God ordered woman to obey man. How can any self-respecting female be christian?
- Thread starter ndrs
- Start date
Ah...
I quote Genesis of American Standard version.
So they now choose to ignore what they like? Rewrite their main book, so it catches up with all technological/social advances?
http://www.ebible.org/bible/ASV/Genesis.htm
I quote Genesis of American Standard version.
So they now choose to ignore what they like? Rewrite their main book, so it catches up with all technological/social advances?
http://www.ebible.org/bible/ASV/Genesis.htm
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
how could any self respecting female be french!? that's an entire language which is sexist!
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
Originally posted by ndrs
For those who don't know French well (or at all, like me). Give us an example.
I would say France is the most non-sexist nation in the world and it always has been?
Started with Jean d'Arc..
I'm sure the French aren't sexist, actually i don't think sexism exists at all i think some people are just dickheads.
But the language is sexist, by which i mean they name objects according to sex. le is feminine and la is male. Or is it the other way around? my year 10 french is a bit rusty!
Joanie of the Arc, she is a nice story, that's all.
Nebuchadnezzaar
Registered Senior Member
Christianity is sexist, not now, but now it's a business like most relisions.
even though i dont often defend christianity i would like to say that Eve was created from Adam's rib meaning they would be side by side instead of Eve being created by Adam's foot were he could walk on her. You also have to rember in the time the bible was written woman toke care of the kids and the house literatly they had no jobs they did not make income they could not vote own property or anything and that made men at that time feel mighty special and those special guys our the ones who wrote the bible.
I can respect someone's beliefs if they say they believe the Bible is the Word of God, and they try and follow it, as hard as that may be, considering the inconsistancies and harshness of the OT god.
I can respect someone who sees the Bible as a guideline for morality in certain parts, and uses that as an example to develop their own personal moral code. Some of Jesus' teachings were the basic beginnings of humanism.
But I can't respect it when people pick and choose what they believe, depending on what helps their current argument at the time. That's simple hypocrasy.
How can one believe that the Bible is a Holy Book, and then discard parts that don't apply to them? I'm sure their God appreciates that.
In French "le" is masculine and "la" is feminine.
But other languages make these distinctions to, although not very obvious:
"the girl, SHE stands on the lawn" IMMEDIATELY gives away that the English language thinks of girls as being female.
But other languages make these distinctions to, although not very obvious:
"the girl, SHE stands on the lawn" IMMEDIATELY gives away that the English language thinks of girls as being female.
I agree, partially... however, Ms is proper regardless of martial status. I try to use this when the occasion arises. More ubiqiutous is the he/she his/hers bifurcation. In these cases I use they and theirs, which, while antiquated is actually still proper.
~Raithere
Christian aren't supposed to believe only parts of the Bible and ignore others. The various authors of the New testament only had the Jewish old Testament. The New Testament was written after Jesus, who came to fulfill what was written in the Law (OT), not to annull it. The laws of the OT regarding women were actually revolutionary at the time. Read up a little and you will see that women weren't much more than posessions and a sign of wealth. They had no rights.
Weedguy is right: God did not intend women to be trampled on. His laws were there to keep the peace and ensure prosperity. The law was there to teach God's authority, not to give men licence for dominion. Why do you think adultery is forbidden? Not to protect the man! Taking care of widows was also a command.
Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
1 Cor.7:4___The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Prov.5___
15___Drink water from your own cistern
__________And fresh water from your own well.
16___Should your springs be dispersed abroad,
__________Streams of water in the streets?
17___Let them be yours alone
__________And not for strangers with you.
18___Let your fountain be blessed,
__________And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
They OT is to be taken seriously. We were only freed from those laws so that we could uphold the reason for which they were made: love for God and for each other. We do not stone adulterers anymore, because Jesus has shown each of us to be adulterers, and forgiven us.
As for being servants and slaves:
The ten commandments start with the sentence:
"I am the Lord your God, who delivered you out of slavery..." We were bought by Him as slaves...
John 15:15
No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our [Eph 4:22; Col 3:9] old self was [Gal 2:20; 5:24; 6:14] crucified with Him, in order that our [Rom 7:24] body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Romans 6:16
Do you not [Rom 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24] know that when you present yourselves to someone as [John 8:34; 2 Pet 2:19] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of [Rom 6:21, 23] sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Romans 6:17
But [Rom 1:8; 2 Cor 2:14] thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that [2 Tim 1:13] form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been [John 8:32; Rom 6:22; 8:2] freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
Weedguy is right: God did not intend women to be trampled on. His laws were there to keep the peace and ensure prosperity. The law was there to teach God's authority, not to give men licence for dominion. Why do you think adultery is forbidden? Not to protect the man! Taking care of widows was also a command.
Deuteronomy 24:5
When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out with the army nor be charged with any duty; he shall be free at home one year and shall give happiness to his wife whom he has taken.
1 Cor.7:4___The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Prov.5___
15___Drink water from your own cistern
__________And fresh water from your own well.
16___Should your springs be dispersed abroad,
__________Streams of water in the streets?
17___Let them be yours alone
__________And not for strangers with you.
18___Let your fountain be blessed,
__________And rejoice in the wife of your youth.
They OT is to be taken seriously. We were only freed from those laws so that we could uphold the reason for which they were made: love for God and for each other. We do not stone adulterers anymore, because Jesus has shown each of us to be adulterers, and forgiven us.
As for being servants and slaves:
The ten commandments start with the sentence:
"I am the Lord your God, who delivered you out of slavery..." We were bought by Him as slaves...
John 15:15
No longer do I call you slaves, for the slave does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I have heard from My Father I have made known to you.
Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our [Eph 4:22; Col 3:9] old self was [Gal 2:20; 5:24; 6:14] crucified with Him, in order that our [Rom 7:24] body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
Romans 6:16
Do you not [Rom 11:2; 1 Cor 3:16; 5:6; 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24] know that when you present yourselves to someone as [John 8:34; 2 Pet 2:19] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of [Rom 6:21, 23] sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
Romans 6:17
But [Rom 1:8; 2 Cor 2:14] thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that [2 Tim 1:13] form of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and having been [John 8:32; Rom 6:22; 8:2] freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.
A digression into proper grammer
Language changes, that’s its nature. Those who insist that it remain constant are simply being foolish and ignoring linguistic history.
~Raithere
Sorry mate, but it’s quite proper over here. We got rid of the King long ago.
Language changes, that’s its nature. Those who insist that it remain constant are simply being foolish and ignoring linguistic history.
and
~Raithere