Question for Women...

Do u think she should vote the way her husband tells her too. Because if thats the case y don't we just take away their rights to vote.
U seem very old school, man works women stays at home. Ofcource I haven't read every reply in the thread so I might be wrong.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I dont htink its wrong for a woman to gain knownlegde outside of her husband... But I think she should turn to him for all of her needs and if he cannot provide she should turn to God.
Click to expand...

Byblos, how old are you? Are you married? Have you had a significant relationship with a woman? Just wondering.

If a woman has a question concerning scripture which her husband can't answer, why shouldn't she be allowed to ask a member of the church? How is that dishonoring her husband?

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]In corinth women wore hats, a prostitute wanted to show she was a prostitute, so she wore no hat. Aften she also would shave her head so there was no boubt she is a protitute, and often these prostitutes would hang out by the temple, so if a woman who was not a prostitute would walk around without a hat she would seem to other men as if she were availible, thus dishonoring her husband.
Click to expand...

Did you read what I posted and look at the link? This goes WAY beyond whether prostitutes wore hats or not.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]There are calvarys all over the world... I do not know of any female Senior Pastors, but then again I only know 2 of them, look on the CalvaryChapel.com website and check every last location and see for youself I guess. I doubt there are any rules against it though.
Click to expand...

There are 894 pastors listed on the USA pastor page.

Not one of them is a woman. (I checked their website if their name was androgynous)
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Sep. 28 2004,5:44)]Wow.

I'm simply speechless.

You condone slavery?  AND admit God condones slavery?  How can God in his omnipotent benevolence condone slavery?  ANY kind of slavery?
Click to expand...
You didn't read my post. Nor have you read the bible. God condones slavery, but not the slavery you have in mind. God gave very specifics as to what slavery would be allowed and was utterly against all slavery that didn't meet his requirements. In the end, the slavery he condoned ensured the safety of the person in question, the respect for the slaves, freedom from oppression and an equality.

These are some of the concepts that do not exist in your traditional slavery of which you are accusing me of condoning. I am not condoning your version of slavery, even the town fool can see the difference.
 
Well slap a dunce cap on me and call me the town fool.

Would you mind pointing me towards the scriptures that contain the Godly version of slavery?

Thanks!
biggrin.gif


EDIT to add..

The reason I am confused is because of scriptures like Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he [the slave] continue [to live] a day or two, he [the slave owner] shall not be punished: for he [the slave] is his money [property]."

So God permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property.

How does this verse ensure the safety, respect and freedom from oppression and an equality for the slave?

And you did say, "I don't personally see anything wrong with having a slave (so to speak) so long as the master treats the slave as Jesus will treat the master."

So you do condone SOME forms of slavery.
 
Exodus 21:20-21 does not say that you are allowed to beat your slaves. You simply can not assume that because the Lord did not specify specific punishments that it was intended to be okay. Beating a person, slave or otherwise, goes against Leviticus 19:16b "Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor's life." It also goes against Leviticus 19:18b "Love your neighbor as yourself." (because Jesus very specifically said that his is one of the greatest commandments, we can look at it in isolation of the rest of the verse). When there is no specific consequence, the offender was brought before Moses and Aaron at that time and later before judges, to answer to the charges and face very real consequences for their actions. There are specific judgements for specific damages to a slave that is beaten, for example Exodus 21:26-27. These are damages that would see the slave freed immediatly as compensation. Other types of injuries would be compensated according to the injury.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]And you did say, "I don't personally see anything wrong with having a slave (so to speak) so long as the master treats the slave as Jesus will treat the master."

So you do condone SOME forms of slavery.
Click to expand...

Yes I do, but my wording never does justice to the meanings on my heart. God set up his rules regarding slavery for this people in such a way to remind them not to treat their slaves as they were treated in Egypt.

The terrible nature of the international slave trade involving blacks was such a monstrous evil, that I fully back the abolishment of slavery through out the world. Owning of slaves became a status symbol, it became ego inflating.

God knew that Isreal could not become a nation without encountering slavery. He knew that on the way to Canaan they would inevitably engage enemies, capture soldiers, and be forced to choose between killing them or mercifully making them slaves. Undoubtedly God also foresaw the voluntary surrender of non-Canaanite peoples who preferred slavery in Israel to military combat (Dt. 20:10-15).

Remember too, at that time no nation had the ability to deal with people who had gotten themselves hopelessly in debt. So they were allowed to sell themselves into slavery (often temporarily) in exchange for release from their financial obligations (Ex. 21:2-4; Lev. 25:39-43; Dt. 15:12).

Finally, we must interpret the permission of slave purchase as stated in Leviticus 25:44-46 in the light of the culture and accompanying revelation. The situation was such that the Israelites could not abolish the slave trade. Therefore, although God permitted them to buy slaves, He gave them a series of moral-spiritual reminders and a set of civil regulations that were designed to guarantee the humane treatment of all slaves, whether captured or purchased.
 
Noooooooooooooooooo

I disagree strongly with your reconciliation with slavery.

You are condoning slavery in the OT because of some cultural norm?  That is ludicrous.  This is God we're talking about here.  If God wanted to abolish slavery He could have.  If God wanted His people to be a beacon in a dark, cruel world, He would have set them apart and disallowed the owning of slaves, but He did not!  Lot lived in a culture where debauchery and misogony was the cultural norm.  Did he live that lifestyle because, hey, everyone else is doing it?  Of course not, that's silly, yet you condone the use of slavery.  I do not understand how a omni-benevolent God can condone slavery of ANY sort. You said, "God set up his rules regarding slavery for this people in such a way to remind them not to treat their slaves as they were treated in Egypt." Why didn't God just set up rules AGAINST slavery???

As far as beating of slaves go, you contest that just because there were rules governing the beating of slaves that it wasn't ok to beat slaves.  If beating slaves wasn't the norm, there would have been no need to create rules for their beating.  Why didn't God just say DO NOT BEAT YOUR SLAVES, THEY ARE MY CREATION TOO?

Your defense of Lev. 19:18 "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not hold water for one very important factor.  Neighbor in this verse is the Hebrew rea` which means friend, fellow citizen or companion.  That makes sense, love your friend as yourself.  Ex. 21:20 uses the word servant from the Hebrew `ebed which means slave or subjects.  The next verse explains that this servant is PROPERTY, he is not a friend of the master.  The servants referred to here, both male and female, are not hired hands, they are chattel, property, SLAVES.  

The undeniable truth is that there is no verse in the bible, in either the old or new testament that condemns slavery.  How is this in step with an omnibenevolent God?  There is absolutely no reason or evidence to show why God should lower Himself and His people to participate in cultural atrocities.
 
Well, we are once again way off topic.

Nonetheless, you seem to have real issues. Your problem lies not in the fact that the bible condones slavery, but that the bible condones a slavery other then the traditional slavery you have accepted as being the only possible slavery in existance. Which, is not true, not matter how hard you try and twist scripture to fit your believes.

---- Back to the womens topic ----

I asked a women to deal with it, one whom I trust to be "on the ball."

And the blunt reality of it is that you have done nothing more then attempting to undermine peoples believe by twisting scripture in a manner that scripture calls sowing confusion. And I don't need to tell all the Christians here, who the author of Confusion is.

Scripture does not demean women, as a matter of fact, if you actually took the time and did a character assessment, you will find that man and women balance each other perfectly and neither is given place over another when it comes to gender.

Scripture states that Jesus said that if you wish to become great in the kingdom, you must learn to be servant to all. No gender is attached to that statement.

It is satan who points the finger at women as being less, because "she" is the one who bore his arch-rival, the Son of God. He persecutes women relentlessly even to this day, through occults, the silencing of women, genital mutilation and more. By taking away their children if they do not give birth to a son in some countries or infecting them with HIV in other countries because it is believed sex with a virgin girl will cure them of AIDS. By having them think they are settling for less so they are out with their sleeves rolled up next to their supposed counterparts screaming equality and fighting for equal pay and or perception. It's all demonic. Satan doesn't like women because of what they represent - the one who gave birth to the one that brought his end crashing down all around him. It's like a permanent grudge he carries for all eternity and he is always getting idiots to believe the rhetoric that women are less than men. Gen 3:15

She has never bought into this gender role play because she see's herself as so much more then then her gender, or her reproductive organs. She sees herself as a traveler in a world on her way to the next and her body is but a mere container of what lives within. It doesn't matter to her what her gender is and what the perception of her worth may or may not be to someone grossly misperceiving the scriptures or twisting them.

Wou are put here to learn across the board as a whole, finding "wholeness" and "oneness" in Christ. It has never been about gender but rather conquering and overcoming adversity (whether women once weren't able to vote and can vote now, or men getting paternity benefits if they choose to stay at home to rear the children) etc. etc. When it comes down to it, does it really matter that much-? It's about humility before the Lord and doing what your asked no matter your gender, age, ethnicity, etc.
 
Slavery:  I equate slavery with what it is, slavery.  It's not indentured servitude or some form of a career.  Come on, there were rules governing the beating of slaves, if it wasn't the slavery that we commonly think of, what kind of slavery was it?  What is this other kind of slavery that you're talking about that you and God condone? What is this "good" slavery you're talking about?

Women:  Granted Christ sets things on an even keel, but what about the Old Testament?  Were women treated the same there as in the New?  If you believe women were the equal of men in the OT, by all means, show me the light.
 
I dont see them being treated as lesser, but different. WE are to protect them and they are to be protected and things like that. How is one greater then the other?
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Women: Granted Christ sets things on an even keel, but what about the Old Testament? Were women treated the same there as in the New? If you believe women were the equal of men in the OT, by all means, show me the light.
Click to expand...

Jesus changed NOTHING of Law. If things are on an even keel in the NT then they were on an even keel in the OT.

As for slavery, they are NOT RULES GOVERNING HOW TO BEAT A SLAVE like you have twisted them to be. They are consequence for if you did beat one. If you bet a slave to death, you were put to death as well. If you knocked out an eye, the slave was set free. It doesn't say, though shalt deal 12 lashes to your slave because you had a bad day today.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Sep. 29 2004,11:11)]Ah, but we should take yours?  
smile.gif
Click to expand...
haha, left foot to red circle.

Obviously, the context is that Mr. Bill is not an expert on the needs of all women in general. So, really, I don't take his word on whether or not women need protecting.
 
IF women were so war-like as men, and if they were so strong as men. Then why dont they go up in arms and take over? because they are not as war like as men and because they would have no chance. Not to mention most men would probobly say "aww look at the little lady with a gun" Not to say she is lesser then us, no no. But different.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Jesus changed NOTHING of Law. If things are on an even keel in the NT then they were on an even keel in the OT.
Click to expand...

So women have the same rights and were treated equal to men in the OT and the NT? Sorry, I see a disparity between the two.

[b said:
Quote[/b] ]As for slavery, they are NOT RULES GOVERNING HOW TO BEAT A SLAVE like you have twisted them to be. They are consequence for if you did beat one. If you bet a slave to death, you were put to death as well. If you knocked out an eye, the slave was set free. It doesn't say, though shalt deal 12 lashes to your slave because you had a bad day today
Click to expand...

Did I say they were rules on HOW to beat a slave? NO, I did not. As you said, they are the CONSEQUENCES of beating a slave. You said if you beat a slave to death, then the slave owner would be put to death. That is only partly true...if the slave died immediately, there was punishment. HOWEVER, if the slave languished on a few days then there would be NO punishement whatsoever. Look at the verse yourself, how am I twisting it?

Exodus 21:20-21 "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he [the slave] continue [to live] a day or two, he [the slave owner] shall not be punished: for he [the slave] is his money [property]."

So God permitted owners to beat their slaves severely enough to let them die a few days later and incur NO punishment. Why? Becuase the slaves were considered property.

Now please, enlighten me on the "good" form of slavery that I have so unintelligently misunderstood.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Gods_Peon @ Sep. 29 2004,11:30)]Obviously, the context is that Mr. Bill is not an expert on the needs of all women in general.  So, really, I don't take his word on whether or not women need protecting.
Click to expand...
Sheesh, what man is an expert on the needs of women?
smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top