It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Women's Rights and the Bible - A Query.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I was looking in general for views on women and the Bible, and I came across this clip:



I know many cultures also have misogynistic views, but luckily in Western cultural democracies we have a separation between religion and state.
I have no doubt however that if Christian fundamentalists took over, the law would be very similar to Islamist Sharia for women and gay people.

I guess that because we're voting next month in South Africa, I was wondering whether to vote for anything that particularly aligns itself with Biblical fundamentalism (which is pretty much all of it, except for pure Marxism).

What I really wanted to know however is why women must remain "unclean" for 7 days after having a male child, but two weeks after they had a female child? (Leviticus 12: 2-5.)

Is this just because of Bronze Age misogyny and because patriarchal men wrote the Bible, or is there a medical difference?

Many Christians would say that's "Old Testament", but similar discrimination against women can be found in the supposed works of St. Paul, and Jesus never specifically negated these verses.

Is this a value judgement on the "lower" worth of women as opposed to men, or is there another reason?
If it's just discrimination that's only relevant in a historical sense, then why don't Christians just remove that chapter, like many Protestants have done with the Apocrypha in the 19th century?

edit on 13-4-2014 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
So far I can only assume that what it says in the Bible is sheer misogyny.

Nobody has even tried to explain why women who have a female child are "unclean" twice as long as women who have a male child.

Perhaps in tribal laws, and groups who follow that closely one could say it is "tradition".
However, for modern people and parties to selectively pick things out of these books when they make no clear attempt to follow it all - it must be just a joke.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


The Abrahamic religions, are all false. Logic demands it. The burden of proof rests with those making the claim that this was the words of "God", not you denying it. That type of claim that requires 100% proof in writing, not faith, with an error margin of zero. Otherwise, it is a false claim, and should be discarded as just another lie.

Here, let me help you. Would you accept the premise, and dogma of the Bible, if it was first published today? Or would you "rotflmao" after you finished reading it?

That is a major problem for fundamental Christianity, as one, it depends on the OT to be error free and true. Second, is the hidden religion attached to it, what i call disbeleiving Christianity. Beleiving the Earth is Heaven vs Hell, even if you do not pick sides, is following apart of Christianity. We were taught that you do beleive already, and you simply did not accept Jesus yet. You just are labeled an unbeleiver until you confess and convert. Note the assumptions in this question: did you accept Jesus yet? I am assuming you already know the "truth" my religion follows, including agreeing "my" Jesus exists.

I am sure this was not written and set up this way to not to teach you to not say anything about injustice to the "world", because that would make "us" part of it. Fundamentals are taught and indoctrinated to let the oligarchs rule without question. Never judge, as Jesus will take care of all justice, even as those same sinners lead a full rich life, breaking your spirit and screwing you.

Let us inspect the initial claim, as it is assumed to be true when discussing Jesus with you. Ok then that means findings, past, present, and future evidences, surrounding that religion, must be 100% internally consistant with the Bible, for that claim to remain valid. Google for it. It does not have the evidence to do so. That narrative is falling apart too.

Deut 18, within its own words, requires one to throw out most, if not all of the Bible, in light of all modern findings. Archeology along dictates we can safely move this to Jewish mythology. So do the dead sea scrolls. The fundamentals cherry pick data with those, and will not tell you what is in the other writings found. I will not even get into our findings of the quantum realm.

Inlight of this factual assesment of the above, the entirety of Womans Rights need re-evaluation, and equality must be refound. Today, Men and Women are not even close to equality. You will not find the kind of equality we need as humanity, in a book about the genosides carried out by the tribe of Israel's maleviolent, and often inconsistant, Tribal War God YHVH. Women are not property, nor cattle. They are fully sentient beings, with a mind of their own. They should have the same rights, privledges, immunities, etc provided by law, as Men do. Yes, if they want to walk around with their mammary glans in view, they can.

Happy Journeys. :-)
edit on 13-4-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   
i agree with the last sentence of the above poster entirely, and endorse it wholly.


More on topic, the bible is so cruel I walked away from it as a teenager.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
In those days they also believed that man´s siemen hold the whole child and a woman´s womb is only a hatchery. Not exactly what science has taught us. This idea made males more important to human survival and society.

Now we all know that human race can survive without a single male alive.. brilliant lol

edit on 13-4-2014 by dollukka because: typo..



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:34 PM
link   
For most Christians, the Old Testament Law is something Jesus fulfilled. We live under the New Covenant of Grace which means we look at what Jesus said, where he reiterated God from the Old Testament. In general, you'll see that Jesus did not tell us that a woman should keep to the old clean/unclean laws where he backed up many of the Commandments and moral laws (clean/unclean laws are not moral laws but early versions of health laws in many cases).



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by halfoldman
 


women's rights according to the Bible.

1. the right to shut the heck up, especially in church.

2. the right to do whatever the man tells her.
3. she has the right to go right until her man tells her to go left.

somehow, the bible gets a free pass by christians upon so MANY verses that are disgusting to me, Yet they will fanatically swear that the bible needs to be followed to the letter on other passages.

I always loved when the female thumpers in my family would try and thump on me, then they get mad when I pull up other verses in the book.


Sometimes it seems that those "pagan" anglos treated women MUCH better. could be worse treatment than the bible though, the koran and the muslim things where women have to wear ninja suits everywhere.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I think even Westboro went literalistic on 1 Timothy 2 (from verse 9).
It seems (from articles I saw) that Phelps was booted out along with his daughter in favor of an all-male council.
I always wondered how they reconciled an essentially female-led sect with the Bible.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Fulfilled?

To which "father" god? Yahweh was one of 70 so called gods. El Elyon was the highest, and Yahweh was not. Yahweh was given Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance. What happened to the other 69 gods?

In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.

This is what older versions and translations say of Duet 32:8-9 that we have found. What about his wife, Asherah, who was scrubbed from the O.T. and history? How does that fit with your message? How about explaining Psalm 82 with that info, and recall not even the Pharasee's could answer Jesus on that one. I can answer it. The Psalmist believed in a council of 'gods'. I.e, polytheism, with Yahweh 'standing up‘, berating the other 'gods' about perceived injustice.

The OT has been edited, redacted and changed numerous times, long before "Jesus" came. It was changed to match the narrative of the New Testament too. Today, the N.T. is being edited, redacted and changed right in front of you. The words, and concepts, are more contemporary, in order to ensnare new beleivers.

Don't take my word on it, Google it. Reach your own conclusion. And before you say i know nothing about your beliefs, look at my post history when i was a Misslerite, thinking he was on a mission from "God".



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Not Authorized
reply to post by ketsuko
 


Fulfilled?

To which "father" god? Yahweh was one of 70 so called gods. El Elyon was the highest, and Yahweh was not. Yahweh was given Jacob (Israel) as his inheritance. What happened to the other 69 gods?

In the words of Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.

This is what older versions and translations say of Duet 32:8-9 that we have found. What about his wife, Asherah, who was scrubbed from the O.T. and history? How does that fit with your message? How about explaining Psalm 82 with that info, and recall not even the Pharasee's could answer Jesus on that one. I can answer it. The Psalmist believed in a council of 'gods'. I.e, polytheism, with Yahweh 'standing up‘, berating the other 'gods' about perceived injustice.

The OT has been edited, redacted and changed numerous times, long before "Jesus" came. It was changed to match the narrative of the New Testament too. Today, the N.T. is being edited, redacted and changed right in front of you. The words, and concepts, are more contemporary, in order to ensnare new beleivers.

Don't take my word on it, Google it. Reach your own conclusion. And before you say i know nothing about your beliefs, look at my post history when i was a Misslerite, thinking he was on a mission from "God".


70 seems to be so uncharacteristic as to be unbelievable. Do you have some more information on that?

72 would be the right number.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

HanzHenry

somehow, the bible gets a free pass by christians upon so MANY verses that are disgusting to me, Yet they will fanatically swear that the bible needs to be followed to the letter on other passages.

I always loved when the female thumpers in my family would try and thump on me, then they get mad when I pull up other verses in the book.

Sometimes it seems that those "pagan" anglos treated women MUCH better. could be worse treatment than the bible though, the koran and the muslim things where women have to wear ninja suits everywhere.


Your a fool... You don't know squat about religion and your ridiculous response proves it.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Start: ldophin.org... to familiarize yourself with what Fundamentals call the Table of Nations.

There were 70 nations after the flood. Realize this mythology we call the O.T. centers on Jacob, or, also called Israel, not other nations gods, so you won't hear about them much due to heavy redaction. However they will still be hinted at, or named occasionally. Baal, etc. Now lets use common sense. Put yourself in the mindset of the writer.

Would you not pen a story rife with tribal cultural bias, by ignoring the other nations gods, and victories as much as possible? You will not hear about the other gods, as our war god is much more powerful. You would even embellish, and say things like we are God's chosen people. No one would ever know the difference.

Now with that in mind, think. Would other surrounding nations, also within their mythology, mention Yahweh, and the names of those other gods, during this time frame? How about other Hebrew literature of the time period? What if they do, but tell a different, but contemporary story?

Google it. Learn to search for knowledge. Ask questions.

You could visit a book store. There are plenty of books disputing Christianity. Find one, buy it, read it, then set off in your resolve to dispute it.

Besides, if you want the truth, do one thing everday that scares you, right? Try finding or browsing jesusneverexisted.com... . It will take your breath away.


edit on 13-4-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure Jesus said: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" not "do unto men what you would have them do unto you".

Aside from that little detail, there are countless examples of Jesus extending mercy to women in the NT where "the law" would have called for them to be exiled or worse, killed.

I haven't much else to say about it, but I suspect this thread really isn't about an honest effort to understand the way the bible views women since it makes no effort to represent the other side of the story:

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


edit on 13-4-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 

Thanks for your view, although it's not up to me to represent every possible point of view when making a thread.
If I knew it all, I wouldn't ask.

While I agree that Jesus - and the especially the Gospels - preach a message against greed and class consciousness, I can't really say the same for gender consciousness.

But I'm glad to hear that the bible overthrows all class and gender conventions for some, and Christians consider themselves as one in Christ.
Just a pity the religious politics reflect anything but that, and I'm not holding my breath to see rich Christians inviting poor Christians to share their houses.



posted on Apr, 13 2014 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 


You should understand....i am not in need to study of matters related to the bible. I am asking due to reasons related to mystical numbers, and my study of them. I attended a Christian university, being raised in "The Buckle of the Bible Belt" (as it is known in this region).

In any event, the number 72 is a significant number. 70 is not.

Ill see what you have linked. Perhaps an explanation is to be found.




top topics



 
1

log in

join