course telling the truth, or having a clue (whichever is the case with Steven) doesn't have the same effect - neither does correctly translating the passages on women and rape.The Loftus, Carr, et all aproach: find a verse where the english version casts it in the worst possible light, isolate it from its context and then use it to pretend it teaches something bad.Steven wrote: "I'm sure Alan and Madeline will be along soon to tell us that only divine wisdom could produce a law of such wonderful justice that it forces rapists to marry the girl they raped."No, I won't be saying that Steven, because, as I said in the comment that John took my words from that started this subject - you know the link you don't know how to click on and read - the bible does not say anything of the sort as we thoroughly demonstrate in Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist?
John, if you are a “man”, then why on Earth are you picking on a woman?I don't know. Maybe he has this crazy idea that she's an adult woman who can defend her own arguments and might even enjoy a vigorous discussion.
Precisely Diane.Of all the reasons why John was wrong in relation to this post, that was not one of them. I will happily spar with a man or I wouldn't have engaged with John in the first place.Be sure to stop by Sunday Study: Does the Bible Teach that a Rape Victim has to Marry her Rapist? where John writes “I think you've probably got me on this one" and "I never said I was right about everything" in reference to the passage being misinterpreted here.
He's not picking on you, dearie, he's putting you in your place. Get off the computer and get in your kitchen where you belong. You're obviously out of your league here--or anywhere.BTW, people with working brains, not ossified detritus taking up space in their heads, understand Internet links, and context, and that we can read the laughably ignorant things you post for ourselves.So quit lying that you're being taken out of context.I do believe lying is a big no-no for you lot.
John you should really fix that link to my site. I think you were trying to link to a comment back when we were on Blogger but since we've moved to Wordpress the URLs to specific comments have changed slightly. I've tried putting a redirect on what you linked to but it does not work. You'll need to edit the post.The correct link is:http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/sunday-study-slavery-john-locke-and-the-bible.htmlThe link to the comment I made is: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/sunday-study-slavery-john-locke-and-the-bible.html#comment-2956
Post a Comment