Religion and women.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Jan 12, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    If you are referring to these passages. That is not rape. A man can hold a woman without raping her. If you have a father, husband, boyfriend, or close male friend, are you going to accuse them of rape if they hold you.
    These folks try and distort these passages by replacing the phrase “lay hold on her” with ‘seize’ or ‘rape’ to give the impression that the Bible condones rape.

    The phrase “lay hold on” is transliterated from the Hebrew word taphas which basically means to hold. That is the primary meaning There are four different words for the word “seize “ in Hebrew...

    Yarash- to seize, dispossess, take possession off, inherit, disinherit, occupy, impoverish, be an heir

    Laqach - to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize, receive, acquire, buy, bring, marry, take a wife, snatch, take away

    nasha- to beguile, deceive

    Katecho - to hold back, detain, retain

    You do the math.
    If you’re going to have sex with a man, the chances are he’s going to hold you. Am I right?
    Does that mean you’ve been raped? Of course not.

    In a couple of different bibles they go even further than using the wrong word “seize”. They just come straight out with “rape”. That’s nasty.

    Be aware. Do your own research, use your own world experience. and above all, use common sense (before they try to ban it)

    This is the logic, the
    Bible is the word of God
    The Bible condones rape
    God condones rape
    Therefore theists condone rape

    Don’t fall for it, even if you keep it to yourself. They are atheist anti-theists, who are desperate to kill any notion of God.

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekelsof silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    If you’re not a follower of Jesus, you are not a Christian in the true sense.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    Agreed. It seems like a moot point, considering that the passage we are discussing comes from the OT, and the men in question were rapists.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    Jan - the passage states ''violated,'' and you'd be hard pressed to find Biblical scholars who are in agreement with you, that the 'damsel' in question was giving consent. I'm not falling for anything - what some of the members here are getting at isn't that all theists condone rape...they're pointing out that the passage you're arguing over isn't about consensual sex. It's about a woman who is being raped, and the consequence that follows it.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,882
    Here's the NIV translation of that section:

    "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

    Eager to see how you define "rape" as "not rape."
     
  9. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    That is a interpretation, and is not found in that verse.
    “Rape as we understand it, is spoken of in this verse, where the rapist gets punished. The assumption is that the female is presumed innocent by default.

    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:

    It is as plain as the nose on your face.
     
  10. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    Wow ^^
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,882
    It's actually found in the verse. See above.

    This is why you get all twisted around the axle all the time. You are so invested in trying to prove that the Bible is inerrant that you end defending rape and/or claiming that rape isn't rape. Wouldn't it be easier to admit that the Bible has advocated for some pretty horrendous things, but we don't heed those recommendations any more? More intellectually honest at least.
     
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    This is the KJV...

    Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekelsof silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    anah - because he had humbled her

    1. to be put down, become low

    2. to be depressed, be downcast

    3. to be afflicted

    4. to stoop

      It wasn’t so long ago that a woman was looked down upon for having sex outside of wedlock. The decent thing to do, that was expected of the man, was to marry her (especially if she became pregnant).





     
  13. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I’ve just proven to you what is meant on the Bible, by showing the actual words that are to be used so that it makes sense to anyone reading it.
    The words atheists use is simply a ploy to undermine God, the Bible, Christians, and theists. Nothing more
     
  14. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502



    I think the discussion re rape has taken the opportunity for discussion well away from what the thread is about by indulging in arguement as to what this or that means...for folk who become focused on the words of a biblical passage perhaps should remember that these words come from another language translated from another language and have experienced many edits and even looking at the Hewbrew text meaning is often difficult to nail down.

    Jan has at least attempted to interpret the original Hebrew and in doing so shows us the difficulty just in that area so if we add onto that difficulty the additional opportunity of misinterpretation during the various translations and edits perhaps one need to realise that when quoting your bible you may be very far away from the original story.

    And when it comes to quoting the words of Jesus one must remember that if he said anything that his words were passed on by word of mouth for it seems at least two generations and probably even longer before they were written down.

    Now just think of just how much text we must believe was not corrupted by being passed along by word of mouth...heck if you limited the problem to just say the sermon on the mount what do you think would be the chances of us reading today that text and it being the same as what Jesus delivered.

    Do folk ever stop to think about that?
    Do folk ever stop to think about the plot of the god story? It is rather odd..and certainly a long way from Devine...

    ...the point is here that the reliability of recording his exact words or deeds leave much room for error in the correct reporting


    ...his words and deeds were not recorded at the moment of him saying the words or acting out the deeds..they were not recorded in his lifetime, they were not recorded in the lifetime of the following generation or the generation after that from what we can tell.

    For all we know a powerful Roman family could have commissioned a jewish scolar to write the gospels to suit the families purposes and made three of their family members the first saints and set up the Christian church in Rome and embarked on a campaigne to outlaw all other competing cults based on astrology...anything is possible.

    ..so just think of the volumes of text in the newtestament that claim to be the words of Jesus...

    does anyone seriously believe that so much endured unaltered for two generations...now folk can argue about how that is not a problem but really it is a big problem

    ...add to that the difficulty of establishing the authors of the gospels one can only wonder what words and deeds of Jesus made it to the new testament that are the truth....

    But what we do have is certain passages in the bible that are very negative to women and whether they have made it there uncorupted by translation or various edits or misinterpretation they today appear as they do...these passages I maintain should be removed...take out anything that is not showing respect for the ladies.

    Now the following is just the start of the article from the first material I posted a link for, in the hope that it would receive comment and discussion could evolve...

    I wonder who read it...so I have copied part of it so that folk like Jan and Weggs can read it and perhaps make a specific comment

    ...I would encourage them to read all the article which means following the link ( which appears again below) but what is here I hope will bring discussion upon the issues therein.


    ...This is the second instalment of an ABC News and 7.30 investigation into domestic violence and religion. You can read part one in the series — on domestic violence and Islamhere.

    The culprits were obvious: it was the menopause or the devil.

    Who else could be blamed, Peter screamed at his wife in nightly tirades, for her alleged insubordination, for her stupidity, her lack of sexual pliability, her refusal to join him on the 'Tornado' ride at a Queensland waterpark, her annoying friendship with a woman he called "Ratface"? For her sheer, complete failure as a woman?

    The abuse went on, day and night, as Sally bore a child, worked morning shifts at the local hospital and stayed up late pumping breast milk for her baby.

    She was deeply exhausted, depleted and worn.

    The night before Sally finally left her husband and the townhouse they lived in on Sydney's northern beaches he told her she was also failing her spiritual duties.

    "Your problem is you won't obey me. The Bible says you must obey me and you refuse," he yelled. "You are a failure as a wife, as a Christian, as a mother. You are an insubordinate piece of s**t."

    Sally, an executive assistant who had just turned 44, stared at him, worrying about whether her neighbours — or her sleeping daughter — could hear his roars through the thin walls.

    She knew what had "flicked his switch": the simple act of coming down to say goodnight, which he interpreted as a lack of willingness to have sex.

    Peter then opened his Bible and read out some verses:

    "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Saviour."
    Ephesians 5: 22-23

    Next was:

    "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man; rather, she is to remain silent."
    1 Timothy 2: 11-12

    For years, Sally had believed that God wanted her to submit to her husband, and she did her best, bending to his will and working to pay the bills, despite the pain she was in.

    But on this night, she was done. The next morning, she packed up her bags, grabbed some clothes for her daughter and left, taking the little girl with her.

    She left everything else behind.

    Religion and domestic violence: the missing link
    When we speak of domestic violence, and the cultural factors that foment it, one crucial element missing from the discussion has been religion.

    While it is generally agreed that inequality between the sexes can foster and cultivate environments where men seek to control or abuse women, in Australia there has been very little public debate about how this might impact people in male-led congregations and religious communities, especially those where women are told to be silent and submit to male authority.


    The full article is here

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/domestic-violence-church-submit-to-husbands/8652028

    Now I have read many affidavits setting out similar so I am rather convinced there is a problem as we see above...So to Weggs and Jan I ask could we have discussion on this article please.
    Alex​
     
  15. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    I don’t believe Jesus was suggesting for wives to submit to abusive husbands. That passage also instructs husbands to love their wives the way Christ loved the Church. Men (who claim to be Christian) who abuse their wives Alex, aren’t following Jesus, if they assume that passage to be a license to mistreat their wives. People break the law all the time, theists and atheists alike. Separation of church and state is a good rule because you never know, there would be “Christian” men misinterpreting that passage and governing by their false assumptions.
     
  16. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    My hope is that the bible could be edited to remove the mistakes and terrible morality and bring it up-to-date such that it is not so glaringly stupid and just plain wrong and having nice ordinary folk say stupid things while trying to defend the indefensible...just look how you carry on...it is embarrassing to witness..a human who seems clever and decent reduced to sheer stupid utterances defending stuff that everyone, including him, can see is wrong...how can religion be seen as a positive force when it causes such stupidity? Get it in line with science so folk realise evolution is a fact and that whales evolved from small mamals just as the mountains of fossil records prove...get the bible right and have folk be rational I say instead of grasping ancient superstition discredited over and over. Believe in a god if you wish but don't pretend you know what his purpose is or that you know what morality he wants..you don't know anything about any god so stop making up stuff to suit your wishful thinking.



    Alex
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,570
    Wegs, these quotations are from the epistles of St Paul, not from Jesus at all.

    With St Paul, I always find one needs to aim off a bit.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,882
    And as such was translated in 1611, using a limited set of source documents, and translating the source documents into the English of the time, a 1611 version of archaic English that people (like you) have a lot of trouble understanding - as you have demonstrated above.

    In 1978 a new translation was published - the New International Version. It was created by a team of 15 scholars using much earlier versions of the original source materials (written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) than were available to the King James version authors. It was translated into modern English for better comprehension by modern English readers.

    And here's that translation: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

    That's not my interpretation of the Bible. That is the exact wording of one of the better translation of the Bible we have.
    So on the one hand we have a guy on the Internet claiming that the Bible says what he wants it to say, which he "proves" by using a 400 year old version translation that he intentionally misunderstands.

    On the other hand we have the Bible itself which states that "if a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

    Not too hard to decide which is more accurate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2021
    James R likes this.
  19. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,804
    Lol But, “divinely inspired.”
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Mmm so my posts are entirely ignored, and theists have totally derailed the tread... having come armed with the truth it seems I am unwelcome...I get it now...it never was about truth it is about protecting the cult...

    Other atheists have given up in this forum having realised the facts as I now see them...what science site let's an IDer run riot in the s hence section?

    Going in soon, later today, but will try and look in to see just how unwelcome this thread is to the theists intent on its derailment, but I think they will take my phone...thank god they all say...we dont need the truth they will say...anything to keep the status quo...all will rattle on about sexism but really the way it is is the way everyone wants it...but let us talk and talk and sound rightious...that way those against must join because we are not really evil are we...let's us just not fix a thing.

    And if I get out it probably won't be back to where I want to be and having spent all my spare cash the future looks grim...but I go knowing all my efforts to improve the world were just a waste of time...

    Alex
     
  21. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Why blame religion?
    Peter sounds like he has mental issues, and the drinking ramps it up.

    It seems he is addicted to sex, and will use any way he can to get it.
    If he was truly a follower of Christ he wouldn’t act like that. Jesus never acted like this that, and he didn’t encourage anyone to act like that.

    It sounds to me as if a case is being mounted to outlaw or control religion.
    Does China have a hold on Australia?
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,166
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,502
    Well let us not blame it but recognise how it fits and provides good reason why the bad passages should not be in the bible.

    Many Christians have mental issues...mmm must see how they compare to the rest of the population, although I recall they have less mental issues...many have drinking problems however the issue is the offending passages in the bible...that is what we need to address.

    Again lots of christians have such a problem including unfortunate priests who must go against all they believe in to satisfy their sexual desire..it is a natural and powerful force ..but again the issue is the offending passages they just must be removed.

    Well you are right but the facts suggest that the offending passages if not there could not be used...I see no decent reason to insist that they remain and arguing against their removal is to argue for the retention of something that is wrong.

    Well then I can't imagine that removal of the offending passages would go against the teachings of Jesus in fact I bet if one could get his opinion he would agree with me...I can not imagine Jesus wanting such passages retained when they are the complete opposite to his teachings.

    It seems that you are opposing what Jesus would want and standing up for the opposite to his teachings.

    Who's side are you on..are you here with Jesus and me or do you insist on keeping the offending passages.

    No but that is a great idea..just remove it for say 300 years and see how things go ..or maybe let it go for 2000 years and compare the death tolls...see if no religion sees less deaths, see if society improves or not...Christianity has had 2000 year run it's only fair that atheism gets equal time...with the money that goes to churches we could fund fantastic health care for everyone and build houses for the poor....oh I forgot we dont want health care for everybody and if you are poor sucko you deserve it...I wonder what Jesus would say about health care for all...I wonder if he would be happy to see so much money spent on buildings he does not live it...what would he think of the private jets for pastors.

    Why would you say that?...let me answer..I suspect that I am making too much sense and you say that simply to divert focus from the reasonable proposition that the offending passages should be removed...Why don't you want them removed? Why do you want anything that is negative to woman in place?

    Why when it goes against the teachings of Jesus? Why?

    Imagine if only good things appeared in the bible...at the moment you could say to someone ..you can't treat your wife bad and he can say yes I can the bible says I can and then provide his written authority....look I am not a believer if you did not know and I can see to leave these passages in place is going against Jesus...why can't you or anyone here see that...heck if you had a math book and it said 2+2=5 Would you not feel driven to correct it..you have your holy book, inspired by God and written by men you find mistakes that are the opposite of gods teachings, Jesus, who is god right...why fight against it...why does it seem god is talking to me and not you..why do you oppose what is right according to god.

    As to China..those poor people have experienced terrible flooding loss of life and property and I have not noticed any Christian country feel sorry for them..the news is hard to find
    ....they give us most of the things we need and use and they are treated with such distain I think it is entirely un Christian

    ... I have met many Chinese and found them to be lovely folk...I was struggling with a large package in a certain center where there are only Chinese, I was always the only white Australian...mmm maybe two or three more but you get the picture...I had to walk from the chemist to my car a half a block away..every five or six steps someone would offer to carry my load..that never happens at other shopping centers where there are mainly standard Australians...they respect old folk and being old I find that very nice...

    There is much negative propaganda being generated because China is building a blue water navy to protect its shipping and USA sees that as a threat and I suspect don't like it in the least....China is not an aggressor that much is clear...

    Thank you Jan for your input.


    Alex
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page